The trial had been delayed while the Trump administration tried to get the case thrown out. This latest order doesn’t ensure a clear road ahead, though.
The young plaintiffs in the children’s climate lawsuit sued the federal government, saying its actions had contributed to climate change, and that that violated the children’s constitutional rights. Credit: Robin Loznak
Two weeks after it put the case on hold, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday allowed a lawsuit brought by 21 children and young adults against the federal government over climate change to proceed. But the Trump administration’s attempts to derail the case likely aren’t over.
In an order issued late Friday, the justices suggested that the government’s arguments ought to be considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The children’s attorneys said they were moving forward and hoped the trial, which had been scheduled to start on Oct. 29, could begin in district court in Oregon within days.
“The youth of our nation won an important decision today from the Supreme Court that shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy,” said co-counsel Julia Olson, executive director of the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust. “We have asked the District Court for an immediate status conference to get Juliana v. U.S. back on track for trial in the next week.”
The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015, accusing the government of violating the young plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by failing to address climate change and continuing to subsidize fossil fuels.
If the youth succeed at trial, the case could result in a court order requiring the federal government to develop and implement a plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Even if they don’t win, they would have brought the evidence of climate change and its risks to a public forum. Several high-profile climate scientists and a Nobel laureate economist plan to testify on the children’s behalf.
The government’s lawyers haven’t contested the children’s central claims—that climate change is real and is causing them harm. Instead, the lawyers have argued that the federal government is not responsible and that the court has no place ordering political branches—the Congress and the executive branch, including environmental agencies—what to do. The Justice Department also argued that a long trial would cause the government “irreparable harm.”
The federal government has made several attempts to have the case thrown out, seeking an extraordinary, preemptive “writ of mandamus” from the appeals court that would have prevented a trial. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected it twice. But as the Supreme Court noted in the order Friday, the appeals court denied the earlier requests largely because they came so early in the case. That’s no longer pertinent, the justices wrote.
The justices also left open the possibility that the government could appeal to the high court again if doesn’t get what it wants from the court of appeals. Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed last year by President Donald Trump, would have granted the government’s request, the order stated.
“These defendants are treating this case, our democracy, and the security of mine and future generations like it’s a game,” Kelsey Juliana, a 22-year-old plaintiff in the case, said Friday after the Supreme Court lifted its stay. “I’m tired of playing this game. These petitions for stay and dismissal are exhausting. To everyone who has invested in this case, to those who’ve followed along our journey for the past three years and counting: stay with us, in hope and in the pursuit of justice.”
In addition to the federal lawsuit, Our Children’s Trust has been supporting similar lawsuits in nine states. On Oct. 30, a Superior Court judge in Alaska granted that state’s motion to dismiss the children’s case against it, saying the youth had not identified specific state policies that directly contributed to climate change. “A court order granting Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims would in essence create a policy where none now exists,” Judge Gregory Miller wrote. In a press release, Our Children’s Trust suggested it would appeal. A similar case in Washington state was dismissed in August.
Leave A Comment