In the latter half of 2018, one of the most important environmental law cases to reach the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in over a decade overcame another major hurdle thrown against it by the United States government. Amid nationwide rallies in support of #youthvgov, the SCOTUS partially dismissed yet another request by the Trump administration to halt the case’s advancement to trial. The case, Juliana et al. v. United States et al., has the potential to broadly shape U.S. climate policy for the 21stcentury by turning climate change into a matter of civil rights.
The plaintiffs in this case are a coalition of 21 young Americans as well as renowned climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University’s Earth Institute representing “future generations” that will suffer due to climate change caused by the defendants, the United States government. Included in this group of youth plaintiffs are Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, an eighteen-year-old hip-hop artist and environmental activist, Alex Loznak, a senior at Columbia studying Sustainable Development, and the titular Kelsey Juliana, an undergraduate at the University of Oregon and fellow environmental activist. Together, they have argued that the government has “infringed on the youth’s fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property” through promoting policies that contribute to CO2 emissions and acting indifferently to climate change warnings.
One of the backbones of their legal argument comes from the concept of public trust, where certain natural resources—such as navigable waterways—are considered of vital importance to the public and therefore protected by the government. The plaintiffs are arguing that a stable climate and atmosphere should be included under this definition of public trust. Another unique aspect of the plaintiff’s arguments is that they are framing the case around civil rights. The historic legal precedents set by cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodgeshave shown that the courts have a duty to protect the civil rights of U.S. citizens, and the plaintiffs believe that this also applies to the right to a stable climate.
Using the public trust doctrine in this manner is a novel legal strategy, and one that has its supporters and detractors. Previously the public trust doctrine was used to protect specific areas such as coastlines, so if the plaintiffs’ case succeeded then it would broaden the scope of the law massively. Whether such a precedent would or should be set by the SCOTUS is contested among some legal scholars, particularly those that follow originalist arguments. Environmental considerations are not explicitly included in the Constitution after all.
In their defense, the United States government has argued that the plaintiffs do not have proper standing—the ability to claim some form of harm—to sue. Since the effects of climate change are widespread, they argue, it is wrong to assign legal culpability to any specific party in the way the plaintiffs have suggested, and if they can’t establish proper attribution then they don’t have standing. They have also argued that climate policies are a legislative issue, and that it would be improper of the court system to effectively order the government to change its climate policies, citing separation of powers. However, despite these arguments by the defendants the case has been steadily moving its way up the federal court system and is currently awaiting trial.
The battleground for the Juliana v. U.S. case over the past three years has been the 9thDistrict Court of Appeals in Oregon. The Trump Administration has continuously sought to stay the proceedings of the case, filing request after request of increasingly grasping arguments in order to convince the Supreme Court to quash or dismiss the lower court’s ruling. In its most recent filing, the Trump Administration has argued that because they presumptuously believe the case would be dismissed by the Supreme Court, it would be a waste of money to continue with the proceedings. Suffice to say, the courts weren’t buying that argument, but they did eventually end up issuing a partial stay on the trialto give the plaintiffs time to properly respond. This constant kicking of the can has resulted in some positives however. The defendants have acknowledge the reality and threat of climate change in their court filings.
So where does this leave the Juliana case? At the moment it is unclear. No group has ever lost the right to a trial with the SCOTUS after it has been granted, but repeated attempted writs of mandamus by the U.S. government have pushed back the trial date by over two years at this point. If this continues it is possible that irreparable damage could have been done on the climate system by the time the case reaches court. It is also uncertain of what the SCOTUS’s opinion would be. Siding with the defendants would deal a major blow to any climate lawsuits in the U.S., while siding with the plaintiffs would fundamentally alter the U.S. energy economy and expand the ability of the courts to dictate national policy. One thing is clear however: the longer that this case gets dragged out and the U.S. continues to neglect its climate policies, the effects of climate change will become more and more irreversible for the plaintiffs, making the argument shift in greater favor to the youth. And even if the case fails, the movement of young people fighting for climate justice will continue to grow.