Juliana v United States: A Shift in Environmental Discourse
Originally Published by the George Washington University Justice Journal, available here
In 2015, twenty-one adolescents, ranging from ages twelve to twenty-one, filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government for its inaction in addressing the adverse effects of climate change. In this case, Juliana v. United States, Plaintiffs claim that the United States government “has known for more than fifty years” that significant carbon dioxide release is exacerbating destructive changes to the climate system and that instead of rationally acting on this understanding by implementing measures to reduce carbon pollution, the defendants have purposely caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to hit catastrophically unprecedented levels by encouraging, legalizing, and subsidizing fossil fuels.
The Plaintiffs attest that the federal government, through their inaction in addressing these adverse effects, violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment as well as failed to fulfill its obligations to hold in trust public resources under the public trust doctrine. This principle is derived from Martin v. Waddell and asserts that “certain natural and cultural resources are preserved for public use, and that the government owns and must protect and maintain these resources for the public’s use.” In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs are demanding a remedial action plan that would regulate federal policy decisions related to energy and fossil fuel production, air quality, and public lands.
Most recently, the Plaintiffs of Juliana requested a preliminary injunction with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to prohibit the federal government from providing service contracts and drilling licenses for coal mining on federal or state land, contracts for offshore oil and natural gas exploration, and licenses for extraction while the case is pending.
The Trump administration along with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and the American Petroleum Institute (API) have filed several motions to have the case dismissed. The Defendants attest that the Plaintiffs’ action is misguided and should not be heard pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Furthermore, they argue that the federal court does not have authority over the claims of the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs lack standing and their action is not a case or dispute that can be recognized under Article III. Concerning the APA, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements necessary “in order to challenge federal agency action or inaction,” as established in Western Radio Services Co. v. U.S. Forest Service. They further suggest that even if the lawsuit were to fall in the federal court’s jurisdiction and meet the requirements of the APA, the Plaintiffs’ argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to a stable climate system, has no basis in law. As such, Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal, a request that the appellate court reviews a certain aspect of the case before the trial’s conclusion. This appeal would dismiss the Plaintiffs’ motions to prohibit the federal government from providing service contracts and drilling licenses for coal mining on federal or state land, contracts for offshore oil and natural gas exploration, and licenses for extraction while the case is pending.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on June 4, 2019, for the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunctions and the Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. Mary Murguia and Andrew Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Josephine Staton of the District Court of the Central District of California presided on the panel held in Portland, Oregon.
For both sides, the judges challenged the attorneys’ arguments, alluding to the fact that the claims of the government were too narrow while also indicating that the legal theories of the plaintiffs were too broad. Judge Hurwitz criticized the government’s assertion that even if the executive branch causes harm through climate change negligence the problem could not be corrected by a lawsuit. Julia Olson argued that the concept of the state being responsible for monitoring our climate system is not a new one — this distinction is vital. She further argued that it is not difficult to find in the Constitution the rights she wanted the courts to recognize and concluded that since this is a pre-existing responsibility of the state, the correct course of action would be for the judiciary to compel the state to fulfill this responsibility.
There is currently no date set on when the judges are to deliver opinions regarding the oral arguments. However, the court’s decision will determine whether the Plaintiffs in Juliana will proceed to go to trial and whether the federal government has to halt its engagement with the production of fossil fuels pending the trial.
If the case goes to trial, the outcome could potentially be revolutionary — clarifying what responsibility the federal government has to mitigate the negative consequences of human activity on the environment. Specifically, these implications would include: 1) state responsibility to ensure a stable climate system, 2) acknowledgment that the federal government failed to fulfill that responsibility, and 3) establishing the court’s duty to compel the other branches to fulfill that responsibility. The court’s decision regarding these implications have the potential to transform the understanding of the government’s role in the context of the new climate change era.
Regardless of the decision, however, the case represents an important and much-needed shift in contemporary environmental discourse– a shift from individual behaviors to structural reformation. The plaintiffs in Juliana successfully understood what many fail to grasp about the climate change issue: its gravity and the social and economic structures responsible for it– things that can only be productively dealt with at a macro-level.
With scientists reporting that 2030 is the world’s deadline for significantly reducing carbon output before irreversible damage from climate change and data suggesting that since 1900 global emissions of CO₂ have increased 1700%, it becomes apparent that our current living scheme, characterized by gross commodity overproduction and exploitation of natural resources, is inherently unsustainable.
This message is largely missed by certain environmentalists, who mistakenly advocate for changes in consumer behavior as a productive means to environmental protection. This comes at an expense to the quality of the environmental movement. To illustrate, long has recycling been hailed as a ‘zero-waste’ solution to garbage overproduction– an idea that was interestingly first perpetuated by the plastics industry in the early 60s in an effort to maintain production rates and profit margins. However, this focus on individual behavior change fails to address several components that prove industrial recycling to be pollutive and wasteful as well as fail to address the root of the issue, unsustainable practices that are a direct product of our economic design.
Though the courts have yet to render a decision regarding what the government’s responsibility is to mitigate climate change, the Juliana plaintiffs have already achieved a victory for the environmental movement and placed the spotlight of necessary change on structures upheld and enforced by the government.
