juliana v. united states

21 American youth filed a constitutional climate lawsuit, called Juliana v. United States, against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. 

The youth plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.

CURRENT STATUS: The Juliana v. United States youth plaintiffs are currently awaiting a ruling from U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken on a motion to amend their case, a decision which could set them back on the path to trial. 

A History of The case

The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed. In April 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended denial of both of motions to dismiss. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin's recommendation, with the issuance of an historic November 10, 2016 opinion and order denying the motions. When the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal of that order, Judge  Aiken denied their motions in June 2017.

In June 2017, Judge Coffin issued an order releasing the fossil fuel industry defendants from the case, and setting a trial date for February 5, 2018 before Judge Aiken at the U.S. District Court of Oregon in Eugene. 

In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requested that attorneys for the youth plaintiffs submit a response to the government's petition for "writ of mandamus" and invited the District Court to respond as well. The District Court responded via letter and the youth filed their answer. Further, eight amicus briefs were filed with the Ninth Circuit in support of the case. 

Pursuant to its order, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, made up of Chief Justice Sidney Thomas, and Circuit Justices Alex Kozinski and Marsha Barzon heard oral arguments on December 11, 2017. Eric Grant, representing the Trump administration and the U.S. government, argued that the case be dismissed. Justice Kozinski subsequently resigned and was replaced on the panel by Circuit Justice Michelle Friedland.

Due to the Trump administration’s drastic tactics before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to silence the voices of youth and keep science out of the courtroom, the trial did not begin on February 5th, as originally scheduled. 

On March 7, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s “drastic and extraordinary” petition for writ of mandamus. During a public case management conference on April 12, 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin set October 29, 2018 as the start date for the trial!

On May 25, 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order denying the Trump Administration’s motion for protective order and a stay of all discovery. 

On July 18, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken heard the oral argument in the case. Judge Aiken considered the Trump administration’s latest procedural tactics to avoid trial: a motion for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”). Supporters of the youth plaintiffs packed the Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse in Eugene and three overflow rooms!

On July 20, 2018, in a per curiam opinion, Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, and Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s second petition for writ of mandamus

On July 30, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs! The Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay, preserving the U.S. District Court’s trial start date of October 29, 2018.  The Court also denied the government’s “premature” request to review the case before the district court hears all of the facts that support the youths’ claims at trial.

In October, 2018, the Trump administration filed another motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to stay discovery and a third writ of mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled on the Trump administration’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”), which were filed earlier this year. Judge Aiken denied the motions brought by the Trump administration, but granted the motions in part by limiting the scope of the youths’ claims and dismissing the President from the case.

On October 18, 2018, the Trump administration filed a second writ of mandamus petition and application for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to circumvent the ordinary procedures of federal litigation and stop the case. On October 19, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a temporary, administrative stay while it considers the federal government’s petition and asked the youth plaintiffs’ attorneys to respond to it. On October 22, 2018, attorneys for the youth filed their response, requesting that the Court allow their trial to proceed on October 29 and pointing to numerous mischaracterizations of the lawsuit by the Trump administration in its recent filing with the Court.

On October 29, thousands rallied at courthouses around the country to support the Juliana youths’ right to be heard at trial!

On November 2, 2018 the United States Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay.

On November 5, the Department of Justice filed a motion for stay with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and, hours later, filed an application for stay and another petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 8, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted, in part, the Trump administration’s motion for a temporary stay of District Court proceedings. The Court only placed a stay on trial, so trial preparations continued.

On November 21, 2018 U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken issued an order certifying the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 5, 2018, attorneys for the youth filed a motion for reconsideration with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The motion asked Judge Aiken to reconsider her November 21 decision to place a stay on pretrial proceedings. On December 10, the youths’ attorneys filed their answer in opposition to the fifth petition of the Trump administration to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and on December 20 filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court asking it to lift the stay imposed by its order of November 8, 2018 and allow the case to proceed to trial. On December 26, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted defendants’ petition for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal. On January 7, 2019 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the youths’ request to expedite the briefing schedule, agreeing to fast-track the appeal.

On February 8, 2019, the youth plaintiffs sought a court order preventing the federal government from issuing leases and mining permits for extracting coal on federal public lands, leases for offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction activities, and federal approvals for new fossil fuel infrastructure. To obtain the order, attorneys for the young plaintiffs filed what’s called a motion for a preliminary injunction with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals while the government’s early appeal of the case is being heard.

On February 19, 2019 Zero Hour, a youth-led climate group, launched the website www.joinjuliana.org and announced its nationwide campaign to help thousands of young people add their names to the Young People’s amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the youth and their case.

On March 1, 2019 powerful voices of support for the youths’ case filed amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In all, 15 amicus briefs, filed on behalf of a diverse set of supportive communities, including members of U.S. Congress, legal scholars, religious and women’s groups, businesses, historians, medical doctors, international lawyers, environmentalists, and more than 32,000 youth under the age of 25, displayed legal support for the case to proceed to trial. On March 24, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set a hearing date for June 4, 2019 to hear oral arguments in Portland, Oregon, on the interlocutory appeal and the preliminary injunction.

At the hearing on June 4, 2019, Julia Olson argued on the youth plaintiffs’ behalf and Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark argued on behalf of the federal government before Judges Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Josephine L. Staton of District Court for the Central District of California.

On January 17, 2020, a divided Ninth Circuit Court issued an order on the interlocutory appeal. In their ruling, the Court recognized the gravity of the evidence on the youths’ injuries from climate change and the government’s role in causing them. Yet, while it found the government is violating our constitutional rights, two of the three judges said that addressing our requested remedies should be addressed by the executive and legislative branches. The third judge affirmed our constitutional climate rights, writing "our nation is crumbling - at our governments' own hand - into a wasteland."

On March 2, 2020, attorneys for the youth filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This petition asks the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to convene a new panel of 11 circuit court judges to review January's sharply divided opinion.

On March 12, 2020, 24 members of the United States Congress, prominent experts in the fields of constitutional law, climate change, and public health, and several leading women’s, children’s, environmental, and human rights organizations filed 10 amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the youths’ case. The briefs urge the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant the plaintiffs’ en banc petition and convene a new panel of 11 circuit court judges to review January’s ruling.

On February 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit failed to correct the legal errors in March 2020’s panel decision and upheld the panel’s ruling. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the case, but a majority of judges declined to do so. Attorneys and the youth plaintiffs are planning to take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have also asked the Biden-Harris DOJ to meet to discuss settlement options to protect the youths’ fundamental rights.

On March 9, 2021, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint against the federal government and adjust the remedy sought in their case in response to the February 2021 and January 2020 Ninth Circuit rulings. 

On May 13, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ordered attorneys for the youth plaintiffs and attorneys with the Department of Justice to convene for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court also scheduled oral argument on the youth plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The hearing on that motion will be held telephonically on Friday, June 25, 2021 at 10 a.m. PDT.

On June 8, 2021, attorneys General in 17 states filed a motion to intervene to insert themselves as adversaries to the Juliana lawsuit and object to any potential settlement between the Biden Administration and the youth plaintiffs. Because they have indicated they won’t participate in the settlement process in good faith, the youth plaintiffs and their attorneys will object to these state governments intervening at this late stage in their case. 

On June 25, 2021, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs and the Department of Justice present oral arguments in front of U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken on the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

On July 7, 2021, attorneys General in New York, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont, as well as environmental organization NRDC, file amicus briefs in support of the youth plaintiffs. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs also file a brief opposing the intervention motion of 18 Rebpulican states who seek to obstruct settlement negotiations and get the case dismissed.

On November 1, 2021, Settlement talks between the Juliana youth, their attorneys, and the Department of Justice, ended without resolution after five months.

On March 15, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied 18 Republican attorneys’ general request to intervene as defendants in Juliana v. United States. She indicated that when her ruling comes down on the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, the states could attempt to refile their motion. The 21 youth plaintiffs continue to await a ruling on their Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, where a favorable ruling would put the youth plaintiffs back on the path to trial.

TODAY: The youth plaintiffs are currently awaiting a ruling from U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken on a motion to amend their case, a decision which could set them back on the path to trial. 

As seen on 60 Minutes. Watch the full segment here.