Youth climate plaintiffs persist in lawsuit against US government
A group of young Americans who sued the federal government over climate change in 2015 continues their legal battle despite repeated court setbacks. The plaintiffs, represented by Our Children's Trust, argue that government policies violate their constitutional rights. Recent efforts focus on new strategies to revive the case.
In 2015, 21 youth plaintiffs, ranging in age from 8 to 19 at the time, filed Juliana v. United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. They contended that the government's support for fossil fuels and failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions infringed on their rights to a stable climate system, as protected by the Constitution's due process clause.
The case quickly gained attention, with U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken initially ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in 2016, stating that they had a right to a stable climate. However, the Trump administration appealed, leading to a series of delays and dismissals. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Aiken's ruling, citing separation of powers issues, and the case bounced between courts.
By 2020, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit permanently, arguing that the judiciary could not order specific climate policies. The Supreme Court declined to intervene in 2021. Despite these hurdles, the plaintiffs have not abandoned their efforts. As of 2023, Our Children's Trust, the nonprofit backing the suit, announced plans to pursue alternative legal avenues, including potential new filings or amicus support in related cases.
One plaintiff, 25-year-old Avery McRae, who joined as a teen, told Grist, 'We knew this was going to be a long fight from the beginning.' The group emphasizes the urgency, noting that climate impacts like wildfires and heatwaves have worsened since the suit began, affecting their lives directly. Background context includes the plaintiffs' diverse origins— from Hawaii to New Hampshire— and their inspiration from indigenous rights movements and earlier environmental litigation.
The ongoing saga highlights tensions between youth activism and governmental authority on climate policy. While no final victory has been achieved, the case has influenced public discourse and inspired similar suits worldwide. Implications remain uncertain, as future rulings could set precedents for holding governments accountable for environmental harms.