Juliana v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71759, 2024 WL 1695064 (D. Or., Apr. 19, 2024)
In an order directing a lower court to dismiss without leave to amend, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ended decade-long legal battle of Juliana v. United States. The saga began in 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon when a group of young citizens sued the United States along with various government officials and agencies. The plaintiffs’ claims stemmed from the government’s knowledge of, and failure to take actions to prevent, the impact of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide on the environment. The plaintiffs asserted that a number of their constitutional rights were violated, and that the government had violated the public trust doctrine. They asked the court to require the government to develop and implement a national plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In 2020 the case made its way to the Ninth Circuit via interlocutory appeal. Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir, 2020). The court noted the plaintiffs had compiled an extensive record making it difficult to deny the increasingly rapid rate at which climate change is occurring, and the federal government’s knowledge of and contribution to the issue through both action and inaction. Despite this, the appellate court explained that for the case to proceed the plaintiffs’ claims needed Article III standing, requiring a showing that the plaintiffs suffered an injury as a result of the challenged conduct, and that the injury is redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Though the plaintiffs successfully showed the required injury and causation, at least in so far as to withstand summary judgment, the court concluded the plaintiffs could not meet the redressability burden. The Ninth Circuit explained that any plan which would grant the relief sought would necessarily implicate a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the executive and legislative branches. The court “reluctantly conclude[d]…that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,” and remanded the case to the District Court with instruction to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Juliana,947 F.3d at 1175.
Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the District Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. The district court believed it was not barred from granting leave to amend, despite the “rule of mandate” which requires that a lower court unquestioningly execute the terms of a mandate, because (1) the Ninth Circuit had not “expressly state[d] the plaintiffs could not amend to replead their case,” and (2) intervening law, in the form of Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021), established that partial declaratory relief satisfies redressability for purposes of Article III standing, allowing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint to potentially satisfy the redressability requirement. Juliana v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95411 at p.17.
In response to the amended complaint, the government petitioned the Ninth Circuit for mandamus to enforce their earlier mandate. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition on May 1, 2024, and issued an order the same day. The court explained that its previous mandate was to dismiss, and that “neither the mandate’s letter nor its spirit left room for amendment.” Though the court acknowledged that when a subsequently decided case changes the law a District Court is not bound by a mandate, Uzuegbunam did not represent such a change. The court then reiterated the requirement that the case be dismissed, making it expressly clear that this time the dismissal would be “without leave to amend.” On July 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing or reconsideration en banc of the court’s May 2024 order and directed the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss the case.
Mat dos Santos, co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based law firm that represents the plaintiffs, maintains that “we’re…going to argue that it was wrongly decided.” Though it is possible for the plaintiffs to seek a rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit, or appeal to the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit’s order likely brings the long saga of Juliana v. United States to an end. So far, no update about the case, and it stays denied by Juliana v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71759, 2024 WL 1695064 (D. Or., Apr. 19, 2024).
Glen Hansen is Senior Counsel, and Simyllina Chen is a Law Clerk at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. For questions relating to this article or any other California land use, real estate, environmental and/or planning issues contact Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. at (916) 456-9595.
The information presented in this article should not be construed to be formal legal advice by Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Because of the changing nature of this area of the law and the importance of individual facts, readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for advice regarding their individual legal issues.