Youth Climate Lawsuit Faces Dire Path After Ninth Circuit Ruling

The 21 young plaintiffs leading the most closely watched US climate lawsuit of the last decade face an uncertain legal future, thanks to a federal government victory that threatens to end the case for now.

Judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit quashed the case on May 1, accepting a February mandamus bid from the Justice Department asking for the panel to dismiss the lawsuit.

The decision compels Judge Ann Aiken of the US District Court for the District of Oregon to toss the case, which she had resurrected last year under an amended complaint that raised the possibility the young people would make it to trial.

The move to permanently defeat the case is “tragic and unjust,” and the US should come to agreement at the settlement table instead, according to Julia Olson, Our Children’s Trust chief legal counsel and an attorney in Juliana v. US.

Now, they’re left with few options to keep the case in courts, according to legal observers tracking the suit. They will likely ask for a rehearing with a full Ninth Circuit panel, but could also turn to the US Supreme Court or file a new case altogether.

This isn’t the first time the Ninth Circuit has handed a loss to Juliana. Another panel “reluctantly” dismissed their first complaint in 2020, citing their inability to provide the redress requested by the plaintiffs: a mandate that the government do more to stem global warming.

This 2024 ruling echoed its predecessor, finding once again that plaintiffs don’t have standing to keep the case in play. The current panel failed to see how the plaintiffs’ amended request for a statement of wrongdoing from the government would solve their claims, especially after the same circuit dismissed the case four years ago.

“Declaratory relief is prospective,” according to the May 1 decision. “The Juliana plaintiffs do not seek damages but seek only prospective relief.”

What’s Next?

That line of thought, according to Juliana‘s Olson, sets a bad precedent.

“A declaration of our constitutional rights by the courts is one of the few things that has moved our nation to greater justice and equality throughout history,” Olson said in statement in response to the ruling. “The court’s opinion that declaring dangerous and discriminatory government systems unconstitutional doesn’t matter, is simply false.”

A request for an en banc hearing at the Ninth Circuit is a likely next step, but getting those petitions accepted is difficult under the best of circumstances. Juliana has already been tossed twice by the West Coast appellate bench.

That leaves a petition at the US Supreme Court as another option, but some attorneys and legal experts are wary of the case’s potential in front of justices. A Supreme Court push wouldn’t fare well given the makeup of the high court, according to Michael Gerrard, head of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“I think the plaintiffs would be ill-advised to try to get to the Supreme Court because that is not likely to turn out well,” Gerrard said. “This court is not sympathetic to climate cases.”

In the case of settlement, Gerrard noted that petitioning the government to admit they aren’t doing enough to stem fossil fuel development after weeks of rolling out key climate regulations—including power plant and vehicle emission limits—is also a long shot.

Given these pitfalls, filing a new case altogether with brand new claims would be “the path of least resistance,” Widener University law professor James May said, noting that there have been plenty of federal climate failings since the case was filed in 2015.

“There are things that have happened or failed to happen since 2015 that could be the basis for a new lawsuit, that the plaintiffs could not have brought in 2015—because those things hadn’t happened yet—and that have not been ruled on on the merits,” May said.

The case is United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or., Eugene, 9th Cir. App., No. 24-684.