Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
By Jennifer Hijazi
The landmark youth climate lawsuit that spanned three presidential administrations may be nearing its end while similar cases in the US and globally pick up the mantle.
The 21 young plaintiffs of Juliana v. US have been fighting for their climate rights case since 2015, weathering a court system that was ultimately unfriendly toward their novel constitutional claims. Still, Juliana continues to inspire similar creative uses of constitutional and rights-based climate legal work, according to Nikki Reisch, the director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s climate and energy program.
“Juliana was groundbreaking when it was filed in many ways,” Reisch said. Juliana has had “already a lasting legacy in inspiring many cases that have proliferated around the world in different jurisdictions and under different legal theories.”
The day after the youth plaintiffs were denied a rehearing at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, legal nonprofit Our Children’s Trust wrote a letter to supporters, focused mostly on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Chevron deference.
“The wrongs executed by the current Court will not stand the test of time,” according to the emailed letter sent July 13. “Injustice will be righted if we continue to bring forward the truth, through evidence and strong legal argumentation in compelling cases.”
That Supreme Court is likely the last stop for one more stand from Juliana.
Our Children’s Trust filed the lawsuit in 2015 under the Obama administration, asking for injunctive relief from courts for the US’ extraction and promotion of fossil fuels. The young people had a novel argument: the actions of the federal government violated childrens’ constitutional right to life.
The Ninth Circuit eventually dismissed the case for lack of standing in 2020, prompting the attorneys to file an amended complaint.
Despite early hope the case might finally make it to trial, the Biden administration was successful in having the case quashed, after the Ninth Circuit accepted its mandamus bid to kill the case for lack of standing. The court then denied the Juliana plaintiffs’ request for a rehearing with a full panel.
Though Juliana gets much of the attention, it’s one of many human rights lawsuits that revolve around climate, both domestically and abroad.
Unlike other countries—and even some US states—that have environment rights enshrined in their constitutions, proving there is an affirmative right to a healthy climate in the federal US legal system was an uphill battle.
Those obstacles showcase “how out of step the US and US courts have have been with where the rest of the world has gone” with rights-based litigation, Reisch said.
Our Children’s Trust has seen the most success with its numerous state-level offshoot cases.
“Legal standing to bring such lawsuits is far less formidable in state courts,” according to a Legal Planet post by University of California Davis law professor Richard Frank. “Several of the currently-pending state cases are bolstered by state constitutional provisions that grant their residents a right to a clean and healthful environment.”
Plaintiffs in Held v. Montana are currently awaiting word on a state high court review of an appeal of a 2023 youth victory, and young people in Hawaii managed a first-of-its-kind settlement with the state to lower emissions in Navahine F. v. Hawai’i Department of Transportation.
Other states with affirmative environmental rights, such as Massachusetts and New York, could be the next jurisdictions where groups may attempt to replicate these claims, according to César Rodríguez-Garavito, professor of clinical law at New York University.
“I think that they have a fair chance of winning in those jurisdictions,” Rodríguez-Garavito said.
Those state, rights-based victories are even more impressive considering that the US is the only country in the world that has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to Maria Antonia Tigre, director of Global Climate Change Litigation at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
But Tigre says she believes Juliana made a notable mark on the international litigation scene, despite its current trajectory, thanks to a synergy that these types of cases share across the globe.
“I do really believe that there is sort of a big wave that happens whenever there’s a big decision in one place, and that sort of has that butterfly effect in other countries and other jurisdictions,” Tigre said.
That “contagion effect” isn’t slowing down, Rodríguez-Garavito said.
“Virtually every major European country has seen a case like Juliana, oftentimes filed on behalf of young people, sometimes on behalf of other vulnerable groups,” he said. “There’s a lot of cross fertilization and cross learning.”
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.