“When our great grandchildren look back on the 21st century, they will see that government sanctioned climate destruction was the constitutional issue of this century.” – Julia Olson
Thousands watched on as 21 young people returned to court for the latest hearing in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate lawsuit also known as Youth v. Gov. The hearing was heard in Oregon by a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and is the latest hurdle in a long road of government attempts to stop the lawsuit in its tracks.
Central Questions and Key Takeaways from the Hearing:
The government hasn’t acted sufficiently to stop climate change. But is inaction enough for a court case?
During the hearing, Julia Olson from Our Children’s Trust argued on behalf of the youth, emphasizing that this case is not about inaction on the part of the government, but about action to subsidize and facilitate the nation’s fossil fuel energy system, even in the face of evidence that doing so deprives its citizens of their Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, and property.
Is the district court the right place for this lawsuit?
The government argued that the case primarily focused on actions of administrative agencies and so should be heard first through administrative proceedings rather than on a Constitutional claim to the district court. But the youth maintained that administrative paths to fixing our climate problem are insufficient. The destruction wrought by climate change is not caused by problems with one specific agency’s action that an administrative court could address, but rather systematic government action in support of an energy system that is threatening youth and future generations’ constitutional rights.
Yet again, the government challenged the case’s ability to go to trial. So what is each side asking for?
Though the trial was originally scheduled to begin last October, the government was granted an unusual pretrial appeal that postponed it until last week’s hearing could decide whether the case should move forward at all. Last Tuesday, the youth had to fight for the chance to prove that they’ve faced real threats due the government’s contribution to climate change.
For the 21 young people, the trauma and loss caused by climate change doesn’t just exist in some theoretical future; they have all experienced real harm and suffering due to our increasingly unstable environment. For example, 15-year-old Jayden Foytlin has repeatedly seen her home flood as tropical storms intensify in Louisiana. And 19-year-old Nathan Baring’s hometown in Alaska is threatened by both ice storms and pollution, which have forced his family to live without power for a week in 18-degree Fahrenheit temperatures and exacerbated his asthma.
In addition to asking the Court to lift the stay on the case, the youth petitioned it for an injunction to stop all new fossil fuel development, leasing, and investment while the case proceeds, a move that the Justice Department lawyer called an “attack on the separation of powers.”
What Are the Youth Fighting For?
Three and a half years ago, a group of 21 young Americans decided to sue the US government, arguing that government-endorsed contributions to climate change are a fundamental threat to their constitutional rights. Rather than asking for money in damages, the youth are demanding action, pressing the government to use its power to create a national energy transition plan to guide us away from fossil fuels.
The youth’s legal basis for this case rests in the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment right that no person can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and on the public trust doctrine, which outlines the government’s responsibility to protect publicly shared resources such as shorelines and bodies of water.
Though the government argues that this sort of climate lawsuit is unprecedented, it has support in international law and comparative law jurisprudence, as CIEL and ELAW argue in their recent amicus brief. Seventy years ago, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provided that everyone has a right to life. Subsequent treaties have incorporated and elaborated on this. As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United States is obligated to protect people’s fundamental right to life. Additionally, the US has signed but not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which also affirm the right to life. Preserving a healthy environment and a stable climate system is an essential component of ensuring the right to life, and this can be seen in international law and in the national laws and jurisprudence of foreign states.
As part of its denial of the government’s initial motion to dismiss in November 2016, the Oregon District Court recognized that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life was necessary in order to exercise the rights of life, liberty, and property. It is now up to the Ninth Circuit Court to uphold the lower court’s decision to allow the case to move forward and let the youth have their day in court.
What’s Next?
This landmark climate case has faced a long road on its way to trial, emerging victorious time and time again in spite of multiple government attempts to derail the case before it even begins. Last week’s hearing was the most recent step in the fight to make it to trial. Looking forward, it may be months before a decision is reached, but the widespread attention on this one hearing alone (with over 15,000 viewers!) shows mounting public support for our right to a stable climate system and a growing demand to move toward a clean-energy future.
By Killian Dumont, CIEL Communications Intern
Originally posted on June 14, 2019