On March 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the US government’s request for a writ of mandamus in youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. US. Now, this landmark climate case returns to the district court, with the trial date set for October 29, 2018.
What is Juliana v. US about?
In August 2015, 21 young people brought a constitutional climate lawsuit against the US government in a federal district court in Oregon. The youth plaintiffs assert that, by failing to protect present and future generations’ rights to essential natural resources such as air, water, and wildlife, the US government’s climate-related actions and policies have violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as the “public trust doctrine,” which requires the government protect certain natural and cultural resources for public use.
The government has made several unsuccessful attempts to have this case dismissed. In November 2015, the government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the district court denied and which the Ninth Circuit denied on appeal. Most recently, the Trump Administration took the unusual approach of filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another last-ditch attempt to stop the case. The district court, in which the case was otherwise to be held, responded with a letter voicing the court’s views that the Ninth Circuit Court should not stop the case. CIEL also supported the youth plaintiffs by submitting a joint amicus brief with Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide. After hearing oral arguments from both parties on December 11, 2017, the Ninth Circuit made its order to deny the petition for mandamus.
What is a writ of mandamus?
A writ of mandamus is a court order to compel a lower court, government agency, individual, or cooperation to fulfill their legal duties. In other words, a mandamus compels someone to do something they are legally required to do. It is an extraordinary remedy and only used in rare circumstance, for example when a party to the case has no alternative means to seek relief; the lower court’s order is clearly erroneous in law; or when the case proceeding would irreparably hurt one of the parties.
In Juliana, the US government asked the Ninth Circuit to issue a mandamus after failing to persuade the district court to dismiss the case. Instead of following the ordinary process of litigation, the government requested that the circuit court cut in to prevent the case from proceeding. The Ninth Circuit, however, was not convinced by the government’s arguments and denied the mandamus petition.
Why does this lawsuit matter?
Juliana v. US is a novel case. The youth plaintiffs have asserted that the government has violated the public trust doctrine and their fundamental rights and, further, that it continues to infringe on their rights through its policies and actions that harm a stable climate.
On November 10, 2016, the Oregon district court issued an order recognizing a constitutional right to a healthy climate. Though this is the first time a US court explicitly articulated this constitutional right, it is supported by US jurisprudence, international law, and decisions in foreign courts. In 2009, the US Supreme Court established a rule that courts should recognize and defend constitutional rights whose protection is “fundamental to our ordered scheme of liberty,” no matter whether these rights are enumerated in the constitution or not. Following this rule, the Oregon district court reasoned that “a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Therefore, the youth plaintiffs have “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
As we have argued, the Oregon court’s ruling is also consistent with international law. In signing the Paris Agreement, all countries in the world acknowledged that governments should respect, promote, and consider human rights when taking action to address climate change. This is in line with statements by UN Special Procedures and the Office of the Human Commissioner for Human Rights. Since 2008, the member nations of the Human Rights Council (HRC), including the US, have repeatedly affirmed that climate change has “an adverse impact on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights” and have recognized that a stable climate system is necessary for the realization of human rights, including the right to life. As recently as July 2017, in joining the consensus to adopt HRC Resolution 35/20, the US again expressly recognized that “the effects of climate change have a range of implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights.” The court’s order is also consistent with regional human rights commissions and courts that have found that the right to life includes preventing environmental harm.
Additionally, a growing body of foreign courts recognizes a constitutional right to a stable climate system. For example, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan ruled that the government must take action to address climate change, invoking the constitutional rights to life and to dignity protected by the Pakistan Constitution. The Court directed the government to identify and begin implementing climate change adaptation measures to protect Pakistani citizens and established a Climate Change Commission to help the court monitor progress and achieve compliance with these guidelines. Courts in Bangladesh, Costa Rica, India, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Philippines have also recognized that a healthy environment is inherently linked to the right to life and other fundamental rights. Most recently, on January 4, 2018, the Oslo District Court in Norway decided in Greenpeace Norway v. Government of Norway that the right to a healthy environment is protected by the Constitution and the government must uphold those rights.
Now that the Ninth Circuit has rejected the Government’s writ petition, the youth will have their day in court in October. Stay tuned, as this is only the beginning.
By Siyi Shen, legal intern
Originally posted on May 4, 2018