The justices rejected an appeal concerning a ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 24, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to review an appeal in a lawsuit led by minors, which claimed that the U.S. government has unconstitutionally stripped children of their rights to life and liberty by exacerbating climate change.
In a decision without a signed opinion, the justices denied certiorari for a petition submitted by Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana and 20 other minors. No explanation was provided by the justices regarding their decision.
The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against the government in 2015, arguing that the U.S. government has been aware for decades that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion are causing global warming and severe climate change. They contended that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system essential for the welfare and survival of both current and future generations.
The lawsuit indicated that actions taken with that knowledge, including the endorsement of a liquid natural gas terminal in Oregon, posed risks to the youth involved.
In a divided ruling, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
determined in 2020 that the relief sought by the plaintiffs, such as ordering the government to devise a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions, “is beyond our constitutional power.” The court directed U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken to dismiss the case.
However, Judge Aiken refused to dismiss the case, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. In 2023, she ruled in favor of the minors,
declaring that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that their constitutional rights were compromised by the government’s actions. “The judiciary is capable and duty-bound to provide redress for the irreparable harm government fossil fuel promotion has caused,” the judge stated at that time.
In 2024, the Ninth Circuit again ruled in favor of the government,
upholding the 2020 decision and instructing Judge Aiken to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs then submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, seeking the justices’ intervention, which resulted in the denial on Monday.
“While we didn’t achieve the outcome we hoped for, we have experienced numerous victories along this journey,” stated Miko Vergun, one of the plaintiffs,
in a statement. “For nearly a decade, we have advocated for the rights of both present and future generations, striving for a world where we can not only survive but thrive. Despite facing significant resistance from the federal government, our resolve has never wavered. All significant movements encounter challenges, but it is the perseverance of those involved that distinguishes them. We have demonstrated to the world that the youth will not be overlooked, and I take immense pride in the impact that Juliana v. United States has had.”
The plaintiffs assert that their case has influenced other rulings resulting in favorable outcomes, including the 2024 Montana Supreme Court ruling that
determined that the state infringed upon residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by granting permits for oil, gas, and coal projects without considering environmental impacts.
The U.S. Department of Justice expressed approval of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case from Oregon.
“For close to a decade, the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Juliana case have occupied the United States with litigation, continuing even after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directed that the case be dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing,” stated Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson
in a statement. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari concludes this lengthy saga.”
