“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” - U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken
JULIANA v. UNITED STATES
In 2015, 21 young Americans filed their constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, against the U.S. government. Their complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.
Current Status:
On June 1, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of the 21 youth plaintiffs, putting their constitutional climate case back on the path to trial. However, as the U.S. DOJ continues to aggressively file motions to delay or dismiss the case instead of fulfilling the Biden Administration’s promises to work with youth for climate justice, attorneys for both sides will continue briefing the same legal issues that have already been addressed by the courts multiple times. Judge Aiken’s ruling on recent motions filed by both the plaintiffs and the DOJ can be expected in the coming months.
TIMELINE:
The following is a timeline of major moments, filings, and rulings in this case, from 2015 to today (a downloadable, text only, version of this timeline can be found here):
“August 12, 2015: Case Filed
Juliana v. United States is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.”
“September 10, 2015: Amended Complaint
An amended complaint is filed.”
“April 8, 2016: Motion to Dismiss Denied
Initially, the fossil fuel industry joined the government as defendants seeking to have the case dismissed. In April 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended denial of both motions to dismiss. ”
“November 10, 2016: Historic Opinion
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin’s recommendation, with the issuance of an historic opinion and order denying the motions. ”
“June 8, 2017: Defense Motions Denied
Judge Aiken denied defense’s motion for interlocutory appeal of her November 2016 order.”
“June 28, 2017: Trial Date Set
Judge Coffin issued an order releasing the fossil fuel industry defendants from the case and setting a trial date for February 5, 2018. ”
“July 25, 2017: Proceedings Stayed
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed
all district court proceedings.”
“August 25 & 28, 2017: Response to Defense
In reaction to a request from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for both the plaintiffs and the District Court to submit responses to the government’s petition for “writ of mandamus,” attorneys for the plaintiffs filed an answer and the District Court filed a letter. ”
“September 5, 2017: Amicus Briefs Filed
To support the responses submitted in August, eight amicus briefs were filed with the Ninth Circuit in support of the plaintiffs. ”
“December 11, 2017: Oral Arguments
Pursuant to its order, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit - Chief Justice Sidney Thomas and Circuit Justices Alex Kozinski and Marsha Barzon - heard oral arguments. Eric Grant, representing the U.S. government, argued that the case be dismissed. Justice Kozinski subsequently resigned and was replaced on the panel by Circuit Justice Michelle Friedland. (Video of these oral arguments can be watched here.)”
“March 7, 2018: Government Motion Denied
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defense’s “drastic and extraordinary” petition for writ of mandamus. ”
“April 12, 2018: New Trial Date
During a public case management conference, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin set a new trial date for October 29, 2018.”
“May 25, 2018: Government Motion Denied
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order denying the government’s motion for protective order and a stay of all discovery. ”
“July 18, 2018: Oral Arguments
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken heard oral arguments and motions from the defense for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and summary judgment (“MSJ”). Supporters for the plaintiffs packed the Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse courtroom in Eugene, Oregon as well as three overflow rooms.”
“July 20, 2018: Government Motion Denied
In a per curiam opinion, Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, and Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s second petition for writ of mandamus.”
“July 30, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court Rules for the Plaintiffs
The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, denying the defense’s application for stay and preserving the trial start date for October 29, 2018. The Court also denied the government’s “premature” request to review the case before the District Court hears all of the facts and evidence at trial.”
“October 5, 2018: Government Files Another Motion
Attorneys for the defense filed another motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to stay discovery as well as a third writ of mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ”
“October 15, 2018: Government Motion Partially Denied
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled on the government’s motions for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and summary judgment (“MSJ”), largely denying the motions but granting them in part by limiting the scope of the plaintiffs’ claims and dismissing President Trump from the case. ”
“October 18, 2018: Government Files Another Motion
Attorneys for the government filed a second writ of mandamus petition and application for stay with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to prevent the case from proceeding to trial. ”
“October 19, 2018: Temporary Administrative Stay Ordered
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered a temporary, administrative stay while it considered the government’s petition and asked plaintiffs to respond to it. ”
“October 22, 2018: Plaintiffs File Response
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed their response, requesting that the Supreme Court allow the trial to proceed on October 29, citing numerous mischaracterizations of the lawsuit by the government in its most recent filing with the Court.”
“October 29, 2018: The People Rally
On the day when the trial should have begun, thousands of people around the country rallied at courthouses to stand in solidarity with the plaintiffs.”
“November 2, 2018: Government Motion Denied
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the government’s application for stay.”
“November 5, 2018: Government Files Another Motion
The government filed a motion for stay with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and then, hours later, filed an application for stay and another petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ”
“November 8, 2018: Government Motion Partially Granted
A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted, in part, the government’s motion for a temporary stay of District Court proceedings. Because the Court only placed a stay on the trial, trial preparations continued. During a status conference between U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken and the parties in Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken indicated she would promptly issue a trial date once the Ninth Circuit lifted the temporary stay.”
“November 21, 2018: Appeals Begin; Case Stayed
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken issued an order certifying the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and staying the case pending this decision. Judge Aiken declared that she did not “make this decision lightly,” emphasizing that, while she stood by her prior rulings recommending that the case should go to trial, she believed the case was better suited for appeal after trial, not before.”
“December 5, 2018: Plaintiffs File Motion for Reconsideration
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The motion asked Judge Aiken to reconsider her November 21 decision to place a stay on pretrial proceedings.”
“December 11, 2018: Plaintiffs File Answer
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed their answer in opposition to the fifth petition of the government to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
“December 20, 2018: Emergency Motion
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that they lift the stay imposed in its November 8, 2018 order and allow the case to proceed to trial.”
“January 7, 2019: Plaintiffs Request Granted
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ request to expedite the briefing schedule, agreeing to fast-track the appeal.”
“February 7, 2019: Preliminary Injunction Filed
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent the federal government from issuing leases and mining permits for extracting coal on federal public lands, leases for offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction activities, and federal approvals for new fossil fuel infrastructure while the government’s early appeal of the case was being heard.”
“February 19, 2019: JoinJuliana Campaign Launches
Zero Hour, a youth-led climate group, launched a nationwide campaign for thousands of young people to add their names to a Young People’s amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Juliana plaintiffs.”
“March 1, 2019: Amicus Briefs Filed
Fifteen amicus briefs - filed on behalf of members of U.S. Congress, legal scholars, religious and women’s groups, businesses, historians, medical doctors, international lawyers, environmentalists, and more than 32,000 youth under the age of 25 - demonstrated support for the case to proceed to trial. ”
“March 24, 2019: Appeal and Injunction Hearing Scheduled
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set a hearing date for June 4, 2019 to hear oral arguments in Portland, Oregon, on the interlocutory appeal and the preliminary injunction.”
“June 4, 2019: Hearing for Appeal and Injunction
At the hearing, Julia Olson argued on behalf of the plaintiffs and Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark argued on behalf of the federal government before Judges Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Josephine L. Staton of District Court for the Central District of California. Video of the hearing can be watched here.
”
“January 17, 2020: A Divided Decision
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order on the interlocutory appeal in which they recognized the gravity of the evidence on the plaintiffs’ injuries from climate change, the government’s role in causing them, and that the government is violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. However, two of the three judges also “reluctantly” concluded that the plaintiffs’ requested remedies should be addressed by the executive and legislative branches rather than the courts. The third judge, Judge Josephine L. Staton, affirmed the youths’ constitutional climate rights in a powerful dissent.”
“March 2, 2020: Plaintiffs File Petition
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This petition requests that the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals convene a new panel of 11 circuit court judges to review January’s sharply divided opinion. ”
“March 12, 2020: Amicus Briefs Filed
Twenty-four members of the U.S. Congress, experts in the fields of constitutional law, climate change, and public health, and several leading women’s, children’s, environmental, and human rights organizations filed ten amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs, urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant the en banc petition.”
“February 10, 2021: The Ninth Circuit Upholds Panel Decision
The Ninth Circuit fails to correct the legal errors in March 2020’s panel decision and upholds the panel’s ruling. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the case, but a majority of judges declined to do so.”
“March 9, 2021: Motion to Amend is Filed!
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint against the federal government and adjust the remedy sought in their case in response to the February 2021 and January 2020 Ninth Circuit rulings.
”
“May 13, 2021: Telephonic Status Conference
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ordered attorneys for the youth plaintiffs and attorneys with the Department of Justice to convene for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court also scheduled oral argument on the youth plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The hearing on that motion will be held telephonically on Friday, June 25, 2021 at 10 a.m. PDT. Transcript can be found here.
”
“June 8, 2021: 17 States File to Become Intervenors
Attorneys General in 17 states filed a motion to intervene to insert themselves as adversaries to the Juliana lawsuit and object to any potential settlement between the Biden Administration and the youth plaintiffs. Because they have indicated they won’t participate in the settlement process in good faith, the youth plaintiffs and their attorneys will object to these state governments intervening at this late stage in their case.
”
“July 7, 2021: Six States & NRDC File Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Youth Plaintiffs While Attorneys for Youth Plaintiffs File Brief Opposing Intervenors.
Attorneys General in New York, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont, as well as environmental organization NRDC, filed amicus briefs in support of the youth plaintiffs. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs also filed a brief opposing the intervention motion of 18 Republican states who seek to obstruct settlement negotiations and have the case dismissed.
”
“November 1, 2021: Settlement Negotiations End
Settlement talks between the Juliana youth, their attorneys, and the Department of Justice, ended without resolution after five months.”
“March 15, 2023: Judge Denied Motion to Intervene Filed by 18 Republican Attorneys General
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denied 18 Republican attorneys’ general request to intervene as defendants in Juliana v. United States. She indicated that when her ruling comes down on the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, the states could attempt to refile their motion.
”
“June 1, 2023: Judge Grants Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken granted the youth plaintiff’s motion to amend their case, ruling that they can proceed to trial.
”
“June 21, 2023: Petition Delivered to U.S. Department of Justice
An online petition, signed by more than 255 organizations and over 50,000 individuals, was delivered to the U.S. Department of Justice by People vs. Fossil Fuels – a coalition of over 1,200 climate justice, Indigenous, Black, Latino, social justice, economic justice, progressive, youth, faith, and other organizations - urging Attorney General Garland to end opposition to the Juliana case proceeding to trial.
”
“June 22, 2023: U.S. Department of Justice Files Another Motion to Dismiss
The U.S. Department of Justice filed another motion to dismiss the case, despite a recent ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken that the case could proceed to trial on an amended complaint. The DOJ filed their motion just two days after Our Children’s Trust lawyers concluded trial in Held v. State of Montana – the first ever children’s constitutional climate trial in the U.S. – and one day after an online petition, signed by more than 255 organizations and over 50,000 individuals, was delivered to the DOJ by the People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition.
”
“July 6, 2023: Youth Plaintiffs File Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Attorneys representing the young Juliana plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amendment Complaint and Motion to Certify, filed by the DOJ on June 22, 2023. In their opposition brief, the youth request that the Court deny the DOJ’s latest attempt to end the case’s forward momentum toward trial, noting that the DOJ repeated arguments in their most recent motions that were already decided by the courts. The opposition brief also identifies the unprecedented tactics the DOJ continues to employ to delay and deny the youth plaintiffs their day in court.”
“July 7, 2023: U.S. Department of Justice Files Motion to Stay
In a continuation of the Trump Administration DOJ’s strategy to flood the youth plaintiffs with motions to delay or deny trial, the DOJ filed two more motions in Juliana v. United States: a motion to stay the case and a request that Judge Aiken certify for interlocutory appeal her June 1 order granting the plaintiffs’ leave to amend their complaint.”
“TODAY: Preparing for Trial
The 21 youth plaintiffs are now preparing for trial!
”