Kelsey Rose Juliana v. United States
947 F.3d 1159
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiffs: 21 young people, an environmental organization, and a representative of future generations sued the United States and multiple federal officials alleging that long‑standing federal policies that permit, authorize, subsidize, and extract fossil fuels have caused climate‑change injuries. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the government to produce and implement a plan to phase out fossil‑fuel emissions and draw down atmospheric CO2.
- District court: denied dismissal, held plaintiffs had Article III standing, found a substantive due‑process right to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life,’ and allowed trial to proceed; declined to limit plaintiffs to APA review.
- Record: extensive expert evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions drive rapid climate change, the federal government long knew the risks, and federal actions (leases, subsidies, permits, etc.) contribute materially to U.S. emissions.
- Ninth Circuit majority: accepted injury and causation for summary‑judgment purposes but held plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief was not redressable by an Article III court because designing, ordering, supervising, and enforcing the comprehensive remedial plan would intrude impermissibly on political‑branch powers; reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
- Dissent (Judge Staton): would have affirmed the district court, finding plaintiffs’ injuries redressable in part and arguing courts can craft meaningful, manageable relief to prevent the alleged irreversible constitutional harms to the Nation’s perpetuity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ constitutional claims must be brought only under the APA | Constitutional claims exist independently; APA relief is not exclusive | APA provides the exclusive or primary avenue to challenge agency‑related conduct | Court: APA is not an exclusive bar to freestanding constitutional claims; plaintiffs may proceed outside the APA |
| Article III — Injury in fact | Plaintiffs (some) suffer concrete, particularized harms now (property loss, displacement, health, recreational impairment, psychological) | Climate change harms are generalized and affect everyone; not particularized | Court: Injury in fact satisfied for at least some plaintiffs |
| Article III — Causation (traceability) | Federal policies are a substantial factor in plaintiffs’ injuries; U.S. is a major historical emitter and federal leases/subsidies increase emissions | Causal chain is attenuated by third‑party and foreign emissions; too tenuous | Court: Causation met at summary‑judgment stage because a genuine dispute exists that federal actions substantially contributed |
| Article III — Redressability / Justiciability (scope of relief) | Court can order injunction and a judicially manageable plan; even perceptible reductions in emissions would help (Massachusetts v. EPA) | Requested relief requires designing and supervising long‑range nationwide economic and foreign‑policy decisions; courts lack institutional competence and would breach separation of powers | Court: Redressability fails — the specific injunction/planning relief sought is beyond Article III power; case must be remediated by political branches |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (state standing in greenhouse‑gas regulation and that domestic emissions reductions can be meaningfully redressive)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (limits on judicially manageable standards in politically charged claims; political‑question considerations)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (recognition that courts may fashion broad equitable relief and leave implementation details to authorities in certain contexts)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (judicial-review principle and duty to remedy constitutional violations)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (environmental injury and standing principles)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (statutory remedial schemes do not lightly foreclose judicial review of constitutional claims)
- Mendia v. Garcia, 768 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2014) (causation may be established through multiple links if not hypothetical or tenuous)
- Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2013) (attenuation/tenuity of causal chain can defeat standing where individual sources’ impacts are scientifically indiscernible)
- Sierra Club v. Trump, 929 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2019) (interplay between equitable actions for constitutional claims and APA review)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (standing doctrine and separation‑of‑powers limits on judicial power)