Plaintiffs, Juliana vs. United States–AKA the “Kids Climate Lawsuit” is back at the Supreme Court, asking the justices to bring the case back from the dead.
This case (which I have brought up repeatedly) argues that there is a federal constitutional right to a stable environment that can be enforced in federal court. Although one district court judge accepted these arguments, the Ninth Circuit repeatedly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims. bold claim.
Back in May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the federal government a writ of mandamus to terminate the district court proceeding and ordered the case dismissed. Since then, the plaintiffs have asked the judge for a writ of mandamus to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remand the case, but the judge never received one.
Now, the plaintiffs application for rulingdisagreeing with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that they lack standing and approach to duty. Wisely, the plaintiffs are seeking to tie their ongoing claims to issues being considered in a separate lawsuit later this term (Gutierrez v. Saenz). But that won’t be enough.
This certificate application is unlikely to receive much attention from the courts. The real question is whether it will affect how judges evaluate other pending petitions, such as those seeking high court review of state tort law claims against fossil fuel companies. . Insofar as juliana Petition (along with the petition) Recent Montana Supreme Court held decision) Elevating the importance of climate litigation could foster the impression that climate litigation is out of control and in need of redress. In this sense, this application may increase the likelihood that the court will reliably grant permission in the following cases: Honolulu File a lawsuit and issue a ruling that curtails climate change litigation across the board. Or the judge could recognize it as a fringe filing and dismiss it without hesitation.
