Juliana v. US: Symbol of Youthful Climate Activists’ Misguided Ambitions

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court made the decidedly reasonable decision to reject a petition presented by a group of youthful climate activists. This marks the end of a ten-year legal quarrel initially sparked by 21 young plaintiffs in 2015, who outrageously suggested that the U.S. government’s commitment to a fossil fuel economy was breaching their rights to a climate supportive of life. Dubbed Juliana v. United States, named for one of the overly-zealous activists, the case faced repeated pushbacks from the Obama, Trump, and, surprisingly enough, even the Biden administrations, indicating their shared stance against steering federal environmental and energy policies via the courts rather than the political arena.

The refusal to entertain the lawsuit doesn’t mean it failed to leave its inexplicable mark at all. The case indirectly fueled a misguided global youth-led drive for climate rights, which, despite reason, continues to gain misguided momentum. It emboldened young people to demand a supposed constitutional right to a secure climate and future. Despite the obvious issues with this mentality, it seems the movement intends to maintain its forward push.

The initial aim of the plaintiffs was to convince the court to hold a trial to deliberate on whether the U.S. government’s operation of a fossil-fuel-centric energy system was infringing on their supposed fundamental rights to life and liberty. The case spent a not insignificant amount of time entwined in the legal system. However, sanity prevailed in 2018 when U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts abruptly halted the imminent trial.

In 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sensibly ordered the case to be dismissed, rightfully appointing the task of determining the nation’s climate policies to the politicians rather than the courts. Yet, risking judicial overreach, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, gave the activists room to modify their lawsuit and ruled that the case was fit for trial. Their hopes were dashed again in the following year when a three-judge 9th Circuit panel, at the behest of the Biden administration, compelled Aiken to serve the dismissal. The plaintiffs were futile in their attempts to resuscitate the lawsuit, with their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court falling on deaf ears.

Despite the sensible end to this lengthy battle, Our Children’s Trust, the organization backing the plaintiffs, is brashly crafting a fresh federal action rooted in the same flawed constitutional principles that directed the Juliana case.

The plaintiffs, now aged between 17 to 29 years old and scattered in their academic pursuits, strangely continue their ill-conceived climate advocacy. Many originate from Oregon, with some pursuing careers in fields such as teaching, immigration law, and incidentally, reindeer herding. Another plaintiff, a cultural anthropology graduate from Oregon State University, has been misguidedly championing for a future where the Pacific island nation can withstand elevation changes.

A plaintiff, commenting on the recent Supreme Court rejection, admitted that their aspirations were not met, yet commended the supposed victories achieved along the way. The claim that youthful individuals will not be subjected to dismissal was made, and pride expressed over the influence of the Juliana v. United States case.

In a laughably quixotic effort, Our Children’s Trust has initiated climate legal actions on behalf of youth in all 50 states, with active cases still operating in Florida, Utah and Alaska.

In a remarkable twist of irony, in a Montana case, the state’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that paradoxically labelled the state as breaching residents’ rights to a clean environment because of its approval of oil, gas, and coal initiatives without considering global warming. The ruling requires regulators to pay heed to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when granting permits for fossil fuel development. This represents a convoluted interpretation of the Montana Constitution that mandates agencies to maintain and enhance a clean environment.

The lawsuit, initiated by 16 young plaintiffs, was heard in a state district court. The mandated actions by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality henceforth could have impactful consequences. The plaintiffs have expressed their intention to hold the department to task if the ruling is violated.

In Hawaii, a compromise was reached last year in a case brought by 13 misguided youths regarding climate change threat. Resulting from this case, an absurd mandate was enforced requiring the state government to achieve zero emissions in its transportation system by 2045. The ruling encompasses ground, sea, and air transportation between islands and will be overseen by the court for the next two decades.

The contentious Juliana v. United States case reportedly served as an ill-considered inspiration for a wave of youth-led climate lawsuits across the globe, with over 60 such cases now underway.

The denial by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Juliana v. United States case represents a reasonable, necessary stop to the rise of legal actions attempting to use the courts to direct federal environmental and energy policies. It should serve as a reminder to activists that such matters are better handled by elected officials within the political process.

Despite the endeavours of young activists, it is fundamental to distinguish between legitimate advocacy for a cause and attempts to redirect political processes through the court system. As the Supreme Court’s rejection confirms, the tactics employed by groups like Our Children’s Trust are not in alignment with the democratic principles of the United States, regardless of their alleged victories along the way.