JULIANA v. UNITED STATES

For nearly a decade, the Juliana 21 have asked the courts to hear their case and recognize and enforce their rights to life and a livable climate. And for nearly a decade, their own government has abused its power and misused the law to silence them.  

On December 29, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of the Juliana 21, putting an end to the DOJ’s motions to dismiss the case, and allowing the youth plaintiffs to continue on the path to trial. The parties were set to receive trial dates from Judge Aiken on January 19, 2024.     

However, on February 2, 2024, the Biden Administration’s DOJ filed an unprecedented seventh petition for a writ of mandamus at the Ninth Circuit and a motion for a stay. A writ of mandamus is an extreme legal tool meant for only the most dire of exigent circumstances, misused by the Trump Administration at record levels to subvert the normal legal process, prevent the case from proceeding to trial, and silence the voices of young people seeking to highlight the injustice of climate change at the hands of the United States government.  

On April 19, 2024, Judge Ann Aiken rebuked the DOJs attempts to silence the 21 youth plaintiffs when she filed an answer to the DOJs seventh Petition for Writ of Mandamus and denied the DOJ’s motion to stay the case while the Ninth Circuit considers the mandamus request.   

“Trial courts across the country address complex cases involving similar jurisdictional, evidentiary, and legal questions as those presented here without resorting to interlocutory appeal or petitioning for a writ of mandamus,” Judge Aiken wrote. Quoting from an earlier case, she noted, “the proper place for the trial is in the trial court.”   

Despite the amicus brief filed by members of Congress and Judge Aiken's powerful filings in support of the youth plaintiffs, on May 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit unjustly granted the DOJs outrageous seventh Petition for Writ of Mandamus. This decision offers a dire reminder that the courts are vital to a functioning democracy. The court’s opinion that declaring dangerous and discriminatory government systems unconstitutional doesn’t matter, is simply false.   

On June 17, 2024, the attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a motion to vacate the panel’s order to put the case back on the path to trial. They argued that the decision to dismiss Juliana disregards Supreme Court precedent established by Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., effectively upending the limited scope of mandamus. By doing so, the court has taken it upon itself to determine which cases are allowed to proceed to final judgment at the district court level.   

Then on June 27, 2024, Members of Congress, children’s rights scholars, law professors and world-renowned climate experts, once again filed amicus briefs in support of the Juliana youth plaintiffs and on July 5th, the youth plaintiffs also responded, pointing out the principles of the Declaration of Independence and President Biden’s obligation to protect their rights. However, despite the outpouring of support and supplemental filings, on July 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ requests for rehearing or reconsideration en banc.   

“Twenty-one young leaders have been championing their rights, and the rights of future generations for nine years. They are quite simply asking to be heard—to have the opportunity to make their case, to be considered on the merits because their lives depend on it.” - Julia Olson, Our Children’s Trust Chief Legal Counsel and Co-Executive Director 

NOT BACKING DOWN!

IIn response to the Ninth Circuit’s disregard for the rule of law and jurisdiction, the Juliana 21 filed their own petition to SCOTUS on September 12, 2024, for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse this egregious error and return the case to the district court—because the integrity of our courts and constitutional democracy rely on it. Unlike the DOJ, the Juliana plaintiffs meet the legal requirements to use the petition.    

On November 12, 2024, SCOTUS denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by the 21 young Americans. While a writ of mandamus would have been an appropriate remedy to correct the Ninth Circuit’s extraordinary abuse of its own mandamus power, we knew the Supreme Court rarely uses that tool.  

FILING AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

On December 9, 2024, the Juliana 21 filed a Petition for Certiorari with SCOTUS, asking the Court  

to review two Ninth Circuit decisions from 2020 and 2024 dismissing the case based on a ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown that their claims against the government could be redressed by a judgment in their favor. The youth plaintiffs argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the law of standing in other circuits, Supreme Court precedents over the past 100 years, and undermines Acts of Congress.  

They emphasize that every judge who has reviewed their claims, both in the district court and the Ninth Circuit, concluded that they have demonstrated they are suffering personal harm, and that their ongoing injuries are directly traceable to government actions. 

In truth, SCOTUS sets the standard on the question of declaratory relief, and the three-judge panel’s dismissal in the Ninth Circuit flies in the face of long-standing Supreme Court precedent, which says the courts can absolutely act to protect young people’s constitutional rights when violated by their own government.