Case Summary: Juliana v. United States, Memorandum Order of Dismissal, May 1, 2024

On May 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit in Juliana v. United States granted defendants’ petition for mandamus and directed the district court to dismiss the case without leave to re-plead. Click for Order here. The Ninth Circuit based its mandamus order on its prior opinion from 2020 that concluded that Article III courts lacked the power to redress plaintiffs’ harms and hence the plaintiffs lacked standing. In that 2020 opinion, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs and the district court that there was injury and causation, the first two prongs for standing. The court then analyzed the third prong for standing, the two-part redressability requirement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the second part of the redressability prong was lacking. The court concluded that the judiciary did not have the power to supervise numerous federal agencies into the future and declare policies that are and are not appropriate to reduce CO2 emissions.

We are therefore skeptical that the first redressability prong is satisfied [that what plaintiffs sought would reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently globally]. But even assuming that it is, the plaintiffs do not surmount the remaining hurdle—establishing that the specific relief they seek is within the power of an Article III court. There is much to recommend the adoption of a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change, both as a policy matter in general and a matter of national survival in particular. But it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches. These decisions range, for example, from determining how much to invest in public transit to how quickly to transition to renewable energy, and plainly require consideration of “competing social, political, and economic forces,” which must be made by the People's “elected representatives, rather than by federal judges interpreting the basic charter of Government for the entire country.” . . . the plaintiffs’ request for a remedial plan would subsequently require the judiciary to pass judgment on the sufficiency of the government's response to the [court’s] order, which necessarily would entail a broad range of policymaking [by the federal district court sitting in Eugene, Oregon].

Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted).

The court also stated that “Although the plaintiffs’ invitation to get the ball rolling by simply ordering the promulgation of a plan [by the executive branch] is beguiling, it ignores that an Article III court will thereafter be required to determine whether the plan is sufficient to remediate the claimed constitutional violation of the plaintiffs’ right to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life.’ We doubt that any such plan can be supervised or enforced by an Article III court.” Id. at 1173.

After remand from that 2020 decision, the district court did not dismiss, as ordered by the Ninth Circuit, but let plaintiffs’ replead in 2023. The district court concluded that a U.S. Supreme Court case issued after the 2020 Ninth Circuit decision changed the law and, therefore, plaintiffs would re-plead for a claim for declaratory relief and that such a claim was within the court’s powers to provide redress. Juliana v. United States, 2023 WL 3750334, *6-*7 (D. Or. June 1, 2023) (analyzing standing under Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 792, 209 L.Ed.2d 94 (2021)). The district court also stated that the Ninth Circuit had not decided whether the declaratory relief that plaintiffs sought failed the redressability prong, that the Ninth Circuit had addressed only plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. Id. at * 6.

In an opinion in December 2023 denying in part and granting in part a subsequent motion to dismiss the new amended complaint, the District Court laid out its plan to provide redress for plaintiffs’ claims. The trial would have a liability phase followed by a remedy phase in which the court would, on a going forward basis, would review and pass judgment on proposed complex executive branch plans and either veto or approve them before they were implemented. Juliana v. United States, 2023 WL 9023339 at *14 (D. Or. Dec. 29, 2023) (Aiken, J.).

The short Ninth Circuit May 1, 2024, order reversing that December 2023 district court opinion tied its decision to its 2020 decision. The Ninth Circuit stated that Uzuegbunam was irrelevant because it addressed damages, not declaratory relief. Order para. 4. The court also stated that in its 2020 decision it had already concluded that plaintiffs’ requested declaratory relief failed because it would not redress plaintiffs’ harms “‘absent further court action,’ which we held was unavailable.” Order para. 3 (quoting Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1170).

This appears to be the end of the Juliana litigation.