Description: Action by young plaintiffs asserting that the federal government violated their constitutional rights by causing dangerous carbon dioxide concentrations. [Due to a technical issue, some recent documents are currently not available.]
-
Juliana v. United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/04/2022 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority (Barke v. Banks). 02/17/2022 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs (Barke v. Banks). 11/29/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs. Juliana Plaintiffs Said Supreme Court Water Rights Decision Supported Their Request to Amend Complaint. The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority in which they argued that the Supreme Court’s November opinion in Mississippi v. Tennessee—which concerned rights to groundwater underlying eight states—supported “the broad principle that even after a case is dismissed for failing to plead a viable remedy, a motion to amend could be brought to cure the pleading deficiency.” The plaintiffs contended that the opinion therefore supported their motion for leave to file an amended complaint to address the Ninth Circuit’s determination that they did not have standing. 11/01/2021 Press Release Download Press release issued by plaintiffs regarding conclusion of settlement talks. Juliana Plaintiffs Announced End of Settlement Talks. On November 1, 2021, the law firm representing the youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, announced that settlement talks with the U.S. Department of Justice had ended the previous week without resolution. The announcement said the plaintiffs and their attorneys had concluded that there was no reason to continue the settlement discussions “until decision-makers for the federal defendants come to the settlement table.” The plaintiffs’ attorney said the plaintiffs would await a ruling from the district court on their motion to amend their complaint. 10/07/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion for entry of judgment. 09/23/2021 Declaration Download Declaration of Julia A. Olson filed in support of plaintiffs' opposition to motion for entry of judgment. 09/23/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to defendants' motion for entry of judgment. The plaintiffs opposed the defendants' motion for entry of judgment, arguing that instead Earth Guardians should be dropped as a plaintiff, at its request, pursuant to Rule 21. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants’ motion “appears to be part of a broader strategy to set up another early appeal or review by way of mandamus in connection with the pending Motion to Amend.” They contended that the court should issue “one final judgment at the conclusion of the case to avoid any further unnecessary early appeals.” 09/09/2021 Motion Download Motion for entry of judgment filed by defendants. Federal Government Sought Final Judgment Against Organizational Plaintiff in Juliana. After the organization Earth Guardians declined to join other plaintiffs in a motion to file an amended complaint in Juliana v. United States, the federal government filed a motion requesting entry of judgment against Earth Guardians. The government argued that because the Ninth Circuit had ordered that claims of all plaintiffs be dismissed and because Earth Guardians no longer was part of the plaintiffs’ efforts to amend the complaint, Earth Guardians’ claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. 07/20/2021 Reply Download Reply memorandum filed by Alabama and other states in support of motion for limited intervention. In Juliana v. United States, briefing was completed on the motion by states led by Alabama to intervene as defendants for the limited purpose of contesting the district court’s jurisdiction and to prevent a potential “collusive settlement” between the plaintiffs and the federal defendants. 07/16/2021 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authorities regarding motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to lift stay. On July 16, 2021, the federal defendants filed a response to plaintiffs’ notice of supplemental authority regarding four recent Supreme Court decisions that the plaintiffs argued supported their standing; the defendants said the decisions did not affect the Ninth Circuit’s determination that declaratory relief could not on its own redress an injury, and that the court therefore should deny the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. 07/16/2021 Supplement Download Plaintiffs filed supplement to their motion for leave to amend and file second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a supplement to their motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The modifications removed a plaintiff and substituted Biden administration officials as defendants. The plaintiffs also informed the court in the motion that they had decided not to seek to add nominal damages to their request for relief. 07/13/2021 Amicus Motion Download Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by Natural Resources Defense Council. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sought to file an amicus brief that argued that the court should deny the intervention motion without prejudice. NRDC reasoned that the states would not be prejudiced if intervention were deferred until the time of any proposed consent decree that might affect the states’ interests. 07/06/2021 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by New York and other states for leave to file brief as amici curiae. Six states, led by New York, filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amici in support of the plaintiffs; they asserted an “interest in correcting proposed intervenors’ erroneous assertions about purported collusion between the parties” in two lawsuits referenced in the motion to intervene, as well as an interest in correcting the proposed intervenor states’ “incomplete picture of the effects that federal action to address climate change will have on States and state residents.” 07/06/2021 Declaration Download Declaration of Julia A. Olson filed in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to motion for limited intervention. 07/06/2021 Opposition Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to motion for limited intervention. 07/06/2021 Reply Download Reply memorandum filed by Alabama and other states in support of motion for limited intervention. 07/01/2021 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authorities filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and file second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. 06/25/2021 Transcript Download Oral argument held. -
Juliana v. United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/05/2021 Motion Download Unopposed motion filed by plaintiffs-appellees to withdraw the motion to stay the mandate. The plaintiffs withdrew their motion to stay the mandate “[b]ecause Defendants’ position is clear that the issuance of the mandate does not preclude settlement or Plaintiffs’ ability to seek future relief from the issuance of the mandate.” 03/05/2021 Not Available Download Mandate issued. 03/01/2021 Opposition Download Opposition to motion to stay the mandate filed by appellants. The federal defendants filed their opposition to the motion to stay the mandate, arguing that the Supreme Court was unlikely to grant the petition, “much less reverse this Court’s judgment,” because the Ninth Circuit had applied settled precedent. The U.S. defendants also contended that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm, given that they would be able to obtain relief if the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. The defendants also noted that issuance of the mandate “is no impediment to settlement” since settlement remained possible so long as a case was pending, even if pending before the Supreme Court. 02/17/2021 Motion Download Motion to stay the mandate filed by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs contended that their certiorari petition would present substantial questions meriting Supreme Court review regarding the rights of children, and that there was good cause to stay the mandate due to the irreparable harm that would result from dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs’ arguments included that the Biden-Harris administration should be allowed the opportunity to decide whether to engage in settlement negotiations. 02/10/2021 Order Download Petition for rehearing en banc denied. Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing in Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Climate Case Against Federal Defendants. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied youth plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s January 2020 ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their constitutional claims against the United States and other federal defendants for infringing on the plaintiffs’ right to a life-sustaining climate system. 06/22/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs regarding supplemental authority (Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia). 06/22/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia). 06/03/2020 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority (In re: Flint Water Cases). 03/24/2020 Opposition Download Appellants filed opposition to petition for rehearing en banc. Federal Government Filed Brief Opposing Rehearing Request in Juliana. On March 24, 2020, the federal defendants filed their opposition to the rehearing petition. They argued that the panel had properly concluded that the plaintiffs sought no relief that the courts had the power to grant and that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the relief sought would “substantially redress” their injuries. The defendants also contended that there was no legal question of exceptional importance that warranted rehearing. 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae children's rights advocates in support of plaintiffs-appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. Children’s rights advocates filed a brief contending that the majority overlooked precedent recognizing “a special judicial role in protecting children where children are explicitly excluded from influencing policies detrimental to them.” 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees' petition for rehearing en banc by environmental and climate advocacy groups. Environmental groups argued that the majority improperly “infused political question principles into redressability analysis” and “failed to recognize that partial redressability is sufficient to establish standing,” which could create obstacles for the groups to obtain relief in the future. 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae former surgeons general in support of plaintiffs-appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. Two former Surgeons General argued that where the health and lives of children are at stake courts should intervene since children have no remedy at the “ballot box.” 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by academic centers in support of appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. Academic centers focused on issues of race, racial justice, and environmental justice said they supported rehearing because they were “deeply concerned that the majority’s decision will make it more difficult for individuals and groups to safeguard their civil rights in the courts.” 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by international organizations lawyers in support of plaintiffs-appellants' petition for rehearing en banc. International organizations and lawyers submitted a brief describing foreign jurisprudence that supported the redressability of the plaintiffs’ claims and judicial ability to review climate policies. 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by League of Women Voters of the U.S., League of Women Voters of Oregon, and National Children's Campaign as amici curiae in support of appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. Two League of Women Voters organizations and the National Children’s Campaign contended that the majority opinion “contravenes longstanding precedent and abdicates the judiciary’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, particularly those of children without voting power.” 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae members of Congress in support of plaintiffs-appellees. Members of Congress asserted that the courts had the power and the duty to remedy the plaintiffs’ constitutional injuries. 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae public health experts, public health organizations, and doctors in support of plaintiffs-appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. Public health experts and organizations and doctors submitted a brief describing the risks climate change poses to children’s health. 03/12/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by youth experts in support of plaintiffs-appellees. Seventeen of the experts who had prepared expert opinions in the Juliana case said their opinions went “to the salient issues in this case, including the ability of the federal government to redress the youth plaintiffs’ injuries.” 03/11/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae law professors in support of plaintiffs-appellees' petition for rehearing en banc. Law professors argued both that “the panel’s majority incorrectly invoked the political question doctrine in determining whether youth plaintiffs possess standing” and that there were “well-established judicially discoverable and manageable constitutional standards” to evaluate and remedy the plaintiffs’ claims. 03/02/2020 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing en banc filed by plaintiffs-appellees. Juliana Plaintiffs Sought En Banc Rehearing of Ninth Circuit Determination that They Lacked Standing. The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States sought en banc reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that they did not have standing to pursue their claims against the federal government for alleged violations of their constitutional rights, including a substantive due process right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit majority made “significant errors of law,” including by finding that declaratory relief was not sufficient to establish the redressability prong of standing. The plaintiffs also argued that the Ninth Circuit majority erroneously rejected partial redress of injury as a basis for standing, incorrectly concluded that Article III courts lacked power to institute a remedial plan to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries, and improperly “created a new redressability test infused with the political question analysis” from Supreme Court precedent. The plaintiffs contended that the Ninth Circuit’s decision therefore met every test for en banc reconsideration since it implicated “profoundly important issues” of catastrophic climate change harms to children; conflicted with Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit, and sister circuit law; and affected the national uniformity of the application of the law of redressability. The plaintiffs asserted that an en banc rehearing was particularly appropriate in this case because it involved children’s constitutional rights. They said that over the past decade, the Ninth Circuit had “consistently granted rehearing in cases where children’s constitutional rights were denied by the 3-judge panel, only denying rehearing in such cases where the 3-judge panel originally upheld the children’s rights or allowed them to pursue their claims in another tribunal.” 01/17/2020 Opinion Download District court's certified orders reversed and case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing; plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal denied; plaintiffs' motions for judicial notice granted. Divided Ninth Circuit Said Juliana Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Press Constitutional Climate Claims Against Federal Government. In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that young people and other plaintiffs asserting a claim against the federal government for infringement of a Fifth Amendment due process right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life” did not have Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed the orders of the federal district court for the District of Oregon denying the government’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. The Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s argument that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims had to be brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs met the injury and causation requirements for Article III standing because at least some plaintiffs had alleged concrete and particularized injuries caused by fossil fuel carbon emissions that were increased by federal subsidies and leases. The Ninth Circuit found, however, that the plaintiffs had not established the redressability requirement for standing. The court said it was “skeptical” that even the first prong of redressability—that the relief sought be substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries—was satisfied, noting that the plaintiffs conceded “that their requested relief will not alone solve global climate change.” The Ninth Circuit further concluded that even if the first prong was satisfied, the plaintiffs did not “surmount the remaining hurdle” of establishing that the relief they sought was within the power of Article III courts. The majority wrote that “[t]here 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 said it was beyond judicial power “to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan.” The majority said it “reluctantly” concluded that “the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large” and “[t]hat the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.” The dissenting judge would have held that the plaintiffs had standing and that they had asserted claims under the Constitution and presented sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial. The dissent contended that “a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.” 12/27/2019 Response Download Response filed by appellants to appellees' supplemental motion seeking judicial notice. 12/20/2019 Motion Download Supplemental motion filed by plaintiffs seeking judicial notice in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion under Circuit Rule 27-3(b) for preliminary injunction. 09/16/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by federal government in response to plaintiffs-appellees' September 6, 2019 notice of supplemental authority. 09/06/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 08/09/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellants in response to the federal government's August 6, 2019 letter regarding supplemental authority. 08/06/2019 Letter Download Letter regarding supplemental authority filed by the federal government. 08/06/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees in response to August 1, 2019 notice of supplemental authority. 08/01/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by federal government regarding supplemental authority. 07/24/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the federal government regarding supplemental authority. 07/12/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by federal government in response to the plaintiffs-appellees' July 5, 2019 letter regarding supplemental authority. 07/10/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 07/05/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by plaintiffs-appellees regarding supplemental authority. 06/04/2019 Not Available Oral argument held. Oral argument in the Juliana appeal was held on Tuesday, June 4. Judge Mary H. Murguia, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, and Judge Laura Staton (a district court judge for the Central District of California) are on the panel hearing the case. Video of the argument is available on the Ninth Circuit’s website. 05/28/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority submitted by plaintiffs-appellees. On May 28, the plaintiffs identified another Ninth Circuit decision as relevant to the issue of whether the district court had appropriately determined that the plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the standing issue. 05/22/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by plaintiffs seeking judicial notice of federal government documents. On May 22, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking judicial notice of certain federal government documents released since the plaintiffs completed briefing on their urgent motion, including documents concerning the effects of a fossil fuel-based energy system and press releases on new authorizations for coal, oil, and gas extraction on public lands and in federal offshore areas. The plaintiffs asserted that the documents both “provide additional evidence of Defendants’ systemic practices that serve to intensify and lock in Plaintiffs’ irreparable harms” and also “confirm the severity of Plaintiffs’ irreparable injuries by presenting additional evidence that the U.S. fossil fuel-based energy system is further expanding.” 05/20/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority submitted by plaintiffs-appellees. On May 20, the plaintiffs wrote to bring President Trump’s Executive Order 13868 on “Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth” to the Ninth Circuit’s attention, arguing that the order was relevant to their standing to challenge federal energy policies and practices. 05/16/2019 Response Download Response filed to plaintiffs' May 8, 2019 notice of supplemental authority. The government responded to the plaintiffs' May 8 notice of supplemental authority, arguing that the case was not pertinent to any of these issues. 05/08/2019 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority submitted by plaintiffs-appellees. On May 8, the plaintiffs wrote that the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in an action challenging statewide policies and practices in Arizona’s foster care system was pertinent to the Juliana plaintiffs’ standing, as well as to the issues of judicial authority to hear systemic due process cases and the plaintiffs’ state-created danger claim. 03/08/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. Briefing Completed, Oral Argument Scheduled for June 4 in Juliana v. United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for the federal government’s appeal in Juliana v. United States to take place in Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 9:30 AM. Briefing was completed on March 8 when the federal government filed its reply brief. The government rearticulated its arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their lawsuit was not a cognizable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution. The government contended that a “quick look at the climate change issues and actions pending before Congress and the Executive Branch”—including the Green New Deal, carbon tax legislation, and the replacement for the Clean Power Plan—“confirms that Plaintiffs have petitioned the wrong branch.” The government also argued that the plaintiffs were required to proceed under the Administrative Procedure Act and that their constitutional claims failed on the merits. In addition, the government countered the plaintiffs’ argument that the Ninth Circuit should reconsider its decision to permit the appeal. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of business amici curiae filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by Center for International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by EarthRights International, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Union of Concerned Scientists in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae environmental history professors filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees' answering brief. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae Food & Water Watch, Inc., Friends of the Earth - US, and Greenpeace, Inc. in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae law professors. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amici curiae brief of Leagues of Women Voters filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amici curiae brief of members of the United States Congress filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Niskanen Center filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae public health experts, public health organizations, and doctors filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees seeking affirmance. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Sierra Club filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Sunrise Movement Education Fund filed. 03/01/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae Zero Hour on behalf of approximately 32,340 children and young people filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. 02/28/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amicus curiae International Lawyers for International Law filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees. International Lawyers for International Law submitted an amicus brief “in the interest of ensuring the proper understanding and application of both domestic and international law on the right to a judicial remedy when fundamental rights are infringed.” 02/28/2019 Amicus Motion Download Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief for amici curiae Eco-Justice Ministries et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellees' brief. Faith organizations filed an amicus brief describing “the religious and moral bases for the concept of the public trust and the obligations to future generations, both of which can be found in the underlying values and doctrines of many faiths and religious beliefs.” 02/26/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by plaintiffs-appellees in support of urgent motion for preliminary injunction. 02/22/2019 Brief Download Answering brief filed by plaintiffs-appellants. Plaintiffs Filed Answering Brief. On February 22, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their answering brief on the merits of the appeal. The brief began by asking the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its certification of the interlocutory appeal. The plaintiffs argued that the district court orders did not address most of the plaintiffs’ claims, meaning that—except for the issues relating to standing and whether the lawsuit was required to be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—the case would go forward regardless of how the Ninth Circuit ruled. The plaintiffs further argued that the APA and standing issues did not meet the test for interlocutory review. The plaintiffs then proceeded to argue that the district court had jurisdiction of the case, that the district court had not erred in allowing the case to proceed directly under the Constitution, and that they had asserted valid substantive due process, state-created danger, and public trust claims. 02/19/2019 Opposition Download Opposition filed by appellants to motion for injunction pending appeal. Government Opposed Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. On February 19, 2019, the government filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, asserting that it should be denied both because of the plaintiffs’ “long delay” in seeking preliminary relief and also because the plaintiffs did not satisfy any of the four factors for preliminary injunctive relief. The government argued that the timing of the plaintiffs’ motion exposed their strategy of delaying appellate review since interlocutory appellate review would have been automatic had the plaintiffs sought and received preliminary injunctive relief. On the merits of the motion, the government contended that the plaintiffs were required to meet a heightened standard since they sought relief that went “well beyond simply maintaining the status quo.” Reiterating the arguments made in its opening brief, the government said the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims. The government also argued that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing that they would be irreparably harmed in the absence of the relief during the pendency of the appeal. Finally, the government asserted that the balance of harms and the public interest both weighed against granting injunctive relief. The government again cited the plaintiffs’ delay in seeking preliminary relief and contested the plaintiffs’ “blithe assertion” that the injunction would not result in harm to employment, the economy, energy security, or the treasury. 02/07/2019 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae Nuckels Oil Co. et al. filed in support of defendants-appellants United States of America. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Dr. James E. Hansen filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of James H. Williams filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.) filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Joseph E. Stiglitz, Ph.D filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Eric Rignot, Ph.D filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Steven W. Running filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Peter A. Erickson filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Aji P. filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Journey Z. filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Nicholas V. filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Levi D. filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Mark Z. Jacobson filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Kevin E. Trenberth filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Jerome A. Paulson filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Declaration Download Declaration of Julia A. Olson filed in support of plaintiffs' urgent motion for a preliminary injunction. 02/07/2019 Motion Download Urgent motion under Circuit Rule 27-3(b) for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs-appellees. Juliana Plaintiffs Asked Ninth Circuit to Bar Federal Authorizations of Fossil Fuel Development and Infrastructure During Government’s Appeal. On February 7, 2019, the youth plaintiffs in the climate change-based constitutional case against the federal government filed an “urgent motion” in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the government’s appeal of the Oregon district court’s denial of the governments’ motions to end the case. The plaintiffs asked the court to bar the government from authorizing the following activities “in the absence of a national plan that ensures the … authorizations are consistent with preventing further danger” to the plaintiffs: (1) mining or extraction of coal on federal public lands; (2) offshore oil and gas exploration, development, or extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf; and (3) development of new fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines and fossil fuel export facilities. The plaintiffs argued that the immediate relief was necessary to preserve their ability to obtain a remedy that would address their injuries and protect the public interest. The plaintiffs filed 16 declarations in support of their motion, including the declarations of several individual plaintiffs attesting to “intense impacts to their mental and emotional wellbeing” and declarations of the plaintiffs’ experts on climate science, climate change impacts, and the connection between climate change and the government’s decisions and actions. 02/04/2019 Order Download Calendaring order issued. On February 4, 2019, the Ninth Circuit announced that oral argument in the Juliana v. United States appeal would be calendared during the week of June 3-7, 2019 in Portland, Oregon. The court later also sought information on the parties’ availability during the weeks of July 8 and October 21. 02/01/2019 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants. Government Filed Opening Ninth Circuit Brief in Juliana. The government filed its opening brief in the appeal on February 1. The government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the lawsuit “is categorically not a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III” because it would require courts to “review and assess the entirety of Congress’s and the Executive Branch’s programs and regulatory decisions relating to climate change and then to pass on the comprehensive constitutionality of all of those policies, programs, and inaction in the aggregate.” The government also contended that the plaintiffs were required to proceed under the Administrative Procedure Act and that their constitutional claims were without merit. In addition, the government asserted that there was no federal public trust doctrine and that, even if there were, the Clean Air Act had displaced it. The government further argued that even if the federal public trust doctrine existed and had not been displaced, it would not cover the “climate system” or atmosphere. 02/01/2019 Not Available Download Government filed excerpts of record (Volume 1). 02/01/2019 Not Available Download Government filed excerpts of record (Volume 2). 02/01/2019 Not Available Download Government filed excerpts of record (Volume 3). 01/07/2019 Order Download Motion to expedite granted in part. Expedited Briefing Schedule Set. On January 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule for the government’s appeal, partially granting the plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the schedule. The government must file its opening brief by February 1, a response brief is due February 22, and an optional reply brief would be due March 8. The court denied as moot the government’s request that its obligation to respond to the motion to expedite be postponed due to the government shutdown. 01/04/2019 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs-appellees to the request of defendants-appellants to postpone their obligation to respond to motion to expedite appeal. 01/03/2019 Request Download Request filed by defendants-appellants to postpone their obligation to respond to plaintiffs-appellees' motion to expedite appeal. 01/02/2019 Motion Download Motion filed by plaintiffs-appellees to expedite appeal and to set schedule for briefing and oral argument. -
Juliana v. United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/26/2018 Order Download Petition for permission to appeal granted. With One Judge Dissenting, Ninth Circuit Permitted Federal Government Appeal in Young People’s Climate Case. On December 26, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s petition for permission to appeal an Oregon federal court’s decisions allowing constitutional climate change claims brought by a group of young people to proceed. Judge Friedland dissented from the order, writing that she believed the district court’s statements in its order certifying the decisions for interlocutory appeal prevented the Ninth Circuit from permitting the appeal because the district court “expressed that it does not actually think that the criteria for certification are satisfied.” Certification for interlocutory appeal requires (1) that the “order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and (2) that “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Judge Friedland said it appeared that the court “felt compelled” to declare that certification requirements were satisfied due the Supreme Court’s statements that “[t]he breadth of [the] claims is striking, … and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion” and by the Ninth Circuit’s echoing of those statements. Judge Friedland noted that the decision whether to certify was left to the district court’s discretion, and that while the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court might be “as well-positioned as the district court” to consider the first “purely legal” requirement for certification, the district court “is far better positioned” to assess the second requirement, which concerns “how to resolve the litigation most efficiently.” In a footnote, Judge Friedland wrote that “[i]t is also concerning that allowing this appeal now effectively rewards the Government for its repeated efforts to bypass normal litigation procedures,” and that “[i]f anything has wasted judicial resources in this case, it was those efforts.” 12/20/2018 Motion Download Emergency motion filed by plaintiffs to lift stay in Case No. 18-73014, or, alternative, expedite review of petitions for writ of mandamus (18-73014) and permission for interlocutory appeal (18-80176). 12/19/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to defendants' motion for leave to file reply. 12/14/2018 Motion Download United States filed motion for leave to file reply and reply in support of petition for permission to appeal. 12/10/2018 Answer Download Answer filed in opposition to defendants' petition for permission to appeal. 11/30/2018 Petition Download Petition for permission to appeal filed by United States and other federal parties. -
Juliana v. United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/06/2021 Opposition Download Brief filed by defendants in opposition to motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and to lift the stay. The defendants opposed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, arguing that it was barred by the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which included “unambiguous” instructions to the district court to dismiss the case, and that amendments would be futile. 03/19/2021 Order Defendants' motion for extension of time granted. 03/18/2021 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 03/17/2021 Declaration Download Declaration of Julia A. Olson filed in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 03/17/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 03/15/2021 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 03/09/2021 Complaint Download [Proposed] second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed. 03/09/2021 Motion Download Plaintiffs filed motion for leave to amend and file second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and motion to lift the stay. Juliana Plaintiffs Sought to Amend Complaint to Add Request for Declaratory Relief. After the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc of its decision that youth plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their constitutional climate change claims against the federal government, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the federal district court in Oregon seeking leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs argued that the amended complaint cured the redressability issue that formed the basis for the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The plaintiffs contended that their amended complaint sought “only relief … that is traditionally granted and well within this Court’s Article III authority.” Specifically, the proposed amended complaint sought relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act and omitted requests for “specific relief,” including a remedial plan, that the Ninth Circuit determined would be outside the authority of Article III courts. 09/17/2019 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene and consolidate as plaintiff-intervenor filed by individual who was pro se litigant in District of Arizona case. 09/17/2019 Order Motion to intervene denied. 01/08/2019 Order Download Order issued denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and reaffirming that the proceedings are stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal before the Ninth Circuit. District Court Reaffirmed Stay of Proceedings. On January 8, 2019, the federal district court for the District of Oregon denied the Juliana plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of its November 2018 order staying the proceedings pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit. Addressing questions raised by the plaintiffs concerning the status of the proceedings, the court reaffirmed that the proceedings were stayed until final disposition of the government’s Ninth Circuit appeal. 12/27/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for reconsideration. 12/17/2018 Response Download Response filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. 12/05/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. 12/05/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by plaintiffs for reconsideration of November 21, 2018 court ordered stay of proceedings. The plaintiffs’ December 5 motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 21 order staying the proceedings was still pending at the beginning of January 2019. In a reply filed on December 27 in support of the motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs said they believed the stays granted by the district court and the Ninth Circuit had both been lifted due to the Ninth Circuit’s acceptance of the appeal and the denial of the mandamus petition. The plaintiffs contended that the district court should continue with certain proceedings, including supervision of “minimal outstanding discovery,” resolution of pretrial motions, hearing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief that the plaintiffs were preparing, and presiding at trial over particular questions that the plaintiffs said were not at issue in the pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit. 11/21/2018 Notice Download Plaintiffs filed notice of supplemental authority. 11/21/2018 Order Download Order issued certifying case for interlocutory appeal and staying case pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit. Oregon Federal District Court Stayed Young People’s Climate Case for Government to Pursue Interlocutory Appeal. On November 21, 2018, the federal district court for the District of Oregon certified for interlocutory appeal its decisions denying the government's dispositive motions in the case brought by youth plaintiffs claiming that the government’s actions and inaction contributing to a dangerous climate system violated their constitutional rights. The district court issued its order reversing its previous denials of the government’s requests for interlocutory appeal almost two weeks after the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s consideration of a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the government. The government had also filed motions in the district court for reconsideration of the denial of interlocutory appeal and for a stay. In its order certifying the case for interlocutory appeal, the district court noted that the Ninth Circuit had “invited” the district court to revisit its decision to deny interlocutory review. (The Ninth Circuit stated: “The district court is … requested to promptly resolve petitioners’ motion to reconsider the denial of the request to certify orders for interlocutory review.”) The district court also noted that although it had been “aware of federal defendants’ concerns and their interest in pursuing an interlocutory appeal” over the course of the proceedings, the court’s belief had been “that a bifurcated trial might present the most efficient course for both the parties and the judiciary.” The court said it had believed that reserving interlocutory appeal until after the liability phase would allow appellate courts the benefit of a fully developed record. The court wrote that it “stands by its prior rulings on jurisdictional and merits issues, as well as its belief that this case would be better served by further factual development at trial,” but said that it had reviewed the record and taken particular note of the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit orders and now found “sufficient cause to revisit the question of interlocutory appeal.” The court said it therefore “exercise[d] its discretion” to certify the case for interlocutory appeal and stayed the case pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit. The district court denied the government’s motions for reconsideration and a stay as moot and stayed consideration of other pending motions. 11/21/2018 Order Download Order issued staying consideration of pending motions and denying motions for reconsideration and stay as moot. 11/20/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants to exclude witnesses from plaintiffs' witness list or, in the alternative, to compel depositions. 11/20/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion in limine to exclude expert opinion testimony of Professor Catherine Smith. 11/16/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion to strike plaintiffs' corrected proposed pretrial order. 11/16/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion in limine to strike the improper rebuttal report and exclude the testimony of Dr. Akilah Jefferson. 11/16/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion to strike plaintiffs' trial exhibit list, or, in the alternative, objections to plaintiffs' trial exhibit list. 11/16/2018 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of opinion and order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' first motion in limine seeking judicial notice. 11/15/2018 Motion Download Defendants filed motion for a one week extension of time to file their reply in support of their motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of six experts. 11/15/2018 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to interrogatories. 11/14/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion to reconsider denial of requests to certify orders for interlocutory review. 11/13/2018 Response Download Defendants filed response to plaintiffs' third motion in limine for judicial notice. 11/09/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion to stay litigation. 11/09/2018 Notice Download Defendants filed notice of errata to their motion to strike plaintiffs' trial exhibit list, or, in the alternative, objections to plaintiffs' trial exhibit list. 11/09/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion to stay litigation. 11/09/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion to reconsider denial of requests to certify orders for interlocutory review. 11/08/2018 Not Available Download Minutes of proceedings of status conference filed. 11/07/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' supplemental objections to defendants' exhibits. 11/07/2018 Objection Download Plaintiffs filed supplemental objection to defendants' exhibits. 11/06/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs’ response in opposition to defendants’ motion in limine to exclude expert opinion testimony of Professor Catherine Smith. 11/06/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion in limine to exclude expert testimony of Professor Catherine Smith. 11/05/2018 Motion Download Motion to stay litigation filed by defendants. 11/05/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants for reconsideration of denial of requests to certify orders for interlocutory review. 11/05/2018 Notice Download Defendants filed notice of their filing of a petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit. 11/02/2018 Declaration Download Declaration of Julia Olson filed in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' trial exhibit list. 11/02/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to strike proposed pretrial order. 11/02/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of six experts. 11/02/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by plaintiffs for reconsideration of opinion and order on plaintiffs' first motion in limine seeking judicial notice. 11/02/2018 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiffs to motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of six experts. 11/02/2018 Request Download Request for immediate status conference filed by plaintiffs. 11/02/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to strike trial exhibit list. 11/02/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to strike proposed pretrial order. 11/02/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs to motion for judicial notice of congressional hearing reports. 10/24/2018 Order Download Order issued staying case. 10/19/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed by plaintiffs in support of objections to defendants' exhibit list. 10/19/2018 Exhibit Download Exhibit list filed by plaintiffs. 10/19/2018 Exhibit Download Exhibit list filed by defendants. 10/19/2018 Motion Download Defendants filed motion to strike plaintiffs' trial exhibit list or, in the alternative, objections to plaintiffs' trial exhibit list. 10/18/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants to strike plaintiffs' proposed pretrial order. 10/18/2018 Not Available Download Corrected proposed pretrial order filed by plaintiffs. 10/18/2018 Notice Download Defendants filed notice of filing of petition for writ of mandamus in Supreme Court. 10/18/2018 Notice Download Defendants filed notice of application to the Supreme Court for a stay. 10/18/2018 Notice Download Plaintiffs filed notice of errata to proposed pretrial order. 10/17/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to interrogatories. 10/17/2018 Motion Download Motion filed by plaintiffs to compel responses to interrogatories. 10/17/2018 Not Available Download Amended witness list filed by plaintiffs. 10/15/2018 Motion Download Motion for judicial notice of congressional hearing reports filed by defendants. 10/15/2018 Motion Download Motion in limine filed by defendants to exclude expert opinion testimony of Professor Catherine Smith. 10/15/2018 Motion Download Third motion in limine seeking judicial notice of publicly available documents filed by plaintiffs. 10/15/2018 Motion Download Motion in limine filed by defendants to exclude certain testimony of six experts. 10/15/2018 Not Available Download Proposed pretrial order filed by plaintiffs. 10/15/2018 Not Available Download Witness list filed by plaintiffs. 10/15/2018 Not Available Download Witness list filed by defendants. 10/15/2018 Opinion and Order Download Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment granted in part and denied in part. The federal district court for the District of Oregon granted in part and denied in part the federal government's motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings in the case brought by young people asserting constitutional claims against the United States and other federal defendants. The court declined to rule for the defendants at this stage on the primary claims advanced by the plaintiffs: a "state-created danger" due process claim and a public trust claim. The court dismissed President Trump from the action and also granted summary judgment to defendants on the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment claim and on an equal protection claim based on “posterity” being a suspect classification. The court said, however, that an equal protection claim based on alleged interference with a right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life would be aided by further development of a factual record. 10/15/2018 Opinion and Order Download Plaintiffs' first motion in limine requesting judicial notice of documents granted in part and denied in part. 10/15/2018 Order Download Defendants' motion for stay pending Supreme Court review denied. 10/12/2018 Notice Download Notice filed of filing of petition for a writ of mandamus in Ninth Circuit requesting a stay of district court proceedings pending Supreme Court review. 10/12/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of second motion in limine seeking judicial notice of publicly available documents. 10/11/2018 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to stay discovery and trial pending Supreme Court review. 10/05/2018 Motion Download Motion to stay discovery and trial pending Supreme Court review filed by defendants. 10/04/2018 Transcript Download Status conference held. 09/28/2018 Order Download Motion to amend pretrial deadlines granted. 09/28/2018 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' second motion in limine seeking judicial notice. 09/26/2018 Motion Download Motion to amend pretrial deadlines filed by defendants. On September 26, the defendants moved to amend the deadline for exchanging exhibit lists from October 1 to October 12. The defendants contended that the parties “will be in no position to provide a meaningful or complete exhibit list by October 1, 2018, particularly given the number of depositions, scheduled for the first two weeks in October and the need for counsel to prepare for those depositions.” The defendants indicated that the plaintiffs opposed the request. The court granted the defendants’ motion on September 28. 09/20/2018 Order Download Scheduling order issued. Trial Set to Begin in Late October in Young People’s Climate Change Case Against Federal Government. On September 20, 2018, the federal district court for the District of Oregon issued a scheduling order setting trial dates for the climate change constitutional lawsuit brought by young people against the federal government. The order set the trial to begin on Monday, October 29. The trial is expected to last 8 to 12 weeks (at least through January with court closures for holidays). The federal government’s motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings are still pending, as are motions by the plaintiffs concerning whether the court may take judicial notice of certain documents. NOTE: The original version of this update indicated incorrectly that the trial was expected to last two weeks. 09/14/2018 Declaration Download Second supplemental declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers filed in support of plaintiffs' reply in support of motion in limine seeking judicial notice of federal government documents. 09/05/2018 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by defendants. The federal government filed a notice with the court to inform it of the dismissal of New York City's lawsuit against oil and gas companies and of the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by 12 young people against the State of Washington. The defendants characterized both decisions as finding "that a judicial solution for claims arising out of climate change—like that requested in this case—is barred by the separation of powers." The court also noted that Washington decision had found no constitutional right to a stable and healthy climate. 09/05/2018 Response Download Response filed by defendants to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. On September 5, the federal government filed its response to the plaintiffs’ submission on August 24 of a notice of supplemental disputed facts in support of their opposition to the summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs’ notice was based on information in the federal government’s expert reports. The government urged the court not to consider the supplemental disputed facts, calling their submission “untimely and procedurally improper” and asserting that the plaintiffs’ claims “are legally deficient in ways that cannot be saved by any amount of factual development.” 08/27/2018 Not Available Status conference held. During a status conference on August 27, the court set a deadline of October 15 for submission of witness lists, exhibits lists, trial memoranda, objections to exhibits and motions in limine and set a pretrial conference for October 23. 08/24/2018 Appendix Download Appendix A filed with plaintiffs' second motion in limine seeking judicial notice of publicly available documents. 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by Howard J. Herzog (Senior Research Engineer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Herzog's report is an "Opinion re 'Expert Report of Mark Jacobson, Ph.D.' April 6, 2018." 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by Norman I. Klein MD (Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by Dr. Arthur Partikian (Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Neurology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California; Director, Division of Child Neurology, Los Angeles County + U.S.C. Medical Center; Senior Physician, L.A. County Department of Health Services) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by Professor Daniel A. Sumner (Frank H. Buck, Jr., Distinguished Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis; Director, University of California Agricultural Issues Center) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by Professor James L. Sweeney (Professor of Management Science and Engineering; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Precourt Institute for Energy, and Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by David G. Victor (Professor, University of California, San Diego) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Victor's report includes opinions regarding the plaintiffs' expert reports of Peter A. Erickson and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 08/24/2018 Exhibit Download Defendants' expert report by Professor John P. Weyant (Professor of Management Science and Engineering, Director of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), and Deputy Director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University; Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy) filed as exhibit to plaintiffs' notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 08/24/2018 Motion Download Plaintiffs filed second motion in limine seeking judicial notice of publicly available documents. 08/24/2018 Notice Download Plaintiffs filed notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants' expert reports in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. On August 24, the plaintiffs submitted a notice of supplemental disputed facts raised by defendants’ expert reports to support their opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is pending before the court after oral argument in July. The defendants’ eight expert reports were attached as exhibits to the plaintiffs’ notice. 08/16/2018 Not Available Download Minutes of proceedings entered by court. At a status conference on August 16, the magistrate judge allowed the defendants’ extra time to file a rebuttal report. He also set a deadline of September 19 for the plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert reports. 08/16/2018 Status Report Download Joint status report filed. Discovery Proceeded in Juliana. In the climate change case brought by young people against the federal government in the federal district court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a status report on August 16, 2018. The issues discussed by the parties included the status of discovery, including the defendants’ service of its expert reports on August 13. The parties also presented their positions in discovery disputes concerning, among other issues, the scheduling of depositions of the plaintiffs (which the plaintiffs asserted must be conducted during the summer before school started or be waived) and a late expert report served by the plaintiffs. 08/15/2018 Declaration Download Supplemental declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers filed in support of plaintiffs' reply in support of motion in limine seeking judicial notice of federal government documents. 08/03/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion in limine seeking judicial notice of federal government documents. 08/01/2018 Notice Download Notice of order of U.S. Supreme Court filed by defendants. After the Supreme Court denied the defendants' request for a stay of the litigation, the government filed a notice with the district court suggesting that the Court’s order had two implications for the case. First, the government said the Court’s order was relevant to its requests that the district court certify for interlocutory appeal any denial of its dispositive motions because the Court’s order indicated that the “substantial grounds for difference of opinion” factor for interlocutory appeal was met. Second, the government said the district court should make the “prompt ruling” on the dispositive motions to which the Supreme Court referred. 07/24/2018 Response Download Response to plaintiffs' motion in limine filed by defendants. On July 24, the federal government responded to the plaintiffs’ motion seeking judicial notice of 386 documents. The government said it did not object to the district court taking judicial notice of 286 documents created by defendant agencies that appeared to be authentic. The government took no position on 58 government documents that were not created by defendant agencies and opposed judicial notice for 42 documents “that are not government reports from government sources but are instead reports, news articles, videos, and scientific articles produced by third parties as well as documents which are purported to be government documents but for which no source is provided, or the source is a third-party website.” These 42 documents include documents of international entities such as the United Nations. 07/12/2018 Order Download Order issued granting defendants' motion to extend time for response to motion in limine. 07/11/2018 Motion Download Unopposed motion for extension of time filed by defendants for response to motion in limine seeking judicial notice of government documents. 06/29/2018 Order Download Defendants' motion for protective order and stay denied by district court. District Court Judge Affirmed Denial of Discovery Stay in Juliana Case; Dispositive Motions Pending. On June 29, 2018, Judge Aiken of the federal district court for the District of Oregon affirmed a magistrate judge’s denial of the federal government’s motion for a protective order and stay of all discovery in the young people’s lawsuit asserting violations of constitutional rights to a climate system capable of sustaining human life. The judge declined to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. 06/28/2018 Declaration Download Declaration of Dr. Harold R. Wanless filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Declaration Download Declaration of James E. Hansen filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Declaration Download Declaration of Dr. Mark Jacobson filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Declaration Download Declaration of James Gustave "Gus" Speth filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of Dr. Harold R. Wanless (Professor of Geological Sciences, University of Miami) filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of James E. Hansen, Ph.D. (Director of Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program, Earth Institute, Columbia University) filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of James H. Williams, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, University of San Francisco, Director of Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project) filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of Kevin E. Trenberth, Sc.D. (Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Head, Climate Analysis Section) filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of Steven W. Running, Ph.D. (University Regents Professor Emeritus of Global Ecology, University of Montana, Missoula) filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of Eric Rignot, Ph.D., filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of Mark Jacobson, Ph.D. (Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Director, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University) filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Expert report of Susan E. Pacheco, MD, and Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP, filed by plaintiffs in support of opposition to motion for summary judgment. 06/28/2018 Exhibit Download Motion for protective order filed by defendants. 06/14/2018 Order Download Motion to stay discovery denied. Judge Aiken denied the federal government’s motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of their objections. In this earlier order, the judge said the defendants had not clearly explained what irreparable harm they would suffer in the absence of a stay and also found that irreparable harm was not likely under the circumstances. The court also said the defendants’ concerns regarding the balance of hardships should be addressed with “specific objections to specific discovery requests, rather than by a blanket stay of all discovery.” 06/14/2018 Order Download 05/04/2018 Request Download Plaintiffs served first set of requests for admissions to defendant U.S. Department of Agriculture. 05/04/2018 Request Download Plaintiffs served requests for admissions to U.S. Department of the Interior. 05/10/2017 Motion Download Motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs' requests for admissions filed by intervenor-defendants. 05/01/2017 Findings and Recommendations Download Findings and recommendations issued recommending denial of motions for leave to appeal; federal defendants' motion for a stay pending consideration of the motion for leave to appeal denied. In Young People’s Climate Lawsuit Against U.S., Federal Magistrate Recommended Denial of Motions to Certify Case for Appeal. A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Oregon recommended denial of motions by federal defendants and by intervenor oil and gas trade groups to certify the district court’s denial of motions to dismiss the lawsuit brought by young people alleging that the defendants violated rights protected by the Constitution by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to accumulate. The magistrate rejected the intervenors’ contention that the issue of whether the political question doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ claims should be certified. The magistrate judge said that the court would be capable of granting equitable relief that would not “micro manage” federal agencies or make policy judgments in the event the plaintiffs prevailed. The magistrate “emphatically rejected” any contention that the topic of “climate change” was “formed and determined by political values and is thus a non-justiciable political question” and said that climate change was “quintessentially a subject of scientific study and methodology, not solely political debate” and that courts were “particularly well-suited for the resolution of factual and expert scientific disputes.” The magistrate further indicated that the issues in the case “and the fundamental constitutional rights presented” would not be “well served by certifying a hypothetical question to the Court of Appeals bereft of any factual record or any record at all beyond the pleadings.” The magistrate judge indicated that the federal defendants’ significant admissions regarding the threats posed by human-induced climate change had, “if anything, … enhanced” the plaintiffs’ due process claim and that any appeal would be premature because the taking of evidence was necessary to “flesh out… critical issues.” The magistrate judge also was not persuaded that certification should be granted for the public trust claim, indicating that the federal defendants were relying on an overly expansive reading of Supreme Court precedent to narrow the scope of the federal public trust obligations. In recommending denial of certification on the issue of the plaintiffs’ standing, the magistrate said that the alleged harms to the plaintiffs from climate change should not be “minimalized by the fact that vast numbers of the populace are exposed to the same injuries.” The magistrate noted that numerous factual questions would be addressed at trial (e.g. “Is climate change occurring?” “If so, to what extent is it being caused by fossil fuel production?), and said the defendants and the intervenors “would put the cart before the horse” by certifying hypothetical questions before the relevant factual issues were addressed. The parties were given 14 days to file written objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, followed by 14 days to file a response to the objections. 04/24/2017 Motion Download Motion filed by federal defendants to clarify April 10, 2017 minute order. 04/10/2017 Reply Download Reply filed in support of federal defendants' motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal. 04/10/2017 Reply Download Reply filed by federal defendants in support of motion to stay. 04/10/2017 Reply Download Reply filed in support of intervenor-defendants' motion for certification order for interlocutory appeal. 04/10/2017 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to federal defendants' motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal. 04/03/2017 Objection Download Intervenor-defendant American Petroleum Institute filed objections and responses to plaintiffs' request for production of documents. 04/03/2017 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to intervenor defendants' motion for certification of order for interlocutory appeal. 04/03/2017 Response Download Response filed by plaintiffs in opposition to federal defendants' motion to stay litigation. 04/03/2017 Status Report Download Joint status report filed. 03/10/2017 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed by intervenor-defendants in support of motion for certification of order for interlocutory appeal. 03/10/2017 Motion Download Motion filed by intervenor-defendants for certification of order for interlocutory appeal. 03/07/2017 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed in support of federal defendants' motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal. 03/07/2017 Motion Download Motion filed by federal defendants to certify order for interlocutory appeal. Federal Government and Industry Groups Asked Oregon District Court for Immediate Appeal of Denial of Motions to Dismiss in Young People’s Climate Case. In the action brought by young people in Oregon alleging violations of their constitutional rights arising from the federal government’s actions and inaction leading to increased carbon dioxide emissions, the federal government and industry trade groups intervening on the federal government’s behalf filed motions to certify for appeal the federal district court’s order denying their motions to dismiss. The federal defendants’ motion sought review of five questions that the defendants said were controlling questions of law for which “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” The questions involved whether plaintiffs had adequately alleged “invasion of a legally protected and judicially-cognizable interest in maintaining ‘a climate system capable of sustaining human life,”” whether they had adequately pleaded the causation and redressability elements of standing, whether they had a “constitutionally-protected fundamental life, liberty, or property interest in a ‘climate system’ with a particular atmospheric level of CO2” that federal agencies had a duty to protect even if taking action would contravene existing statutes and regulations, and whether they had a cognizable public trust doctrine claim. The intervenor-defendants—National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and American Petroleum Institute—joined in requesting review of these questions and also sought review of the question of whether the political question doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ claims. The federal defendants and intervenor-defendants both sought expedited review of their motions and to stay litigation. 03/07/2017 Motion Download Motion filed by federal defendants to stay litigation. 03/07/2017 Status Report Download Plaintiffs filed status report as of March 7, 2017 with proposed schedule. Plaintiffs Asked Court for Accelerated Schedule. On the day the federal defendants filed their motions, the plaintiffs filed a status report in which they indicated that the intervenor-defendants had not responded to the plaintiffs’ request for substantive responses to the complaint’s factual allegations. The plaintiffs also asked the court to issue an order requiring the federal defendants to provide climate change-related information from federal websites as it existed on January 19, 2017, to facilitate plaintiffs in conducting informal discovery. The plaintiffs said they had served document requests on the United States, the Executive Office of the President, and each of the intervenors in March, and argued that the intervenors should be subject to fact discovery. The plaintiffs also proposed dates for a scheduling order that would allow a trial to start on November 6, 2017, citing “the urgency of the climate crisis and in light of the well-publicized fact that the Federal Defendants are acting now to accelerate fossil fuel development.” 02/17/2017 Request Download Plaintiffs served request for production of documents to intervenor-defendant American Petroleum Institute. 02/09/2017 Substitution of Parties Download Substitution of parties filed by plaintiffs to substitute Donald J. Trump as a named party in place of Barack Obama. 01/27/2017 Order Motion to compel deposition testimony of Rex Tillerson denied. Oregon Federal Court Said That Secretary of State-Designate Tillerson Was Not Required to Appear for Deposition in Young People’s Climate Lawsuit. In the lawsuit brought by young people asserting that the federal government’s actions and inaction led to increased carbon dioxide emissions and violated their constitutional rights, the federal district court for the District of Oregon denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the intervenor-defendant trade groups to make Rex Tillerson available for a deposition. Tillerson, now Secretary of State, is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon); at the time the plaintiffs served a notice of deposition for Tillerson, he was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of defendant-intervenor American Petroleum Institute (API). Tillerson left Exxon and the API board after President Trump nominated him as Secretary of State. The court said the intervenor-defendants—API, National Association of Manufacturers, and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers—were not obligated to produce Tillerson for a deposition because he was no longer affiliated with them. 01/26/2017 Response Download Response filed by federal defendants to the parties' positions on discovery dispute. 01/25/2017 Brief Download Brief filed by intervenor-defendants regarding notice of deposition. 01/25/2017 Memorandum Download Initial memorandum filed by plaintiffs to attempt informal resolution of discovery dispute regarding deposition of Rex Tillerson. 01/13/2017 Answer Download Answer filed by federal defendants. The federal defendants filed their answer a week before President Obama left office. The answer included admissions regarding factual allegations of climate change’s impacts, but the federal defendants denied that they had caused climate change or specific climate change impacts such as increased temperatures, drought conditions, warmer water temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification. 12/15/2016 Answer Download Answer filed by intervenor-defendants. The intervenor-defendants filed their answer a month earlier than the federal defendants. The intervenors’ answer denied most of the complaint’s factual allegations, including those related to climate change impacts, on the ground that the intervenors lacked sufficient information to admit or deny them. 11/10/2016 Opinion and Order Download Motion to dismiss denied. Oregon Federal Court Said Young People Could Pursue Constitutional Claims to Compel Federal Climate Action. In an action seeking to compel federal action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the federal district court for the District of Oregon denied motions to dismiss public trust and due process claims against the United States and federal officials and agencies. The plaintiffs—young people who alleged that excessive carbon emissions were threatening their future, a non-profit group, and “Future Generations” represented by a climate scientist—alleged that the defendants had known for decades of the dangers of carbon dioxide pollution and had nonetheless take actions that increased emissions. The court held that the action did not raise a nonjusticiable political question because it asked the court to determine whether defendants had violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, a question “squarely within the purview of the judiciary.” The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged standing to sue. In determining that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a due process claim, the court said that the plaintiffs had asserted a fundamental right “to a climate system capable of sustaining human life” and that the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the defendants’ role in creating the climate crisis, the defendants’ knowledge of the consequences of their actions, and the defendants’ deliberate indifference in failing to act to prevent the harm were sufficient to state a “danger-creation” due process claim. In finding that the plaintiffs had adequately stated a public trust claim, the court said that it was not necessary to determine whether the atmosphere was a public trust asset because the plaintiffs had also alleged the claim in connection with the territorial sea, to which the Supreme Court had said “[t]ime and again” that the public trust doctrine applies. The court also rejected the arguments that the public trust doctrine does not apply to the federal government and that federal environmental statutes displaced public trust claims. The court also was not persuaded that plaintiffs lacked a cause of action to enforce public trust obligations, concluding that the public trust claims were substantive due process claims and that the Fifth Amendment provided a right of action. 09/12/2016 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by League of Women Voters of the United States in support of plaintiffs. 04/08/2016 Findings and Recommendations Download Findings and recommendations issued recommending that motions to dismiss be denied. Federal Magistrate Said Constitutional Claims on Climate Change Should Survive Motion to Dismiss. A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Oregon recommended denial of motions to dismiss a suit brought against the United States by a group of young people who alleged that excessive carbon emissions are threatening their future. The magistrate judge emphasized that, on a motion to dismiss, he was accepting all the complaint's allegations as true. With respect to standing, the magistrate judge found that the plaintiffs had established that action or inaction contributing to climate change had injured the plaintiffs in “a concrete and personal way” and that plaintiffs “differentiate[d] the impacts by alleging greater harm to youth and future generations.” With respect to redressability, the magistrate judge said that it could not say, “without the record being developed, that it is speculation to posit that a court order to undertake regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to protect the public health will not effectively redress the alleged resulting harm.” The magistrate also recommended that the court decline to dismiss on political question grounds, and that the court should not dismiss for failure to state a substantive due process claim. The magistrate also recommended against dismissal of “any notions” that the Due Process Clause provides a substantive right under the public trust doctrine. This recommendation now goes to a district court judge, who after briefing will decide whether to adopt, modify, or reject it. 01/14/2016 Order Download 01/14/2016 Order Download Motion to intervene granted. Oregon Federal Court Allowed Industry Groups to Intervene in Young People’s Climate Lawsuit. The federal district court for the District of Oregon allowed the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and the American Petroleum Institute (API) to intervene as of right in a climate change lawsuit brought by a number of individual plaintiffs aged 19 or younger, an environmental organization, and a plaintiff identified as “Future Generations.” The plaintiffs alleged that the federal government’s actions—and failures to take action—deprived the plaintiffs of constitutionally protected rights by allowing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere. The court found that NAM, AFPM, and API had a “significantly protectable interest” because the relief sought by the plaintiffs would “change the very nature” of their business. The court also said that there was “no question” that the proposed intervenors’ interests would be impaired by any court-mandated regulation to eliminate emissions and that the intervenors’ presence was “necessary to fully and fairly put those issues before the court.” The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ contention that the government was “essentially pro-fossil fuel industry” and would adequately represent the interests of NAM, AFPM, and API. 11/17/2015 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed. Federal Government Asked Oregon Federal Court to Dismiss Young People’s Action to Compel Reductions in Carbon Emissions. The United States moved to dismiss an action brought 21 individuals, all aged 19 or younger, to compel federal government defendants to take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions so that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will be no greater than 350 parts per million by 2100. In addition to the individual plaintiffs, the complaint also named “Future Generations” as a plaintiff. The U.S. contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not alleged a particularized harm that was traceable to defendants’ actions. The U.S. also said the alleged injuries were not redressable and that the plaintiffs’ claims raised separation of powers issues. The U.S. also argued that Future Generations had alleged no injury in fact. In addition, the U.S. said the plaintiffs had not stated a constitutional claim and that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over public trust doctrine lawsuits because such claims arise under state law. 11/12/2015 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed. The National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and American Petroleum Institute moved to intervene in the action. 09/10/2015 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 08/12/2015 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Youth Plaintiffs Asserted Constitutional Claims Against Federal Government for Failure to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Twenty-one individual plaintiffs, all age 19 or younger, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Oregon against the United States, the president, and various federal officials and agencies. The individuals were joined by the non-profit organization Earth Guardian and a plaintiff identified as “Future Generations,” which is represented by Dr. James Hansen, a climate scientist and former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who also submitted a declaration in support of the complaint. The plaintiffs asked the court to compel the defendants to take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions so that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be no greater than 350 parts per million by 2100. The plaintiffs alleged that the “nation’s climate system” was critical to their rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the defendants had violated their substantive due process rights by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at “dangerous levels.” The plaintiffs also asserted an equal protection claim based on the government’s denial to them of fundamental rights afforded to prior and present generations. They also asserted violations of rights secured by the Ninth Amendment, which the plaintiffs said protects “the right to be sustained by our country’s vital natural systems, including our climate system.” The plaintiffs also alleged that defendants failed to fulfill their obligations under the public trust doctrine. -
United States v. U.S. District Court for District of Oregon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/26/2018 Order Download Petition for writ of mandamus denied. The Ninth Circuit denied as moot the government’s pending mandamus petition, which was filed after the Supreme Court denied its application for a stay. The Ninth Circuit also denied all other pending motions as moot, including the Juliana plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a lifting of stay previously granted by the Ninth Circuit. 11/23/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by United States in support of petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion under Circuit Rule 27-3. 11/23/2018 Status Report Download Joint report on status of discovery and relevant pretrial matters filed by real parties in interest. 11/21/2018 Notice Download Notice of supplemental authority filed by United States to advise court of district court's order certifying case for interlocutory appeal. 11/19/2018 Declaration Download Declaration filed in support of answer of real parties in interest to petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion. 11/18/2018 Answer Download Real parties in interest filed answer to petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion. 11/08/2018 Order Download Motion for temporary stay of district court proceedings granted in part. 11/05/2018 Petition Download Petition for a writ of mandamus and emergency motion under Circuit Rule 27-3 filed by United States et al. -
In re United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/23/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by United States informing court of district court's certification of the case for interlocutory appeal. After the district court stayed proceedings, the government told the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit (in submissions made in connection with its pending mandamus petitions) that it would file a petition for permission to appeal in the Ninth Circuit by December 3 and that it expected to seek dismissal of the mandamus petitions if the Ninth Circuit permitted appeal. 11/19/2018 Brief Download Brief filed in opposition to petition for writ of mandamus. 10/18/2018 Petition Download Petition for writ of mandamus filed by United States. Concurrently with its application to the Supreme Court for a stay, the federal government also filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the district court. Alternatively, the government said the Court could view its request either as a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s judgment denying mandamus or as a common-law writ of certiorari for review of the district court’s ruling on the dispositive motions. -
In re United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/02/2018 Order Download Application for stay denied. On November 2, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order denying the federal government's application for a stay of district court proceedings in the constitutional climate case brought by young plaintiffs in the District of Oregon. The Court also vacated an administrative stay granted by Chief Justice Roberts on October 19. The federal government had sought a stay pending the Court's disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the suit. The Court said the petition for a writ of mandamus did not have a "fair prospect" of success because the government could still seek mandamus relief in the Ninth Circuit. The Court noted that while the Ninth Circuit had denied two earlier requests for mandamus relief in this case, "the court’s basis for denying relief rested, in large part, on the early stage of the litigation, the likelihood that plaintiffs’ claims would narrow as the case progressed, and the possibility of attaining relief through ordinary dispositive motions." The Supreme Court indicated that those reasons were, "to a large extent, no longer pertinent" since a 50-day trial was scheduled to begin on October 29, 2018 and had been held in abeyance only because of Chief Justice Roberts's administrative stay. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas would have granted the stay. 10/24/2018 Reply Download Reply brief filed in support of application for a stay pending disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus. 10/22/2018 Response Download Response brief filed by respondents Juliana et al. to application for stay and request for administrative stay. The plaintiffs filed a response to the government’s stay application on October 22. They argued that staying the case and reaching the substantive constitutional questions “prematurely” would “deprive this Court of the record necessary for considered appellate review of the claims presented, profoundly disrupt the separation of powers underlying this Court’s most vital role, severely interfere with the orderly administration and resolution of cases and the reservation of appellate consideration until after final judgment, and unnecessarily undermine the confidence of the American people in our Nation’s justice system.” They contended that the government had not established any likelihood of irreparable harm that could not be corrected on appeal after trial, and that, on the other hand, the young plaintiffs were already suffering irreparable harm due to accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions and would continue to be irreparably harmed by additional delay. They also argued that it was “fairly unlikely” that a majority of the Court would vote to intervene in the case at this stage of the proceedings. 10/19/2018 Order Download Discovery and trial stayed. On October 19, 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s application for an administrative stay of discovery and trial in the case brought by young people asserting constitutional claims against the United States and other federal defendants, Proceedings were stayed pending further order of Chief Justice Roberts or of the Court. The trial had been scheduled to start on October 29. Chief Justice Roberts ordered the stay four days after the federal district court for the District of Oregon largely denied the federal government’s dispositive motions in the case. 10/18/2018 Application Download United States filed application for stay pending disposition of petition for writ of mandamus and request for administrative stay. In an application to the Supreme Court for a stay several days after the district court denied its dispositive motions, the federal government argued that the district court “manifestly erred” in recognizing a fundamental right to certain climate conditions in a “deeply flawed” and nonjusticiable case in which the court lacked jurisdiction. The government contended that the upcoming trial would “violate bedrock requirements for agency decisionmaking and judicial review,” constituting “obvious harms” to the government, while the harms to plaintiffs from additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere while the government’s mandamus petition was pending were “plainly de minimis.” -
United States v. U.S. District Court for District of Oregon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/02/2018 Order Download Emergency motion for a stay denied. On November 2, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the federal government's emergency motion for a stay of district court proceedings pending Supreme Court review. The Ninth Circuit said that Chief Justice Roberts's granting of a stay of the litigation on October 19 rendered the government's "non-substantive" motion moot. (The Ninth Circuit issued its order just hours before the Supreme Court denied the government's stay application and vacated the Chief Justice's stay.) 10/16/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by government regarding district court's denial of motion to stay discovery and trial pending Supreme Court review. 10/15/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by federal government to advise Ninth Circuit of district court's denial of dispositive motions. 10/12/2018 Petition Download Petition for a writ of mandamus requesting a stay of district court proceedings pending Supreme Court review and emergency motion under Circuit Rule 27-3 filed by United States et al. -
United States v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/30/2018 Order Download Application for stay denied. Supreme Court Denied Federal Government’s Request to Halt Kids’ Climate Lawsuit. On July 30, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government’s application for a stay of the young people’s climate change lawsuit pending in the federal district court for the District of Oregon, which is scheduled for trial beginning on October 29, 2018. The Supreme Court’s order denying the stay application said the request for relief was premature and denied the request without prejudice. The Court also noted that “[t]he breadth of respondents’ claims is striking, however, and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion.” The Court said the district court “should take these concerns into account in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt ruling on the Government’s pending dispositive motions.” 07/23/2018 Response Download Response brief filed by respondents Juliana et al. 07/20/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by Solicitor General. After the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s second mandamus petition on July 20, the federal government indicated in a letter to the Supreme Court that the alternative course of action of construing its stay application as a petition for writ of certiorari or mandamus was “even more warranted” because “nothing relevant remains to be done in the lower courts.” 07/17/2018 Application Download Application filed for a stay pending disposition by the Ninth Circuit of the petition for writ of mandamus and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court; U.S. also requested administrative stay. The federal government filed a stay application in the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending consideration of a second petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the government on July 5, 2018. The federal government asked the Supreme Court for a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s consideration of the mandamus petition and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court, and also requested an administrative stay pending the Court’s ruling on the stay application. Alternatively, the federal government suggested that the Supreme Court could construe its application as a petition for writ of mandamus or petition for writ of certiorari from the Ninth Circuit’s March 2018 decision denying mandamus and directly order dismissal of the action or a stay pending the resolution of the federal government’s pending dispositive motions. -
United States v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/20/2018 Opinion Download Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Ninth Circuit Declined to Halt Kids’ Climate Lawsuit Against Federal Government. In its opinion denying the second petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice, the Ninth Circuit found that no new circumstances justified the second petition. The Ninth Circuit said the government had not satisfied the five factors for mandamus at this stage of the proceedings, and stated: “It remains the case that the issues that the government raises in its petition are better addressed through the ordinary course of litigation.” The Ninth Circuit rejected, among other arguments, the government’s contention that it would be prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal because agency officials would have to answer questions on the topic of climate change. The Ninth Circuit characterized the government as arguing that answering such questions could constitute “agency decisionmaking,” which would require adherence to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Ninth Circuit said the government “cites no authority for the proposition that agency officials’ routine responses to discovery requests in civil litigation can constitute agency decisionmaking that would be subject to the APA.” The Ninth Circuit also again rejected the argument that proceeding with discovery and trial would violate separation of powers. The Ninth Circuit indicated that the federal government could challenge “any specific discovery order that it believes would be unduly burdensome or would threaten the separation of powers” but that “[p]reemptively seeking a broad protective order barring all discovery does not exhaust the government’s avenues of relief.” 07/16/2018 Order Download Emergency motion for stay of discovery and trial denied. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-page order denying the United States' emergency motion for stay of discovery and trial. The court said it would hear the petition for writ of mandamus on an expedited basis. 07/13/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by petitioners regarding district court order scheduling oral argument on summary judgment motion for July 18, 2018. 07/11/2018 Reply Download Reply filed by petitioners in support of emergency motion for stay of discovery and trial. 07/10/2018 Response Download Response brief to emergency motion for stay of discovery and trial filed by real parties in interest. 07/05/2018 Petition Download Petition for a writ of mandamus and emergency motion for a stay of discovery and trial filed by the United States. -
United States v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/27/2018 Order Application granted by Justice Kennedy extending time to file until August 4, 2018. 06/25/2018 Application Download The U.S. solicitor general submitted a request for another extension of time within which the federal government may file a petition for writ of certiorari for review of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of the U.S.’s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal of the Juliana case. The U.S. sought to extend the filing deadline from July 5 to August 6. 05/29/2018 Order Download Application granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 5, 2018. 05/24/2018 Application Download Application filed for extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. -
United States v. U.S. District Court for District of Oregon
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/07/2018 Opinion Download Defendants' petition for writ of mandamus denied without prejudice. Ninth Circuit Declined to Intervene in Young People’s Climate Change Case Against Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on March 7 that the United States and other federal petitioners had not met the “high bar” for the appellate court to order a district court to dismiss the climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young people in the District of Oregon. The Ninth Circuit found that the issues raised by the petitioners—the threat of burdensome discovery and concerns regarding separation of powers—were “better addressed through the ordinary course of litigation.” The Ninth Circuit said the request for relief from potentially burdensome discovery was “entirely premature” because the district court had not issued a single discovery order and the plaintiffs had not filed a single motion to compel discovery. The Ninth Circuit also said it was “not persuaded that simply allowing the usual legal processes to go forward” would threaten the separation of powers. The opinion noted that Congress had not exempted the government from the normal rules of appellate procedure, “which anticipate that sometimes defendants will incur burdens of litigating cases that lack merit but still must wait for the normal appeals process to contest rulings against them.” In addition, the Ninth Circuit found that the conceded absence of controlling precedent weighed strongly against finding clear error in the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit also said that the novelty of the issues presented did not warrant the relief sought because the denial of the motion to dismiss did not present a risk that the issues would evade appellate review. 11/16/2017 Order Download Oral argument scheduled. Ninth Circuit to Hear Oral Argument on December 11 in Young People’s Climate Case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for Monday, December 11 on the United States’ petition for writ of mandamus seeking to bar the climate lawsuit filed by young people and “future generations” from proceeding in federal district court in Oregon. In November 2016, the district court denied motions to dismiss the action, allowing public trust and due process claims to proceed. After unsuccessfully seeking permission for interlocutory appeal, the United States filed the petition for writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court committed clear error in denying the motions to dismiss and was acting outside its jurisdiction. 09/11/2017 Reply Download Reply submitted in support of petition for writ of mandamus. 09/05/2017 Amicus Motion Download Consent motion filed by Center for International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide – US for leave to file amicus brief in opposition to petition for writ of mandamus. 09/05/2017 Amicus Motion Download Motion to file amicus brief in opposition to petition for writ of mandamus filed by Food & Water Watch, Inc., Friends of the Earth – US, and Greenpeace, Inc. 09/05/2017 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Niskanen Center to appear as amicus curiae in support of respondent and real parties in interest. 08/28/2017 Answer Download Answer filed by real parties in interest. 07/28/2017 Order Download Order issued setting schedule. On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit ordered the real parties in interest (the plaintiffs in the district court action) to file a response within 30 days to the United States' petition for writ of mandamus. The Ninth Circuit directed the parties to “address the status of all current discovery requests; report all pending discovery deadlines; and identify any ongoing or expected discovery disputes.” The Ninth Circuit also said the parties should address whether the real parties in interest’s constitutional challenge to Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act was within the district court’s jurisdiction. (Section 201 concerns authorization of imports and exports of natural gas. In its petition, the United States contended that the plaintiffs’ claim regarding an export authorization for an Oregon liquefied natural gas terminal was “indisputably” beyond the district court’s jurisdiction because exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the courts of appeals.) The Ninth Circuit order said the district court could also file a response if it desired to do so. The judges on the panel are Alfred T. Goodwin (Nixon appointee), Alex Kozinski (Reagan appointee), and Marsha S. Berzon (Clinton appointee). 07/25/2017 Order Download Ninth Circuit Put Young People’s Climate Lawsuit on Hold. On July 25, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed district court proceedings in the lawsuit brought by a group of young people and “future generations” in federal district court in Oregon alleging that the federal government had violated their constitutional rights by contributing to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The United States filed a petition for writ of mandamus and request for stay in the Ninth Circuit on June 9, 2017, arguing that the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit was based on clear error. 06/26/2017 Reply Download Reply filed in support of request for stay of district court proceedings. 06/19/2017 Brief Download Brief filed by plaintiffs in underlying suit opposing request for stay of district court proceedings. 06/09/2017 Petition Download Petition for writ of mandamus filed. United States Asked Ninth Circuit to Stay Proceedings in Climate Case in Oregon District Court. A day after the federal district court denied motions to certify for interlocutory appeal its denial of motions to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to hold the federal government liable for climate change, the federal defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting a stay of the proceedings in the district court. The federal government argued that denial of the motion to dismiss was based on clear error and that mandamus was warranted to confine the district court to the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction.