​Case Evaluation: Juliana v. United States of America

 

Introduction

​

Juliana v. United States is a climate change lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs, aged 8 to 19 at the time, against the U.S. federal government. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s affirmative actions violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources such as air, water, and land. The government, in turn, contended that the issue was a matter for the legislative and executive branches, not the judiciary, and moved for dismissal.

 

This case showed a rare convergence of constitutional law, environmental ethics, and intergenerational justice. It challenges the role of law in addressing systemic, forward-looking harms and tests whether courts can defend rights that are indirectly violated through policy and inaction.

 

Plaintiffs' Position: Rights-Based Climate Protection

The youth plaintiffs, represented by the nonprofit law firm Our Children's Trust, framed their case around constitutional and public trust doctrines:

 

Legal Arguments

Substantive Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment)

Plaintiffs argued that the federal government's role in contributing to climate change violated their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. By knowingly permitting policies that would warm the planet, the government allegedly created dangerous living conditions that threatened their futures.

 

Equal Protection Clause

Though not the main pillar, the plaintiffs suggested that young people were being unfairly burdened by environmental degradation caused by previous generations.

 

Public Trust Doctrine

Drawing from environmental law, plaintiffs argued the federal government held the climate and natural resources in trust for the people, and its failure to safeguard these violated this duty.

 

Rhetorical and Strategic Approaches

​

Moral Authority of Youth

The plaintiffs’ age became a rhetorical tool. Their youth amplified the urgency and moral weight of the case. Their lived experience with worsening environmental conditions made them emotionally credible and symbolically powerful.

 

Scientific Backing

Plaintiffs submitted hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed climate science, drawing a direct causal link between U.S. government actions and measurable climate impacts (e.g., sea-level rise, droughts, extreme weather).
 

Historical Narrative

Plaintiffs established a timeline showing that the U.S. government had known of climate dangers since at least the 1960s, using internal memos and reports to argue that current policies were not just neglectful but willfully harmful.

 

Defense of Position

Plaintiffs did not claim that courts should design environmental policy, but rather that courts should recognize constitutional violations and compel the political branches to create a plan to reduce carbon emissions.

 

Emphasized the non-political nature of their rights claim: they weren't asking for new laws, but for existing rights to be upheld.

 

Government’s Position: Political Question Doctrine & Lack of Standing

The federal government, under both the Obama and Trump administrations, took a firm stance against the case, arguing that the courts were not the proper venue for this type of dispute.

 

Legal Arguments

​

Lack of Standing

The government argued that the plaintiffs could not show sufficient injury, causation, or ability to redress the three requirements for standing. Since climate change is global, they claimed, the U.S. alone could not be directly blamed, and courts could not offer a meaningful remedy.

 

Political Question Doctrine

The defense held that climate change policy is a matter reserved for the legislative and executive branches, not the judiciary. Ordering a climate action plan, they argued, would be a separation of powers violation.

 

No Fundamental Right to a “Stable Climate”

The government asserted that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee environmental rights, and that defining such a right would create new judicial precedent unsupported by existing law.

 

Rhetorical and Strategic Approaches

​

Procedural Emphasis

The government downplayed the moral weight of the plaintiffs' story and focused on procedural technicalities standing, jurisdiction, and judicial overreach.

 

Avoidance of Climate Denial

Notably, the government did not deny climate change or U.S. contributions to it, which gave the impression of moral abdication, even as it relied on legal formalism.
 

Slippery Slope Argument

They argued that allowing the judiciary to mandate national energy policy could open the door to courts being asked to resolve any number of large-scale policy issues, creating an unmanageable legal precedent.

 

Court Response

​

Over several years, the case advanced through various procedural hurdles. In 2016, the U.S. District Court in Oregon ruled that the case could go to trial, recognizing that the plaintiffs' claims were novel but not clearly unfounded.

 

However, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case in a 2-1 decision, stating that although the plaintiffs made compelling arguments, the remedy they sought was beyond the power of the courts to grant. The majority held that redressability was lacking: the court couldn’t order a national climate policy, and thus, the plaintiffs lacked standing.

 

The dissenting opinion, written by Judge Josephine Staton, was strongly worded:

 

“It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.”

 

She affirmed the existence of a fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life, echoing the plaintiffs’ core thesis.

 

Assessment of Argumentation and Strategy

 

Plaintiffs strengths:

 

• Humanized the issue with real stories and health threats.

 

• Grounded in constitutional language and scientific evidence.

 

• Bold enough to challenge systemic injustice.

 

Plaintiffs weaknesses:

 

• Over-reliance on courts for redress may have been legally overreaching.

 

• Public trust doctrine is traditionally used for state, not federal, governance.

 

Government strengths:

 

• Strong procedural footing.

 

• Avoided political controversy by focusing on separation of powers.

 

Government weaknesses:

 

• Failed to engage morally or ethically.

 

• Public perception viewed this as hiding behind legal process to avoid responsibility.

 

In a technical legal sense, one could argue that the courts followed existing precedent by dismissing the case for lack of standing and overreach. From a moral and ethical standpoint, however, justice was not served.

 

The judiciary acknowledged the threat of climate change but refused to act, effectively leaving an entire generation vulnerable. The plaintiffs convincingly demonstrated that their rights were endangered by state action and inaction. The fact that no judicial forum would even hear the full merits of their case reflects a profound institutional failure.

 

While the court may not have had the power to legislate a national policy, it could have declared a violation of constitutional rights and demanded that the political branches address it, similar to how courts have handled racial segregation or marriage equality.

 

Therefore, justice was not served, not because the courts were hostile, but because the system is structurally unequipped to deal with intergenerational crises like climate change. The case of Juliana v. The United States exposes not only the legal limits of constitutional interpretation but the ethical gaps in our framework of justice itself.