In re United States
Decision Date | 02 November 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 18A410.,18A410. |
Citation | 202 L.Ed.2d 344,139 S.Ct. 452 (Mem) |
Parties | In Re UNITED STATES, et al., applicants. |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Government seeks a stay of proceedings in the District Court pending disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus, No. 18–505, ordering dismissal of the suit. In such circumstances, a stay is warranted if there is (1) "a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to grant mandamus," and (2) "a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay." Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010)(per curiam) . Mandamus may issue when "(1) ‘no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief [the party] desires,’ (2) the party's ‘right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable,’ and (3) ‘the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’ " Ibid . (quoting Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–381, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) ). "The traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction ... has been to confine [the court against which mandamus is sought] to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction." Id . at 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576 (quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943) ).
The Government contends that these standards are satisfied here because the litigation is beyond the limits of Article III. The Government notes that the suit is based on an assortment of unprecedented legal theories, such as a substantive due process right to certain climate conditions, and an equal protection right to live in the same climate as enjoyed by prior generations. The Government further points out that plaintiffs ask the District Court to create a "national remedial plan" to stabilize the climate and "restore the Earth's energy balance."
The District Court denied the Government's dispositive motions, stating that Juliana v. United States, 217 F.Supp.3d 1224, 1261 (D.Ore.2016). The District Court declined to certify its orders for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ( ). See this Court's order of July 30, 2018, No. 18A65 ( ).
At this time, however, the Government's petition for a writ of mandamus does not have a "fair prospect" of success in this Court because adequate relief...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Juliana v. United States
...concerns. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or. , No. 18-73014, Dkt.3; see In re United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 452, 453, 202 L.Ed.2d 344 (2018) (reiterating justiciability concerns in denying a subsequent stay application from the government). The district court......
-
Juliana v. United States
...justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion."); see also United States v. U.S. District Court , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 452, 202 L.Ed.2d 344 (2018) (mem) (referencing the Court’s July 30th order as "noting that the ‘striking’ breadth of plaintiffs......
-
THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY STAYS.
...U.S. 1328 (1983) (Rehnquist, C.J., opinion in chambers); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (per curiam); In re United States, 139 S. Ct. 452 (2018) (53.) See, e.g., Valentine v. Collier, 140 S. Ct. 1598 (2020) (mem.); Trump v. Sierra Club, 140 S. Ct. 1 (2019) (mem.); Barr v. Roane......
-
The constitutional right to save the environment
...(last visited Nov. 18, 2021). 16. United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Oregon, 139 S. Ct. 1 (2018); In re United States, 139 S. Ct. 452 (2018) . 1-2022 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 52 ELR 10011 Copyright © 2022 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission fr......