Juliana v. United States

• Decision Date: 17 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-36082,18-36082
• Citation: 947 F.3d 1159
• Parties: Kelsey Cascadia Rose JULIANA; Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., through his Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; Alexander Loznak; Jacob Lebel; Zealand B., through his Guardian Kimberly Pash-Bell; Avery M., through her Guardian Holly McRae; Sahara V., through her Guardian Toa Aguilar; Kiran Isaac Oommen; Tia Marie Hatton; Isaac V., through his Guardian Pamela Vergun; Miko V., through her Guardian Pamel Vergun; Hazel V., through her Guardian Margo Van Ummerson; Sophie K., through her Guardian Dr. James Hansen; Jaime B., through her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai; Journey Z., through his Guardian Erika Schneider; Victoria B., through her Guardian Daisy Calderon; Nathaniel B., through his Guardian Sharon Baring; Aji P., through his Guardian Helaina Piper; Levi D., through his Guardian Leigh-Ann Draheim; Jayden F., through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin; Nicholas V., through his Guardian Marie Venner; Earth Guardians, a nonprofit organization; Future Generations, through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America; Mary B. Neumayr, in her capacity as Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality; Mick Mulvaney, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and the Budget; Kelvin K. Droegemeir, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy ; Dan Brouillette, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; U.S. Department of the Interior; David L. Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of Interior; U.S. Department of Transportation; Elaine L. Chao, in her official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; United States Department of Agriculture; Sonny Perdue, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; United States Department of Commerce; Wilbur Ross, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; United States Department of Defense; Mark T. Esper, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; United States Department of State; Michael R. Pompeo, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; Andrew Wheeler, in his official capacity as Administrator of the EPA; Office of the President of the United States; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of Energy; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

947 F.3d 1159

Kelsey Cascadia Rose JULIANA; Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., through his Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; Alexander Loznak; Jacob Lebel; Zealand B., through his Guardian Kimberly Pash-Bell; Avery M., through her Guardian Holly McRae; Sahara V., through her Guardian Toa Aguilar; Kiran Isaac Oommen; Tia Marie Hatton; Isaac V., through his Guardian Pamela Vergun; Miko V., through her Guardian Pamel Vergun; Hazel V., through her Guardian Margo Van Ummerson; Sophie K., through her Guardian Dr. James Hansen; Jaime B., through her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai; Journey Z., through his Guardian Erika Schneider; Victoria B., through her Guardian Daisy Calderon; Nathaniel B., through his Guardian Sharon Baring; Aji P., through his Guardian Helaina Piper; Levi D., through his Guardian Leigh-Ann Draheim; Jayden F., through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin; Nicholas V., through his Guardian Marie Venner; Earth Guardians, a nonprofit organization; Future Generations, through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.UNITED STATES of America; Mary B. Neumayr, in her capacity as Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality; Mick Mulvaney, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and the Budget; Kelvin K. Droegemeir, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy ; Dan Brouillette, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; U.S. Department of the Interior; David L. Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of Interior; U.S. Department of Transportation; Elaine L. Chao, in her official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; United States Department of Agriculture; Sonny Perdue, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; United States Department of Commerce; Wilbur Ross, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; United States Department of Defense; Mark T. Esper, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; United States Department of State; Michael R. Pompeo, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; Andrew Wheeler, in his official capacity as Administrator of the EPA; Office of the President of the United States; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Department of Energy; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 18-36082

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 4, 2019 Portland, Oregon

Filed January 17, 2020

HURWITZ, Circuit Judge:

In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were "on the eve of destruction."¹ The plaintiffs in this case have presented compelling evidence that climate change has brought that eve nearer. A substantial evidentiary record documents that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change, and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse.

The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a "climate system capable of sustaining human life." The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to "phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2." Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.

I.

The plaintiffs are twenty-one young citizens, an environmental organization, and a "representative of future generations." Their original complaint named as defendants the President, the United States, and federal agencies (collectively, "the government"). The operative complaint accuses the government of continuing to "permit, authorize, and subsidize" fossil fuel use despite long being aware of its risks, thereby causing various climate-change related injuries to the plaintiffs. Some plaintiffs claim psychological harm, others impairment to recreational interests, others exacerbated medical conditions, and others damage to property. The complaint asserts violations of: (1) the plaintiffs’ substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (2) the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of the law; (3) the plaintiffs’ rights under the Ninth Amendment; and (4) the public trust doctrine. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to "phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide]."²

The district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, raised justiciable questions, and stated a claim for infringement of a Fifth Amendment due process right to a "climate system capable of sustaining human life." The court defined that right as one to be free from catastrophic climate change that "will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem." The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had stated a viable "danger-creation due process claim" arising from the government’s failure to regulate third-party emissions. Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs had stated a public trust claim grounded in the Fifth and the Ninth Amendments.

The government unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandamus. In re United States , 884 F.3d 830, 837–38 (9th Cir. 2018). Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court denied the government’s motion for a stay of proceedings. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Or. , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1, 201 L.Ed.2d 1112 (2018). Although finding the stay request "premature," the Court noted that the "breadth of respondents’ claims is striking ... and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion." Id.

The government then moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted summary judgment on the Ninth Amendment claim, dismissed the President as a defendant, and dismissed the equal protection claim in part.³ But the court otherwise denied the government’s motions, again holding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and finding that they had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. The court also rejected the government’s argument that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy was under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq .

The district court initially declined the government’s request to certify those orders for interlocutory appeal. But, while considering a second mandamus petition from the government, we invited the district court to revisit certification, noting the Supreme Court’s justiciability 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 then reluctantly certified the orders denying the motions for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stayed the proceedings, while "stand[ing] by its prior rulings ... as well as its belief that this case would be better served by further factual development at trial." Juliana v. United States , No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA, 2018 WL 6303774, at *3 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2018). We granted the government’s petition for permission to appeal.

II.

The plaintiffs have compiled an extensive record, which at this stage in the litigation we take in the light most favorable to their claims. See Plumhoff v. Rickard , 572 U.S. 765, 768, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014). The record leaves little basis for denying that climate change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace. It documents that since the dawn of the Industrial Age, atmospheric carbon dioxide has skyrocketed to levels not seen for almost three million years. For hundreds of thousands of years, average carbon concentration fluctuated between 180 and 280 parts per million. Today, it is over 410 parts per million and climbing. Although carbon levels rose gradually after the last Ice Age, the most recent surge has occurred more than 100 times faster; half of that increase has come in the last forty years.

Copious expert evidence establishes that this unprecedented rise stems from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked. Temperatures have already risen 0.9 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and may rise more than 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The hottest years on record all fall within this decade, and each year since 1997 has been hotter than the previous average. This extreme heat is melting polar ice caps and may cause sea levels to rise 15 to 30 feet by 2100. The problem is approaching "the point of no return." Absent some action, the destabilizing climate will bury cities, spawn life-threatening natural disasters, and jeopardize critical food and water supplies.

The record also conclusively establishes that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions. As early as 1965, the Johnson Administration cautioned that fossil fuel emissions threatened significant changes to climate, global temperatures, sea levels, and other stratospheric properties. In 1983, an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") report projected an increase of 2 degrees Celsius by 2040, warning that a "wait and see" carbon emissions policy was extremely risky. And, in the 1990s, the EPA implored the government to act before it was too late. Nonetheless, by 2014, U.S. fossil fuel emissions had climbed...