202
UNITED STATES JULIANA 40. As with Urgenda, the Juliana v United States case involves a matter filed by a non-profit on behalf of 21 plaintiffs who have asserted their constitutional rights, in particular their right to life, liberty and property protected by the Fifth Amendment in addition to the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment157. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, and alleged that by supporting energy policies that promote a fossil fuel economy, the US Government has violated their constitutional rights and endangered the climate for present and future generations158. Further, the plaintiffs in Juliana has also asserted the application of the public trust doctrine – the idea that certain natural resources are preserved for public use and that the government owns and must maintain and protect such resources in the public interest159. The plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the federal public trust allege that the government as ‘trustee’ has failed to fulfil its duty of care to maintain and protect the atmosphere from substantial impairment160. The US government and fossil fuel industry representatives have repeatedly sought to dismiss the matter, all of which at this stage, have been denied161. In denying a motion to dismiss the matter, Judge Aiken of the District Court found that there was “no doubt”162 that there is a “right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life”163, and that such a right is “fundamental to a free and ordered society”164. The matter was then considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which decided, by a 2-1 margin, that even though the plaintiffs “made a compelling case that action is needed” to cut emissions, the young people involved in the case ultimately did not have the legal standing to bring the case, and it was subsequently dismissed.165 Key excerpts of the decision follow: SUMMARY CLIMATE CHANGE / STANDING The panel reversed the district court’s interlocutory orders in an action brought by an environmental organization and individual plaintiffs against the federal government, alleging climate-change related injuries to the plaintiffs caused by the federal government continuing to
157
158
Constitution of the United States, amend V and XIV. Juliana v United States, Case 6:15-cv-0517-TC, 2016 WL 6661146 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2016); also referred to as intergenerational equity.
159
UN Environment, above n 1, 23-24.
160
Ibid.
161
Columbia University, Columbia Law School, Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law, in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, ‘Juliana v United States’, <http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states>
162
Juliana v United States, above n 51, 82.
163
Ibid.
164
Ibid.
165
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 18-36082, D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA
