A youth-led climate lawsuit that promised to deliver the trial of the century when it was launched a decade ago has come to a quiet end.
Without comment, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected 21 young climate activists’ unorthodox, last-ditch effort to save Juliana v. United States by tying their challenge to a Texas death penalty case.
Lawyers for the young challengers had argued that the capital case, which the justices heard last month, raised a question “nearly identical” to their own — whether a federal appeals court had violated the youths’ constitutional rights by finding that they did not have standing, or the legal power to bring their case.
The Monday order marked the second time in less than a year that the Supreme Court has refused to extend a lifeline to the Juliana challengers. The justices last November declined to grant the young activists a writ of mandamus, a rarely used tool that would have forced a lower court to reverse a loss it delivered to the challengers last May.
The Justice Department hailed the decision, noting that three presidential administrations have opposed Juliana and that cases like it “distract” the agency from enforcing the nation’s environmental laws.
“For nearly a decade, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Juliana case have tied up the United States in litigation,” said acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. The high court’s decision, he added, “brings this long saga to a conclusion.”
Attorneys with Our Children’s Trust, the Oregon-based firm behind the Juliana lawsuit, insisted the Supreme Court’s Monday order is “not the end of the road” for their effort.
“The impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone,” said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel at the law firm, which has recently notched two state-level victories in similar youth-led climate lawsuits. “Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow.”
Olson said the case — which was the subject of the 2022 Netflix documentary “Youth v Gov” — has empowered young people to demand a constitutional right to a safe climate. She said her team intends to keep making that case to the courts.
“The Juliana plaintiffs started this fight for justice,” she said, “and others will carry it forward.”
‘Speculative and open-ended’
The Juliana challengers — who were between the ages of 10 and 21 when the lawsuit was filed — had claimed that the federal government’s reliance on oil and gas violates young people’s constitutional right to a livable climate. It was first filed in 2015 and faced opposition from the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Juliana in May 2024, relying in part on a 2020 ruling from the same court that found the young people behind the lawsuit did not have legal authority to bring their case.
Our Children’s Trust had argued that the 9th Circuit’s approach to standing was “unworkable” and contradicted the Supreme Court’s own rulings, including Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, a 2021 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas that recognized standing for challengers — even when a court could only offer mostly symbolic relief.
The Trump administration pushed back against the youths’ claims as recently as last month, arguing that the courts do not have authority to grant a request for “sweeping relief against multiple departments, agencies, and officials across the federal government.”
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote that it was “far too speculative and open-ended” to assume that a court order declaring a right to a healthy climate “would prompt the political branches to adopt a government-wide plan to address climate change.”
Juliana’s ripple effect
While the Supreme Court didn’t go the way Our Children’s Trust hoped it would, the young people behind the Juliana lawsuit said the case has still had an important impact.
The law firm noted that the legal framework established by Juliana has inspired more than 60 youth-led climate lawsuits worldwide against more than 50 countries and states.
“Ultimately, we didn’t get the decision we wanted today, but we’ve had many wins along the way,” said Juliana plaintiff Miko Vergun. “We’ve shown the world that young people will not be ignored, and I’m incredibly proud of the impact Juliana v. United States has made.”
Rikki Held — lead plaintiff in Held v. Montana, which resulted in a finding that the state had violated the constitutional rights of its youngest residents — said Juliana has left “an indelible mark” and paved the way for lawsuits like hers.
In Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, Our Children’s Trust claimed another victory after the case last year resulted in an agreement between young climate challengers and Hawaii aimed at decarbonizing the state’s transportation system.
Juliana also served as a model for a second climate lawsuit against the federal government, Genesis B. v. EPA. That case grounded out last month when a federal judge for a second — and final — time scrapped an attempt by California youth to hold EPA accountable for planet-warming emissions. Our Children’s Trust has said it will “continue to pursue all available legal avenues” in the lawsuit.
Surviving the Supreme Court
Juliana did avoid an outcome environmental lawyers had feared — being used by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court to limit climate activists’ access to legal relief.
Conservative justices have traditionally taken a more limited view of standing for environmentalists. Some environmental attorneys had feared those justices would seek to use Juliana to find that no single person or entity has the power to sue over climate change because the threat is too diffuse to be resolved by the courts.
Our Children’s Trust is looking at bringing the arguments in Juliana to international venues, where climate rights and governments’ responsibility to protect young people can be examined under the framework of international law, Olson said.
She added: “Our Children’s Trust remains committed to working with young people to hold their government accountable, and we will see the federal government back in federal court very soon.”
