The lawsuit to force the American government to start pursuing remedies for climate change, known as Juliana v. United States, has hit a roadbump:
A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a 2015 lawsuit by nearly two dozen young people to force the U.S. government to take more aggressive action on climate change, saying that the children did not have legal standing to bring the landmark case.
Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote that the plaintiffs had “made a compelling case that action is needed” to slash the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. But the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the courts were not the place to compel such action.
“We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box,” Hurwitz wrote. [WaPo]
I’m not sure I buy this line of reasoning, speaking as a non-lawyer. To my mind, the government is responsible for the safe-being of the citizens, and there appears to be little doubt that climate change is a threat, possibly existential, to the health of the citizens of the United States. It is traditional to bring suit against the government in order to compel it to fulfill its duties; that these two judges don’t see it that way is disturbing.
Suppose the United States suffered a substantial military attack by a national adversary, and yet the Executive refused to defend the country, and Congress refused to declare war, despite imminent disaster. Would a lawsuit seeking to compel action by the government be given the finger, as was Juliana?
If it did, it would prove the experiment in Democracy had failed. I see the dissenting judge has similar thoughts:
In a blistering dissent, U.S. District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton, who served on the panel, criticized the notion that the courts have no role to play, saying the government itself has acknowledged “that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.”
“It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation,” Staton wrote. “My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.”
And I have little sympathy for this guy:
“I know that climate activists are disappointed, but the result is not a surprise to any lawyer in the country. No U.S. court has ever even come close to ordering the kind of relief that the activists were seeking in this case,” said Jeff Holmstead, an attorney with the legal and lobbying firm Bracewell, which represents energy industry clients. “With today’s decision, the question of how to deal with climate change is now squarely before Congress. Under our system of government, that’s where it belongs.”
As an energy industry lawyer, Holmstead has an obvious agenda. Less obviously, his industry has, in a practical sense, bought enough of Congress and state governments[1] to win any sort of legislative fight; to suggest this is exclusively the domain of Congress is to suggest the fight is won before it starts. It turns out that it’s somewhat easier to buy Congress than a judge, apparently. Perhaps Judge Crater has been a salutary lesson in judicial corruption?
In any case, Our Children’s Trust has vowed to carry on.
And, yes, this is worth a recitation of OK, Boomers. Unfortunately, it’s not irrelevant.
1 Those who wish to dispute this assertion will need to explain away the ridiculous fossil fuel subsidies we give to the fossil fuel companies.
