In a significant judicial development, the U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to review a petition put forward by young climate activists who contended that the federal government’s environmental practices infringed upon their constitutional rights. The decision marks the conclusion of a lengthy legal struggle that began over a decade ago, during which many of the claimants matured from youth into adulthood.
Originally initiated in 2015 by a group of 21 young plaintiffs—the youngest merely 8 at the time—the lawsuit accused the U.S. government of compromising their right to a sustainable climate by supporting a fossil fuel-driven economy. Dubbed Juliana v. United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana, the case faced opposition from successive administrations, with legal representatives for Obama, Trump, and Biden resisting the claim on grounds that it sought to govern environmental policy through the judiciary, bypassing legislative processes.
Julia Olson, chief legal representative for the nonprofit organization Our Children’s Trust, reflected on the lawsuit’s legacy. “The impact of the Juliana lawsuit transcends this case alone,” Olson noted. “It ignited a global youth-led movement advocating for climate rights.” Olson emphasized the empowerment of youths to assert their constitutional rights for a sustainable future has been a significant outcome, and the group remains undeterred in its mission.
The adolescents initially sought a legal trial to decide whether the government’s fossil fuel policies infringed upon their fundamental right to life and freedom. The case coursed through various legal systems for years; notably, in 2018, a trial was postponed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts shortly before its scheduled commencement. Then, in 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the suit to be dismissed, asserting that climate policy was a matter for political, not judicial, determination. Nonetheless, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Oregon re-invigorated the activists’ cause by permitting an amended lawsuit. However, the Biden administration later succeeded in having the 9th Circuit require the case to be dismissed, which the activists attempted unsuccessfully to overturn.
With new plans underway, Our Children’s Trust is preparing another federal lawsuit grounded in the same constitutional principles as the Juliana case, according to Olson.
The plaintiffs, ranging from 17 to 29 years now, continue their climate advocacy through various capacities, still pursuing education or professional careers. Part of the group hails from Oregon, including Juliana, who is an elementary teacher now. Other notable participants include Alex Loznak, now a lawyer focused on environmental advocacy, and Nathan Baring, who works with a reindeer herding association in Alaska. Despite the roadblocks, plaintiffs like Baring remain hopeful, seeing themselves as part of a continuing movement.
Miko Vergun, born in the Marshall Islands and raised in Oregon, emphasized they’re fighting for a future where Pacific nations remain above sea level. Vergun, a product of Oregon State University, acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision was disheartening, but maintained that substantial victories have been achieved throughout their efforts.
Olson shared that beyond the borders of Oregon, Our Children’s Trust has initiated climate lawsuits across the U.S., with current proceedings in states like Florida, Utah, and Alaska. A notable case in Montana concluded with the state’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of youth plaintiffs, obligating state regulators to consider climate repercussions in fossil fuel permitting. Similarly, a separate settlement in Hawaii necessitates a zero-emissions target for the state’s transportation network by 2045.
Internationally, the groundwork laid by the Juliana case has inspired over 60 youth-led climate-focused legal actions worldwide, showcasing the broad influence of the movement initiated from Oregon.