Despite loss, ‘Climate Kids’ changed the conversation
On Jan. 17, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “reluctantly” dismissed the climate case Juliana v. U.S. For those of us who care deeply about combating climate change, this decision is disheartening.
Yet regardless of the legal outcome, the Juliana lawsuit has already had significant impact by reframing the national conversation around climate change.
Twenty-one young plaintiffs, including Kelsey Juliana, sued the government in 2015 for actively perpetuating a fossil-fuelbased energy system that causes climate change, thus violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. With this lawsuit, these “Climate Kids” established a foundation for what has become the modern youth climate movement. Even further, they have shifted (for the better) the way courts and the general public think about climate change.
Several aspects of the Juliana v. U.S. case have helped facilitate this shift. For one, the Climate Kids have put forth an incredibly compelling ethical narrative. They argue that all of us living today have a moral obligation to respect the rights of young people and unborn generations to an atmosphere that can support their future existence. They further allege that the U.S. government has failed to live up to this obligation by facilitating fossil fuel exploration and development despite knowing for decades that these energy sources have a negative impact on our climate system.
The legal arguments in Juliana v. U.S. are quite different from those found in previous climate change cases. Other plaintiffs have sought monetary compensation from fossil fuel companies for climate changerelated property damages, whereas the Climate Kids seek recognition of their fundamental rights. Rather than suing companies directly, they demand that the federal government stop supporting the fossil fuel industry and instead implement a plan to phase out fossil fuels from the U.S. economy.
Despite its unprecedented approach, Juliana v. U.S. saw early success in the courtroom. In a 2016 district court opinion, Judge Ann Aiken expressed “no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” Such a fundamental right had never been recognized in a U.S. court of law prior to this statement.
The Ninth Circuit decision last week conceded that the youth plaintiffs “compiled an extensive record” establishing government responsibility for actively contributing to climate change. The Ninth Circuit judges ultimately dismissed the case only because they felt the judiciary is ill-equipped to address the problem, punting responsibility to legislative and executive branches of government.
Initiating such a seismic shift in thinking around climate change has launched Juliana v. U.S. into a larger cultural moment of marginalized groups standing up to institutions of power. Just as #blacklivesmatter and #timesup elevate the voices of Black Americans and sexual harassment survivors, respectively, Juliana v. U.S.’s corresponding hashtag #youthvgov elevates the voices of young people.
Much like these other social movements, Juliana v. U.S.’s cultural impacts have rippled out far beyond those immediately involved in the case. In October 2018, #youthvgov rallies were held all over the country in support of the Juliana youth plaintiffs. In addition, Juliana v. U.S. has helped fuel the fire driving youth-led climate initiatives such as the Sunrise Movement and the FridaysForFuture global climate strikes originally initiated by Greta Thunberg in August 2018.
Of course, Juliana v. U.S. also carries risks for the climate movement. Many within the legal community have long considered the case to be a long shot. Now that the case has been dismissed, they worry that it may establish legal precedent that could work against future climate change litigation.
At the same time, past court cases that initiated widespread systemic change often carried similar risks. Brown v. Board of Education, the case that prohibited legally mandated school segregation, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, both threatened to set their respective civil rights’ movements back if they failed. In fact, appellate court judges ruled against the plaintiffs in both cases before being reversed by the Supreme Court.
As these cases demonstrate, intrepid plaintiffs and clever lawyers have changed our society in the past through willful perseverance often in the face of long odds. The lawyers and plaintiffs behind Juliana v. U.S. are demonstrating similar persistence despite this recent courtroom roadblock.
A co-counsel for the case, Julia Olson, has stated that the plaintiffs “will be asking the full court of the Ninth Circuit to review this decision and its catastrophic implications for our constitutional democracy.” Olson and the other lawyers behind the case have already filed similar cases in jurisdictions around the country.
What’s more, Juliana-inspired court cases have been popping up all over the world. In 2018, youth plaintiffs successfully sued the Colombian government for contributing to climate change and threatening their constitutional rights. The judge ordered the government to establish an intergenerational pact for the protection of the Colombian Amazon rainforest. On Oct. 25, 2019, 15 Canadian children made similar claims in the lawsuit La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen. Clearly, the legal language of Juliana v. U.S. translates well internationally.
Perhaps no one can capture the galvanizing, conversation-reframing essence of Juliana v. U.S. better than Olson herself. “When our great-grandchildren look back at the twenty-first century, they will see that government-sanctioned climate destruction was the constitutional issue of this century.” They will also see that the Juliana youth plaintiffs were on the right side of history.