{"id":1604,"date":"2023-01-04T17:13:45","date_gmt":"2023-01-04T17:13:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/environment196.wpenginepowered.com\/?p=1604"},"modified":"2023-04-18T19:21:25","modified_gmt":"2023-04-18T19:21:25","slug":"juliana-v-us-getting-action-by-assigning-responsibility-in-the-right-place","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/?p=1604","title":{"rendered":"Juliana v. US: Seeking Accountability for the Climate Crisis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

Jordan Joachim-James <\/strong>(she\/her)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ELR Staffer ’24 <\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Following the dismissal of the infamous Juliana v. US<\/em> case, plaintiffs and supporters alike continue to fight for their constitutional right to life, liberty, and property under the Due Process Clause by seeking accountability for government action causing climate change. Plaintiffs have been unsuccessful because it is unclear who should be held accountable. The quest for accountability and action continues, and a successful suit is possible if it is framed the right way, presented to the right audience, and designed with enough awareness of the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Juliana <\/em>was first brought in 2015 by 21 young people between the ages of 8 and 19, arguing that via the federal government\u2019s actions in things such as energy services, which increase climate change despite the awareness of the impacts, the government violated their right \u201cto a climate system capable to sustaining human life\u201d under the Due Process Clause. After much litigation, the case finally ended in 2020<\/a> when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the issue of climate change resolution is out of the court\u2019s reach. Despite finding a thorough analysis of the facts and evidence presented by the plaintiffs that their rights have indeed been affected, Judge Hurwitz decided that redress in this situation is beyond a court\u2019s Constitutional power to provide. The court looks to other branches to provide the sought relief: executive or legislative action to combat man-made climate change. Judge Stanton dissented, saying that \u201c… the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that is present no claim suitable for judicial resolution.\u201d Stanton\u2019s argument posits that both branches have not done enough to combat the problem. As the plaintiffs continue to motion for amendments to their complaint, they also seem to be reconsidering their framing. For example, they have recently started using the right-to-life principle in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em><\/a> as a point of comparison hoping that since the court protected the life of the fetus, they would want to protect human life by protecting their habitat: Earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seeing the judicial branch\u2019s reluctance to address this specific case, the plaintiffs hope for action from the more partisan government branches. The importance of climate change in politics fluctuates even though its effects continue to increase consistently and visibly. Some administrations choose to act, while others prefer to ignore the impact of climate change. The Juliana <\/em>case via Our Children\u2019s Trust<\/em> attempted to solicit action from the executive branch via the Biden Administration and the Department of Justice\u2019s<\/a> initiation of settlement discussions. The plaintiffs assume that this branch would be willing to work with the plaintiffs to find a resolution, an assumption likely rooted in Biden\u2019s environmental promises<\/a> and his political affiliation. The president\u2019s political party likely indicates their intention to address climate change. Typically, Republican presidents avoid acting against climate change and Democratic presidents work to combat climate change. The Trump Administration<\/a> was reluctant to acknowledge that climate change is a legitimate issue and often undermined, and even exacerbated, the problems via their decision to roll back action to fight climate change.  The Juliana<\/em> case had a significant impact on the legislative branch, as the House and Senate introduced resolutions acknowledging climate change and its effects on citizens following inspiration from the Juliana <\/em>plaintiffs\u2019 arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unsurprisingly, States are divided in their response to this landmark case. After Judge Aiken ordered a settlement conference<\/a> between the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice, several states chose to act as either intervenors<\/a> to prevent a settlement in order to protect state action (which they saw as threatened by the presidency), or as supporters<\/a> of the plaintiffs by acknowledging the impacts of climate change (such as the health and supply chain effects on their citizens). However, with these meetings coming to no avail, the divide between the states shows the stark conflict of determining who should be held accountable for the violation of these rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the Juliana <\/em>plaintiffs’ lack of success, there is no doubt that they have sparked a conversation. More suits<\/a> brought by young people to fight climate change have arisen. The most high profile was Held v. Montana<\/a><\/em>, where 16 young people are fighting for their Constitutional right to a good environment by combatting state actions that accelerate climate change. This case is slated to go to trial next year and takes the mission of Juliana<\/em> to a new level. In Virginia<\/a>, another group of plaintiffs has followed Juliana\u2019s<\/em> lead and is garnering attention. Additionally, the Juliana<\/em> plaintiffs are the subject of the Netflix documentary Youth v. Gov<\/a>. The actions of the Juliana <\/em>plaintiffs have accelerated the climate change conversation, pushing people to hold the government responsible for their actions in exacerbating the climate crisis, and setting the stage for the right case to be handled by the court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jordan Joachim-James (she\/her) ELR Staffer ’24 Following the dismissal of the infamous Juliana v. US case, plaintiffs and supporters alike continue to fight for their constitutional right to life, liberty, and property under the Due<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[34,43,65,19,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-climate-change","category-environmental-justice","category-judicial-review","category-litigation","category-sustainability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}