Juliana v. United States: Climate Change Lawsuits and Environmental Litigation

Juliana v. United States is a pivotal case in environmental law. Rooted in the public trust doctrine and international responsibility, this landmark climate lawsuit against the U.S. government asserted, among other claims, that the government’s affirmative actions caused climate change and violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights.

After nearly a decade of litigation, the Juliana case was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 for lack of standing. The U.S. Supreme Court then declined to take the plaintiff’s appeal in 2025, effectively ending the case. In its journey through the courts, Juliana explored the limits and possibilities of environmental litigation and accountability, and inspired subsequent climate cases.

If you’re facing environmental harm, an experienced environmental litigation attorney can help you explore your legal options, identify responsible parties, and pursue remedies such as injunctions or damages. Contact an environmental litigation attorney to protect your rights.

Who Were the Parties in Juliana v. United States?

The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States were 21 youths ranging in age from eight to 19 at the time of filing, an environmental organization, and a representative of future generations. The non-profit, Our Children’s Trust, represented the young people.

Their lawyers selected them because the plaintiffs’ injuries, they argued, were concrete. Many of the plaintiffs were members of Earth Guardians, an organization focused on youth-led environmental activism.

Defendants in the case were the United States government, the President, and federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Following the 2016 Presidential election, the complaint was amended to make the lead defendant President Donald Trump. At one point during the litigation, members of the fossil fuel industry intervened as defendants, but they were later dismissed.

Scientific evidence played a critical role in Juliana v. U.S. The plaintiffs relied on expert testimony to demonstrate a link between the government’s action, fossil fuel emissions, and the resulting harm to the environment and public health.

Legal Arguments and Constitutional

Juliana was the first constitutional climate case of its kind filed in the United States. It was a landmark climate-related lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs’ Legal Claims

The plaintiffs argued that the federal government’s energy policy violated the future generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and had failed to protect essential public trust resources, such as natural resources.

The youth plaintiffs asserted that the defendants encouraged and permitted the combustion and extraction of fossil fuels and violated the government’s sovereign duty to protect public grounds by allowing the combustion and causing emissions.

The plaintiffs’ rights to a stable climate system, they asserted, were being violated by the government’s promotion of fossil fuels.

The Government’s Defense

The government denied that it caused climate system change or contributed to the climate crisis, such as the increase in greenhouse gas or rising sea levels.

It also argued that the case raised political questions that should be addressed through the separation of powers. The government argued that the issues should be addressed by the executive and legislative branches, not the judicial system.

Relief Sought by Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs sought confirmation that their due process rights had been violated by the government’s actions, injunctive relief from continued violation of their fundamental rights, and a plan to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.

The plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment, affirming the government’s fiduciary duty to protect the atmosphere as a public trust resource.

A Timeline of the Juliana v. United States Case

Juliana v. United States worked its way through the litigation process across three different presidential administrations over the better part of a decade. The major case orders, filings, and milestones are as follows.

2015: Plaintiffs File the Juliana Case

The plaintiffs filed their case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the United States and several executive branch officials.

2016: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss the Juliana Case

Fossil fuel industry groups intervened as defendants, joining the U.S. government in seeking dismissal. Pre-trial hearings were held in the case in which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the plaintiffs had no constitutional right to a pollution-free environment.

The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss, and the district court judge upheld the recommendation. The court recognized that a potential constitutional right to a stable climate system was essential for sustaining human life, but did not issue a definitive ruling on the merits of the case.

2017: Preliminary Trial Dates

The defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s complaint one week before President Obama left office. Preliminary trial dates were set for 2017. The fossil fuel industry groups requested removal from the case, citing confidence that the Trump administration would vigorously defend them.

The DOJ filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the justiciability of the plaintiffs’ claims, but the motion was denied. The government then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, arguing that there were multiple clear errors of law.

2018: Defendants Attempt to Delay and Dismiss the Juliana Case

The trial date was set for 2018, but was put on hold until later that year. The government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to delay the trial, but its request was denied. The Court expressed skepticism about the case’s legal basis.

The government presented two motions to dismiss to the district court, which it denied. These motions included arguments for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs’ claims lacked sufficient grounds to proceed.

2019: Oral Arguments

Oral arguments were held, with legal experts predicting challenges in advancing the case despite the volume of scientific support for the claims.

2020: Ninth Circuit Reverses and Remands the Case to the District Court

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s orders and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss the lawsuit against the U.S. government for lack of standing under Article III to bring the case in federal court.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate redressability, meaning that the judiciary could not provide a remedy for their claims. The court found that the plaintiffs requested remedies that required complex policy decisions that were beyond the court’s authority.

2021: En Banc Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the dismissal. The plaintiffs sought to address the standing issue by filing an amended complaint.

2023: District Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Case

The district court issued a court order, granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the case, seeking a declaratory judgment that a fossil-fuel-based energy system is unconstitutional.

2024: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Amended Complaint

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the amended complaint due to lack of standing. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not resolved the issues of redressability and justiciability.

2025: U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively ending the lawsuit.

Broader Implications for Environmental Litigation

The Juliana case has inspired numerous similar environmental litigation matters, particularly youth-led climate cases. It also highlighted the challenges of using the judiciary to address climate change, given the constraints imposed by the separation of powers and the branches of government.

Although the plaintiffs in Juliana v. U.S. failed to prevail or create a binding precedent, the case inspired future climate litigation and underscored the urgency of addressing climate change through litigation and policy changes.

Held v. State of Montana (2023) was the first-ever children’s constitutional climate trial in the United States. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs, finding that the state violated their state constitutional rights to a clean environment.

Challenges and Future of the Case

Juliana faced significant legal hurdles, including the judiciary’s role in addressing climate change. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case in 2025 marked the end of the case. However, the case left open the questions about the role of courts in holding governments accountable for climate policies.

Contact an Environmental Litigation Attorney

Stay informed about climate litigation and support to address climate change through legal and policy channels. State and federal environmental laws hold parties accountable for damage and pollution in the air, land, and water.

Individuals can file citizen suits to enforce environmental protection laws and stop further pollution. An environmental litigation attorney can explain your legal options and identify the potentially responsible parties.

Contact an environmental litigation attorney to understand your legal options and get help today.