Oregon Federal Court Said Youth Plaintiffs Could Proceed with Due Process and Public Trust Claims in Climate Suit

Oregon Federal Court Said Youth Plaintiffs Could Proceed with Due Process and Public Trust Claims in Climate Suit

The federal district court for the District of Oregon denied in part the federal government’s motion to dismiss youth plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserting that federal defendants violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to a stable climate system. The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they did not have standing because courts could not redress the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The district court first reconsidered its June 2023 determination that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate did not foreclose allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint; the district court again concluded that allowing the plaintiffs to amend did not contravene the rule of mandate. Regarding the plaintiffs’ standing, the district court first adopted the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the plaintiffs established an injury in fact arising from climate change impacts that was fairly traceable to defendants. Regarding redressability, the district court noted that the plaintiffs had “scaled back” their request for injunctive relief by removing a request for a directive requiring the defendants to “prepare a remedial plan” and instead seeking to restrain the defendants “from carrying out policies, practices, and affirmative actions that render the national energy system unconstitutional in a manner that harms [p]laintiffs.” The court found that such relief was substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ harm but that even this narrower request for injunctive relief “still treads on ground over which [the] Ninth Circuit cautioned the Court not to step” because the relief was sought “against a host of governmental defendants” and “would be more expansive than any case of which the Court is aware.” The court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs’ requested declaratory relief—i.e., a declaration that “the national energy system” violates the Constitution and public trust doctrine—“may be enough to bring about relief by changed conduct” and that the defendants failed to show that such relief was outside the court’s authority. The court also found that “the political question doctrine does not impede plaintiffs’ claims.” Regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ due process claim for failure to state a claim, the district court found “that the right to a climate system that can sustain human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society” and that the allegations that governmental action was damaging the climate system in a way that would result in harm to humans stated a claim for a due process violation. The district court also found that the plaintiffs stated a “danger creation” due process claim with their allegations that the defendants failed to adequately regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of third parties. The court also incorporated its earlier analysis concluding that plaintiffs alleged violations of the public trust doctrine in connection with the territorial sea. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs were required to bring their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed, however, the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, finding it to be foreclosed by precedent holding that age is not a suspect class. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ claim under the Ninth Amendment was not viable. The court denied the defendants’ requests to certify for interlocutory appellate review this decision and its earlier decision allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to stay the litigation and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set a pretrial conference. Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-cv-01517 (D. Or. Dec. 29, 2023)