Top US Court Officially Ends Landmark Youth Climate Suit Against The Federal Government
Juliana v. US case is closed after US Supreme Court denies cert petition. But lawyers for youth plaintiffs say the “fight is far from over.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition to review a landmark youth constitutional climate lawsuit against the US federal government that an appellate court had quashed last year. The Supreme Court’s denial of the youth plaintiffs’ petition officially brings an end to the Juliana v. United States lawsuit, which has inspired a global wave of youth-led legal actions challenging government climate policies over the last decade.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today is not the end of the road and the impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone,” said Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust – an Oregon-based nonprofit law firm that brings rights-based climate lawsuits against governments on behalf of youth. “Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow. It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future.”
Initially filed in 2015 during the Obama administration, the case faced unprecedented opposition from government defendants who repeatedly attempted to block it from getting to trial. Over the last nine years the US Department of Justice, which represents the federal government in litigation, has filed more than a dozen requests to pause proceedings and seven extraordinarily rare mandamus petitions, a pattern that legal experts say is unheard of in American civil litigation. No other case in US history in which the federal government is a defendant has seen such extreme and relentless obstruction by the government, according to Our Children’s Trust.
The 21 youth plaintiffs had ultimately sought to hold the US government accountable for exacerbating the climate crisis through policies and actions perpetuating fossil fuels, claiming such conduct violates their rights to life, liberty, and property under the US Constitution. Plaintiffs initially requested both declaratory and injunctive relief, including a court order for the government to develop and execute a “climate recovery plan” to rapidly slash greenhouse gas emissions guided by climate science. In January 2020, a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel decided that such sweeping relief was beyond the power of the courts to order. The panel majority ruled to dismiss the case, which had been slated to go to trial in October 2018 but was derailed by the government’s emergency appeals.
US District Court Judge Ann Aiken then revived the case in 2023 by allowing youth plaintiffs to amend or revise their complaint. The revised case sought only declaratory relief – a finding of constitutional rights violations by the trial court. Aiken rejected the government’s renewed bids to dismiss the case, teeing it up for a long-awaited trial. But the Department of Justice under the Biden administration, in an attempt to block a trial, went back to the Ninth Circuit Court with yet another mandamus petition. The Ninth Circuit granted that petition last year.
Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs turned to the US Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to keep the case alive, arguing that the Ninth Circuit erred in granting the government’s petition without even reviewing or grappling with the revised complaint. The filing of a cert petition to the Supreme Court was a long shot, as the Court grants review of fewer than 2 percent of these petitions.
“Ultimately, we didn’t get the decision we wanted today, but we’ve had many wins along the way,” Juliana plaintiff Miko Vergun said in statement. “For almost ten years, we’ve stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we can not only survive, but thrive. We’ve faced extreme resistance by the federal government, yet we’ve never wavered in our resolve.”
According to Our Children’s Trust, the Juliana case has inspired over 60 youth-led climate lawsuits around the world, and some have seen breakthrough victories. Courts in Colombia, Germany, and South Korea have ruled in favor of young people in rights-based climate cases against their governments, for example. In the US, youth in Montana defeated a pro-fossil fuel policy enacted by their state government, after proving at trial that the policy violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the youths’ trial victory. And young people in Hawaii won a historic settlement agreement last year in their constitutional climate case challenging the Hawaii Department of Transportation. The settlement puts the state transportation system on a clear path towards full decarbonization and also recognizes youths’ right to a life-sustaining climate system.
“Last June, my lawsuit—Navahine v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation—achieved the first settlement in a constitutional climate case, securing the systemic decarbonization of a state transportation system. This historic moment would not have been possible without the blueprint laid by the Juliana youth plaintiffs,” youth plaintiff Mesina D. said in a statement.
Rikki Held, lead plaintiff in the Held v. State of Montana case, said that the Juliana case “has left an indelible mark on the landscape of climate litigation, paving the way for lawsuits” like the one that Held fronted. That case in Montana saw the first-ever trial in a youth constitutional climate case in the US.
In Canada, a trial is scheduled to start October 26, 2026 in Vancouver in the case La Rose v. His Majesty the King, in which 16 youth plaintiffs are challenging the Canadian government’s inadequate climate policies claiming violations of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case is the Canadian equivalent of the Juliana case.
While the Juliana case may be officially closed, Our Children’s Trust says it is exploring other options to continue to seek climate justice and hold the US government accountable. One option is to bring the Juliana case to an international court or tribunal, where “governmental responsibility to protect young people’s futures can be examined under the framework of international law,” according to Our Children’s Trust.
There is also the possibility of bringing another case against the federal government.
“This fight is far from over. These claims will be heard, evidence will be presented, and the federal government will be held accountable. The Juliana plaintiffs started this fight for justice, and others will carry it forward,” Olson said. “We will see the federal government back in federal court very soon.”
