On August 12, 2015, a group of young individuals (aged 8-19) in Oregon, represented by their guardians, filed a complaint against the United States and various government officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asserted harm from carbon dioxide pollution and climate destabilization due to government action and/or inaction. The plaintiffs alleged that instead of implementing a course of effective action to phase out carbon pollution, the defendants continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize activities that produce enormous quantities of carbon dioxide emissions. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clause, the Ninth Amendment, and the public trust doctrine. They sued under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for declaratory and injunctive relief, including ordering the defendants to implement a remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions so as to stabilize the climate system.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 10 with slight changes. On November 12, the National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute moved to intervene as defendants and Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin granted this motion on January 14, 2016. 2016 WL 183903.

On November 17, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. On November 10, 2016, Judge Ann L. Aiken adopted the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Coffin and denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that the plaintiffs stated valid constitutional and public trust doctrine claims, and also that the plaintiffs had alleged concrete and imminent injuries. 217 F.Supp.3d 1224.

On March 7, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to appeal the November 10 opinion as well as a motion to stay proceedings in this case pending consideration of the motion. On June 8, 2017, Judge Aiken adopted the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Coffin to deny the motions. 2017 WL 2483705. The next day, the defendant filed a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the circuit court denied.

The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on May 9, 2018 and then a motion for summary judgment on May 22, 2017. On October 15, Judge Aiken ordered that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. Similarly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Judge Aiken found that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether activists suffered injury in fact, whether equitable remedy could redress injuries, and whether federal government acted with deliberate indifference to human safety. 339 F.Supp.3d 1062.

On October 18, 2018, the defendant filed a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court as well as an application for a stay pending disposition of this writ of mandamus. The next day, the Supreme Court issued an administrative order staying the trial scheduled on October 29 and all discovery. On November 2, the Supreme Court denied the application for stay without prejudice.

On November 21 2018, the district court found sufficient cause to revisit the question of interlocutory appeal and certified this case for interlocutory appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted permission to appeal on December 26, 2018. 949 F.3d 1125. It heard oral arguments on June 4, 2019 in Portland, Oregon (Judges Mary H. Murguia, Andrew D. Hurwitz, and Josephine L. Staton). On January 17, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court, with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit ruled that although the plaintiffs had established the first two elements of standing (injury and causation), their claims were not redressable by a federal court, because that would involve a host of complex policy decisions that had been entrusted to the political branches. The court made this ruling “reluctantly,” but concluded that the plaintiffs would have to make their case to the political branches “or the electorate at large.” 947 F.3d 1159.

The plaintiffs moved for rehearing en banc on March 2, 2020. As of July 10, 2020, that motion is pending.

Sichun Liu - 03/07/2019
Gregory Marsh - 07/10/2020


compress summary