On April 8, 2016, in a decision lauded by the plaintiffs as a
"landmark" ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied
motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the federal government
by a group of plaintiffs ranging between ages 8 and 19, along with
associations of climate change activists. Juliana et al. v. USA et
al. , No. 6:15-cv-01517. The suit seeks relief from government
action and inaction that allegedly results in carbon pollution of
the atmosphere, climate destabilization, and ocean
acidification.
Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that "the government has
known for decades that carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) pollution has been
causing catastrophic climate change and has failed to take
necessary action to curtail fossil fuel emissions," which
makes it "extremely difficult for plaintiffs to protect their
vital natural systems and a livable world." The plaintiffs
seek immediate action "to restore energy balance and
implementation of a plan to put the nation on a trajectory (that if
adhered to by other major emitters) will reduce atmospheric CO 2
concentrations to no more than 350 parts per million by
2100."
The plaintiffs allege several violations of their constitutional
rights, including a violation of their equal protection rights
under the Fifth Amendment; a violation of their right to a stable
climate and an ocean and atmosphere free from dangerous levels of
CO 2 via the Ninth Amendment; and a violation of the public trust
doctrine secured by the Ninth Amendment. The government, joined by
several organizations representing various entities in the coal,
oil, and gas industry that previously intervened in the action,
moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs
lacked standing, raised nonjusticiable political questions, and
failed to state a constitutional claim.
Judge Coffin addressed each of the movants' arguments in his
findings and recommendation. He held that the plaintiffs'
allegations established "action/inaction that injures
plaintiffs in a concrete and personal way." On whether a court
could fashion a remedy to address the alleged harm, Judge Coffin
noted that the court could fashion an order requiring EPA to act to
protect the public health, including, by way of example, the
particular harms allegedly afflicting youths. He opined that
"[w]hile courts cannot intervene to assert 'better'
policy, they can address constitutional violations by government
agencies and provide equitable relief." As to the
constitutional claims, Judge Coffin concluded that whether the
government's action or inaction "shocks the
conscience" and infringes on the plaintiffs' right to life
and liberty cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
