The young Americans in Juliana case have a right to trial in open court

Former law school dean and professor Jim Huffman recently wrote an opinion in the Hill about a pending constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States. Yet it appears that he reached his opinions without having read relevant briefings in the case or recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that affects it. His remarks on Juliana did not offer a fresh take on this litigation, but instead made false claims about the case, conveyed incorrect information about the law, and repeated misleading talking points that misconstrue the case brought by 21 young Americans.

Last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs did, in fact, show that they were concretely injured and that the U.S. government was a cause of those injuries. The 9th Circuit, however, found the court lacked authority to order the federal government to prepare the remedial plan the plaintiffs requested, and ordered the case dismissed on that basis. 

Responding to the narrow issue of the remedial plan, in June attorneys for the plaintiffs presented oral arguments telephonically to U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken to amend the complaint by eliminating the remedial plan. The plaintiffs now simply ask the court to determine whether the government is violating their constitutional rights, a common first step in constitutional rights cases.  

If Judge Aiken grants the motion to amend, the case could move forward in the trial court on the question of whether the federal government’s fossil fuel-based energy system, and resulting climate destabilization, is unconstitutional.  

Let’s set the record straight: 

The 9th Circuit’s dismissal did not address the entire case – it focused only on the plaintiffs’ request for a remedial plan. And it did so without prejudice, leaving the door open for the plaintiffs to fix the issue that led to the dismissal.   

In addition, contrary to Huffman’s assertion, Judge Aiken does have jurisdiction over the case. A District Court regains jurisdiction after the issuance of a Circuit Court mandate.   

The plaintiffs were not out of line when they asked the court to amend their complaint. They properly, and in a timely manner, asked the District Court to amend their complaint, as countless plaintiffs have done in cases before them.  

Huffman’s piece claims that the 9th Circuit’s mandate ties Judge Aiken’s hands. However, it is common for plaintiffs to amend their complaints after dismissals when the dismissals are without prejudice. It is within this context that Judge Aiken ordered the parties to discuss possible settlement of the litigation — it was not an instance of Judge Aiken “[thumbing] her nose at the appellate court.”    

But all this isn’t the end of why it is appropriate for Judge Aiken to allow the case to proceed to trial. Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, decided by the Supreme Court four months ago, supports allowing Juliana to proceed, providing additional legal precedent from our nation’s highest court. Indeed, the relevance of Uzuegbunam was discussed by the parties and Judge Aiken during oral arguments. With such a clear record and considerable legal support, the suggestion that something nefarious is going on in the District of Oregon is misplaced and misleading. 

Huffman certainly isn’t alone in his quest to keep the Juliana case from being heard in open court. In June – six years after Juliana was filed and just days before settlement talks were scheduled between the plaintiffs and the government – Republican attorneys general from 18 states asked to insert themselves into the case so that they can oppose any proposed settlement and stop the case from proceeding to trial.

Attorneys for the Juliana plaintiffs, the federal government, and attorneys general from six other states have objected to the red states’ long-delayed effort to intervene in the case. Instead of spending their time fighting the kids, some of whom live in these states, these state attorneys general should recognize their own governments’ role in solving the climate crisis and work to protect the children who will potentially be harmed by climate change. 

As a law professor, Huffman should know that the path these youth plaintiffs have taken is to utilize appropriate, ethical tools of the federal judiciary to seek justice and protection of their constitutional rights. As the climate crisis worsens and our nation enters into another summer of heat waves, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes, the issue of protecting our children — and ending potential harm that the courts have recognized is being perpetrated by the government — is more timely than ever.

The young Americans in Juliana v. United States are right to continue to seek every opportunity to pursue a path to trial and have their claims heard in open court. With the concurrent negotiations, the Biden administration has an opportunity to make a lasting impact on climate change and safeguard future generations by coming wholeheartedly to the settlement table. Otherwise, the long-term reality of climate change is terrifying for children and other marginalized communities. It is time for federal courts to protect constitutional rights from the harms created by our government’s energy policies.

Mat dos Santos (@MatPDX) is the managing attorney at Our Children’s Trust, which represents the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, and former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon.