Youth climate activists are trying to revive their suit against the federal government by changing tack.
They filed a motion Tuesday in federal court in Eugene to amend their suit, Juliana v. United States, by adjusting the outcome they seek.
A three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found a federal judge lacked the power to order or design a climate recovery plan in the high-profile climate change lawsuit, noting that such a remedy required complex policy decisions and should be made instead by the nation’s politicians or voters.
Twenty-one young people sued the government six years ago, asserting a constitutional right to a sustainable climate and asked the federal court to order the United States to prepare an energy plan that transitions the country away from fossil fuels.
Now, their attorneys are asking a U.S. District Court judge to allow them to amend their suit to seek a more limited outcome: a ruling that the nation’s fossil fuel-based energy system is unconstitutional.
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Eugene-based Our Children’s Trust, which represents the plaintiffs, said such a court finding would “hold current and future lawmakers accountable for protecting the rights of youth.” The plaintiffs are now ages 13 to 24.
“Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that ‘the United States’ national energy system that creates the harmful conditions described herein has violated and continues to violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to substantive due process and equal protection of the law,’” the motion to amend the complaint says.
“This relief is squarely within the constitutional and statutory power of Article III courts to grant, would wholly and partially redress Plaintiffs’ ongoing injuries caused by Defendants’ ongoing policies and practices, and therefore cures the standing deficiencies identified by the Ninth Circuit,” the motion says.
The lawyers further argue that courts have the duty to decide the merits of a complaint, separate from the appropriateness of relief sought.
If the fossil fuel energy system is declared unconstitutional, there will be an expectation that government officials would take steps to abide by the law, the lawyers argue.
“Critically, here, the ‘real, earnest and vital controversy’ between Plaintiffs and Defendants over the constitutionality of the United States national energy system is live and pressing and in need of this Court’s judgment,” according to the motion.
The youth activists’ lawyers quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued Monday that revived a former Georgia college student’s lawsuit against the school that blocked his evangelizing on campus.
The climate activists’ motion noted a point made in the lone dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
“Even in dissent, Chief Justice Roberts confirms the central role of the Judiciary ‘may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment,’ ‘[b]ut that power of judgment can nonetheless bind the Executive and Legislature.’ "
-- Maxine Bernstein
Email mbernstein@oregonian.com; 503-221-8212
Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian