Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
To what extent should the courts be involved in directing the federal government’s response to climate change? The answer depends on the outcome of the Juliana case, in which a group of children have sued the federal government for violating their alleged due process right to a stable, life-sustaining climate. A federal district court in Oregon denied the government’s motion to dismiss and, with the case proceeding to discovery, the government took the unusual step of seeking immediate appellate review through a petition for writ of mandamus. The government argued that allowing the case to proceed to discovery would result in irreparable harm through a violation of the separation of powers (e.g., a deposition of the President or high-ranking executive official). In a decision issued in early March, the Ninth Circuit declined to issue a writ of mandamus, thereby allowing the case to proceed (for the time being) in trial court. The appellate court did caution, however, that some of the plaintiffs’ claims appeared to be overbroad, and that the plaintiffs may lack standing to pursue all of their requested remedies (e.g., the enactment of specific greenhouse gas caps or other mitigation measures). To learn more about the novel theories advanced in the case, the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and next steps for the government, check out this article by Andy Varcoe.
