SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a case filed by a group of youths who sued the U.S. government for allegedly contributing to climate change by supporting a fossil-fuel based economy.
“The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2,” wrote Circuit Judge Hurwitz who authored the appellate court opinion.
The 9th Circuit panel concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, according to a summary written by court staff.
"The most important venue for addressing climate change is the November 2020 election," said Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "The key thing for climate activists to do now is help ensure the election of candidates who will take strong action on climate change."
The panel was made up of Justices Mary H. Murguia, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Josephine L. Staton who dissented.
“The two judges in the majority concluded that the court does not have the authority to grant and oversee the specific relief the plaintiffs in the case sought - a comprehensive national plan for drawdown of greenhouse gases,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “That is left to Congress and the White House. But there is plenty left for courts to do.”
Justice Staton disagreed, stating that telling plaintiffs to vindicate their right to a habitable United States through the political branches will rightfully be perceived as telling them they have no recourse.
"A court order—even one that merely postpones the day when remedial measures become insufficiently effective—would likely have a real impact on preventing the impending cataclysm," Staton wrote. "Accordingly, I conclude that the court could do something to help the plaintiffs before us. And “something” is all that standing requires."
The case was on appeal from the U.S District Court for the District of Oregon.
"At the outset, everyone had to recognize that this would be a tough road to convince the court that you can sue the government over these issues," said Brian. "I don’t think this is the end of the case. It will go on and end up with the Supreme Court of the United States eventually."