The US Supreme Court refused to reinstate a lanmdmark lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 teenagers and children, who argued that government policies have exacerbated global warming in violation of their constitutional rights and those of future generations.
The case— called Juliana v. United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued it sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of the political process, reported Associated Press.
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm that represented the plaintiffs, said that the impact of the lawsuit “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone”.
“Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow,” Olson said in a statement, as reported by Associated Press. “It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future. We’ve already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward,” Olson added.
The lawsuit led the federal government to take initial steps against climate change a decade ago. In 2023, a federal trial judge in Oregon ruled that the case could proceed to trial. However, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ultimately ordered that the suit be dismissed.
Climate Action Under Threat
As reported by The Guardian, during the Trump administration, significant traces of the climate crisis were removed from US government websites. Several major departments deleted references to climate change, a move that left climate scientists bracing for “the worst.”
This removal of climate related content follows President Trump’s January 20 executive order directing the US to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, solidifying his intention to “Make America Great Again”. Trump argued that the agreement “does not reflect our country's values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives,” and claimed it unfairly burdened the United States, citing costs to American taxpayers, as reported by BBC.
