A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group of youths who want the government to take more steps to address climate change.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the legal proceedings in the case pending before a federal district court in Oregon are not far enough along to warrant interference.
"The district court has not issued a single discovery order, nor have the plaintiffs filed a single motion seeking to compel discovery," Chief Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas wrote in an opinion on behalf of a three-judge panel (United States v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene, et al.; No. 17-71692). "Rather, the parties have employed the usual meet-and-confer process of resolving discovery disputes."
If a federal court ultimately rules that the government must take action on climate change, it could have wide-reaching implications for U.S. energy policy, particularly if the case is resolved during the current administration. President Donald Trump has pledged to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, called global warming a hoax and directed his administration to unwind regulations holding back fossil fuel development.
In 2015, two environmental groups and 21 children filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene, (Juliana et al. v. United States et al.; 6:15-cv-01517) against then-President Barack Obama, numerous federal agencies and executive branch officials alleging the government has a constitutional responsibility to take more steps to curb carbon dioxide emissions and address climate change. When the Oregon court rejected the administration's petition to dismiss the case, federal attorneys appealed to the 9th Circuit to effectively order the lower court to drop the case.
Federal attorneys argued the youths' climate complaint was too speculative and broad and the process of discovery, which involves gathering documents and interviewing people, would be too burdensome on the government.
The 9th Circuit order noted the federal government has yet to seek any of the "usual remedies" available through the district court.
"[T]he defendants have ample opportunity to raise legal challenges to decisions made by the district court on a more fully developed record, including decisions as to whether to focus the litigation on specific governmental decisions and orders," the 9th Circuit's March 7 opinion stated.
The court said that if the appellate review could be invoked any time a court denied a motion to dismiss, "we would be quickly overwhelmed with such requests, and the resolution of cases would be unnecessarily delayed."
In addition to targeting the federal government, a number of youths since 2011 have pushed, through lawsuits or petitions for state-level agency rulemakings, for all 50 states to take action on climate change. The nonprofit Our Children's Trust has largely coordinated the effort.
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, in a statement said the youths in the lawsuit aim to ask that a trial be held in 2018.
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on March 8 is slated to rule on its Air Quality Committee's recommendation to deny a petition by three children for a rulemaking to limit carbon dioxide emissions in the state.
Along with Thomas, Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland considered the case. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski heard the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit in December 2017 but retired soon thereafter, and Friedland took his open spot on the panel.
