By Abbas Nazil
More than 40 members of Congress, including Oregon Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, have called on the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a groundbreaking climate lawsuit filed by 21 young Americans.
Among the plaintiffs are 11 Oregonians, making the state a focal point in this high-stakes legal battle.
The case, Juliana v. United States, contends that the federal government’s actions in promoting fossil fuel production and failing to mitigate climate change violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a livable environment.
Merkley and Wyden, both Democrats, joined independent Senator Bernie Sanders and others in filing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the plaintiffs.
The case, first filed nearly a decade ago, has faced multiple legal setbacks, including its dismissal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The latest push to have the Supreme Court hear the case has drawn renewed attention to the role of the judiciary in addressing climate change.
Merkley emphasized his commitment to supporting the plaintiffs’ cause in an emailed statement. “The young people — including Oregonians — fighting for their right to a healthy planet and livable future have my full support,” he said.
“That’s why I am leading my congressional colleagues in an amicus brief in support of this momentous case.”
Wyden echoed Merkley’s sentiments, highlighting the urgency of the climate crisis. In his statement, he pointed to the devastating effects of wildfires, including the record-breaking 1.9 million acres burned in Oregon last year, as well as ongoing infernos ravaging Los Angeles.
“I’m proud to stand with these youth plaintiffs taking a leadership role to press for an urgent, comprehensive, science-based plan to address the climate crisis now,” Wyden said.
The lawsuit has yet to reach trial. The 9th Circuit Court dismissed the case in 2020, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims did not meet the “redressability requirement,” meaning the court believed it could not effectively address their grievances even if it ruled in their favor.
In response, the plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, with the support of the congressional brief.
The lawsuit comes in the wake of a similar legal victory in Montana, where the state’s Supreme Court recently affirmed that Montanans have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. That ruling has reinvigorated hope among supporters of Juliana v. United States.
Lead attorney Julia Olson described the case as pivotal for climate litigation, arguing that the redressability issue is central to other cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear.
Related Posts
Olson hopes the Court will address the issue in those cases and then direct the 9th Circuit to reconsider its dismissal of Juliana.
Olson explained that the brief from lawmakers also raises concerns about the implications of letting the 9th Circuit’s decision stand.
It argues that doing so would undermine the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1935, a critical legal measure that ensures plaintiffs can seek court declarations on their rights and obligations. The brief emphasizes that such access to the courts is vital for a functioning justice system.
The lawsuit has faced staunch opposition from the federal government across three presidential administrations — Republican and Democratic alike.
Olson noted that this reflects the bipartisan reluctance to confront the role of fossil fuels in exacerbating climate change.
“This is a nonpartisan issue,” she said. “It’s a nonpartisan case, and the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans have done a tremendous amount to keep fossil fuels in place and to keep people out of court.
Our government does not want to be hauled into court, and so they fight really hard … which is all the more reason why we need neutral judges to be able to weigh in and look at the evidence.”
Despite the legal hurdles, Olson stressed that the case has already made a significant impact. It is widely studied in law schools across the United States and even internationally, including in China, where it is taught in environmental law classes. “Win or lose, it will make a huge difference, and it will be looked at in history,” she said.
The Supreme Court’s docket is packed, and it remains uncertain whether the justices will agree to hear the case during their current term, which typically concludes by late June or early July.
The government’s response to the petition is not due until February, leaving the timeline for any potential developments unclear.
For now, the case serves as a symbol of the growing movement to hold governments accountable for their role in the climate crisis.
The young plaintiffs, many of whom have spent nearly a decade fighting for their cause, continue to inspire widespread support from activists, lawmakers, and legal experts alike.
Their fight for a livable planet underscores the stakes of the climate crisis and the urgent need for action.
Whether the Supreme Court ultimately takes up the case or not, Juliana v. United States has already cemented its place as a landmark in climate litigation.
It represents a generational demand for accountability, a call for bold action to protect the planet, and a testament to the power of youth-led movements to drive change.
