October, 16 2018, 12:00am EDT
District Court Makes Sweeping Ruling in Juliana v. United States
President dismissed from lawsuit, but plaintiffs’ core constitutional and public trust claims move forward to trial on October 29
EUGENE, Oregon
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled on the Trump administration's motion for judgment on the pleadings ("MJP") and motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") in the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States, filed by 21 young Americans and supported by Our Children's Trust. Judge Aiken's decision, in large part, denied the motions brought by the Trump administration, but granted the motions in part by limiting the scope of the plaintiffs' claims and dismissing the President from the case. As a result, the case will proceed to trial in exactly two weeks on October 29, 2018.
In her 62 page decision, Judge Aiken held as follows:
President Trump is dismissed as a defendant in the case without prejudice. During a July 18 hearing before Judge Aiken, the youth plaintiffs offered to stipulate to dismiss the President without prejudice to later bringing claims against him if necessary to vindicate their rights. At that hearing, the Department of Justice told the Court that they had been instructed by the White House that President Trump could only be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the youth plaintiffs would be barred from ever bringing claims against him in the future. Judge Aiken's decision adopted the position of the youth plaintiffs, dismissing President Trump without prejudice. Because all of the federal agency defendants remain in the case, the Court found a full remedy could still be awarded without the President as a named defendant.
Plaintiffs have viable legal claims under the Fifth Amendment and Public Trust Doctrine. Judge Aiken reiterated her order of November 10, 2016: "where a complaint alleges knowing governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet's ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation. To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government's knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink."
"It is clearly within a district court's authority to declare a violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
Plaintiffs have "proffered uncontradicted evidence showing that the government has historically known about the dangers of greenhouse gases but has continued to take steps promoting a fossil fuel based energy system, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions." The Court also cited "the pattern of federally authorized emissions challenged by plaintiffs in this case do make up a significant portion of global emissions." The youth plaintiffs' detailed evidence on government knowledge will be presented at trial.
Plaintiffs' evidence makes clear that their alleged injuries can be redressed through actions by federal defendants. Judge Aiken highlighted plaintiff expert declarations provided by Drs. James Hansen, G. Philip Robertson, Mark Jacobson, James Williams and Joseph Stiglitz making clear that a rapid shift away from fossil fuels is technologically and economically feasible with resources existing today.
Interlocutory review is not certified. Noting that Congress did not intend district courts to certify interlocutory appeals "merely to provide review of difficult rulings in hard cases," Judge Aiken denied defendants' requests to certify for interlocutory appeal made in both the MJP and MSJ. Certifying "a narrow piecemeal appeal on some of these legal issues" would do nothing more than "reshuffle the procedural deck" and fly in the face of the Supreme Court's stated "deeply-held distaste for piecemeal litigation in every instance of temptation."
Plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment claims are dismissed. The Court ruled that youth plaintiffs' stand-alone claim under the Ninth Amendment was not viable as a matter of law and that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment claim.
Children are not a suspect class; nevertheless, strict scrutiny applies to youth plaintiffs' equal protection claim. The Court held that youth plaintiffs are not a "suspect class" under the law. However, because youth plaintiffs' equal protection claim involves a fundamental right, Judge Aiken stated that it "must be evaluated through the lens of strict scrutiny, which would be aided by further development of the factual record." This is the most stringent level of judicial review a court can apply.
Trial in this case will begin as scheduled on October 29, 2018 in Eugene, Oregon.
On Friday, the Trump administration filed a third writ of mandamus petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an unprecedented and extraordinarily rare request that the Ninth Circuit issue a writ of mandamus to stay district court proceedings pending the resolution of the Trump administration's forthcoming petition to the United States Supreme Court. The Department of Justice had planned to file a second writ of mandamus petition with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 17, but the petition with the Ninth Circuit and the planned petition with the Supreme Court were based on the fact that Judge Aiken had not yet decided the MJP and MSJ pending before her. It is unclear whether the defendants will still move forward with a petition to the Supreme Court this week.
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs said:
"The District Court continues to provide well-reasoned decisions that narrow and appropriately frame the heart of this case for trial. Today the parties are filing with the court their witness lists and their pretrial memoranda. We are finalizing exhibits for trial and our experts and plaintiffs have booked their tickets to Oregon. We are ready to bring all of the facts forward and prove these youths' case once and for all."
Alex Loznak, 21-year-old plaintiff from Roseburg, Oregon said:
"Judge Aiken's blockbuster decision lays out in extremely precise detail the factual and legal issues in our case which remain to be resolved at trial. These extensive issues include injury in fact and causation. Judge Aiken rightly rejected the government's motion for Summary Judgment because the factual record in this case still requires extensive development at trial before she or any higher court can reach a final decision. Having contributed extensive personal testimony and research to help develop our case's factual record over the past several years, I am confident that our arguments on the remaining disputed issues will ultimately prevail in court. We still need a full and fair trial to prove our case. October 29, here we come!"
Tia Hatton, 21-year-old plaintiff from Bend, Oregon said:
"With Judge Ann Aiken's most recent decision, my fellow plaintiffs and I have our eyes set on one thing: our trial date. Although President Trump is no longer a defendant, we are confident we can get proper relief with the named agencies that remain as defendants. The key components of our case remain, and have withstood the plethora of attempts to dismiss, appeal, and stay our case over the past three years. We - my lawyers, our experts, and my co-plaintiffs and I - are ready to make our case against the U.S. federal government and their deliberate energy policy that cause catastrophic climate change."
Nathan Baring, 18-year-old plaintiff from Fairbanks, Alaska said:
"This ruling from Judge Aiken is an affirmation of the necessity that we stay on track with the timeline that we are working with. She realizes the urgency of the pressing timeline and we are excited to finally get into the courtroom for trial on October 29."
Philip Gregory, of Gregory Law Group and co-counsel for the Youth Plaintiffs, commented:
"In her reasoned order, Judge Aiken dismissed both the President without prejudice and our claim under the Ninth Amendment. The Court also dismissed one part of our equal protection claim ruling that young people and future generations are not a suspect class. In all other respects, Judge Aiken denied the motions brought by the federal government. The case is now fully positioned to commence trial on October 29 and our Youth Plaintiffs look forward to presenting the science to the Court."
Juliana v. United States is not about the government's failure to act on climate. Instead, these young plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, assert that the U.S. government, through its affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and has failed to protect essential public trust resources. The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children's Trust, and all seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.
Counsel for Plaintiffs are Julia Olson, Esq. of Eugene, OR, Philip L. Gregory, Esq. of Gregory Law Group of Redwood City, CA, and Andrea Rodgers, Esq. of Seattle, WA.
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
LATEST NEWS
'Authoritarianism in Action': Trump Orders DOJ Probe of Democratic Donation Platform ActBlue
Rep. Jamie Raskin called Trump's memorandum "the kind of edict you'd expect from a power-mad dictator in a Banana Republic."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday launched his latest attack on political opponents by directing the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue, a critical fundraising platform for Democrats and progressive organizations.
The order came in the form of a memorandum that the president signed shortly before heading to his Virginia golf course for a $1 million-per-plate fundraiser for MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC that has been accused of receiving illegal straw-donor contributions.
In his memorandum, Trump raised "concerns" about straw donations—when a donor makes a contribution through another person or entity—and directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make 'straw' or 'dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees, and to take all appropriate actions to enforce the law."
Trump's memorandum cites a recent report from House Republicans accusing ActBlue of "a lack of commitment to stopping fraud." ActBlue and House Democrats rejected the GOP findings at the time, calling the document "less of a report and more of a desperate effort to change the subject."
"This president, with his approval ratings underwater and sinking like a stone, is desperately seeking to undermine his political opposition by cutting off their access to funding."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that Trump's broadside against ActBlue marks a similar attempt to divert attention from the president's own corruption.
"Donald Trump pocketed millions of dollars in unlawful payments from foreign governments during his first term, his administration shut down a probe into whether his campaign received an illegal and urgent $10 million bribe from Egypt, and foreign nationals are spending millions on Trump-owned cryptocurrencies right now in apparent hopes of buying their way out of federal criminal investigations through undisclosed payments," Raskin said in a statement.
"The Trump administration has also systematically dismantled crime-fighting efforts at the Department of Justice aimed at foreign corruption of our politics and actually announced its indifference to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," he continued. "So it's rich indeed for Americans to read now that Trump has launched a big initiative to 'crack down on foreign influence' in American politics with one purpose—crippling the fundraising platform of his political opponents."
"Today's presidential decree targeting the campaign infrastructure of the Democratic Party with precisely zero evidence of wrongdoing is the kind of edict you'd expect from a power-mad dictator in a Banana Republic. This president, with his approval ratings underwater and sinking like a stone, is desperately seeking to undermine his political opposition by cutting off their access to funding."
Since its inception in 2004, ActBlue has raised nearly $17 billion through its platform, and it is widely used by Democratic candidates and progressive groups, including organizations critical of the Democratic leadership such as Justice Democrats. (Common Dreams is among the organizations that use ActBlue to process donations.)
According to ActBlue, nearly 15 million Democratic donors have saved their payment information on the platform.
In a statement, ActBlue said that "today's escalation by the White House is blatantly unlawful and needs to be seen for what it is: Donald Trump's latest front in his campaign to stamp out all political, electoral, and ideological opposition."
"ActBlue will immediately pursue all legal avenues to protect and defend itself," the organization added.
Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, called Trump's investigation order "authoritarianism in action." In a joint statement, Martin and the heads of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association said that "Trump's memorandum targeting ActBlue is designed to undermine democratic participation—and it's no wonder why."
"He knows Americans are already fed up with his chaotic agenda that is driving the economy off a cliff, so he's trying to block lawful grassroots donations from supporters giving just $5 or $10 to candidates who oppose him while further empowering the corrupt billionaires who already control his administration," the Democratic leaders said. "As Democrats, we're unified in standing with the millions of Americans who are fighting back against Trump's dangerous abuses of power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Signs Executive Order to Advance 'Deeply Dangerous' Deep-Sea Mining
"The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it," one campaigner warned.
Apr 24, 2025
Amid global calls for a ban on deep-sea mining to protect marine ecosystems, U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to advance the risky practice and "restore American dominance in offshore critical minerals and resources."
"The broad order avoids a direct confrontation with the United Nations-backed International Seabed Authority and seeks essentially to jump-start the mining of U.S. waters as part of a push to offset China's sweeping control of the critical minerals industry," notedReuters, which had previewed the measure aimed at attaining nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium, and rare earth elements.
"The International Seabed Authority—created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not ratified—has for years been considering standards for deep-sea mining in international waters, although it has yet to formalize them due to unresolved differences over acceptable levels of dust, noise, and other factors from the practice," the agency reported.
Trump's order directs Cabinet members including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick—whose department oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—to expedite the permit process and work on various related reports.
"Authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
Deep-sea mining is opposed by over 30 countries as well as academics and advocacy groups worldwide. Among them is Greenpeace USA, whose campaigner Arlo Hemphill said Thursday that "authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
"We condemn this administration's attempt to launch this destructive industry on the high seas in the Pacific by bypassing the United Nations process," Hemphill declared. "This is an insult to multilateralism and a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry."
"But this executive order is not the start of deep-sea mining. Everywhere governments have tried to start deep-sea mining, they have failed. This will be no different," he added. "We call on the international community to stand against this unacceptable undermining of international cooperation by agreeing to a global moratorium on deep-sea mining. The United States government has no right to unilaterally allow an industry to destroy the common heritage of humankind, and rip up the deep sea for the profit of a few corporations."
No exaggeration, deep sea mining could cause the massive collapse of the entire deep sea ecosystem and food chain. This is an existential risk to every person on this planet. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/c...
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) April 24, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Ocean Conservancy vice president for external affairs Jeff Watters also blasted the move, saying that "this executive order flies in the face of NOAA's mission. NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it."
"Areas of the U.S. seafloor where test mining took place over 50 years ago still haven't fully recovered," Watters pointed out. "The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it. Evidence tells us that areas targeted for deep-sea mining often overlap with important fisheries, raising serious concerns about the impacts on the country's $321 billion fishing industry."
He highlighted that "NOAA is already being threatened by this administration's unprecedented cuts. NOAA is the eyes and ears for our water and air. NOAA provides Americans with accessible and accurate weather forecasts; it tracks hurricanes and tsunamis; it responds to oil spills; it keeps seafood on the table; and so much more. Forcing the agency to carry out deep-sea mining permitting while these essential services are slashed will only harm our ocean and our country."
"It's not just our country this executive order would harm: This action has far-reaching implications beyond the U.S.," Watters added, warning that by unilaterally allowing deep-sea mining, "the administration is opening a door for other countries to do the same—and all of us, and the ocean we all depend on, will be worse off for it."
As The New York Timesreported:
The executive order could pave the way for the Metals Company, a prominent seabed mining company, to receive an expedited permit from NOAA to actively mine for the first time. The publicly traded company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, disclosed in March that it would ask the Trump administration through a U.S. subsidiary for approval to mine in international waters. The company has already spent more than $500 million doing exploratory work.
"We have a boat that's production-ready," said Gerard Barron, the company's chief executive, in an interview on Thursday. "We have a means of processing the materials in an allied friendly partner nation. We're just missing the permit to allow us to begin."
In response to the late March disclosure—which came during International Seabed Authority negotiations—Louisa Casson, senior campaigner for Greenpeace International, said that "this is another of the Metals Company's pathetic ploys and an insult to multilateralism. It shows that a moratorium on deep-sea mining is more urgently needed than ever. It also proves that the company's CEO Gerard Barron's plans never focused on solutions for the climate catastrophe."
"The Metals Company is desperate and now is encouraging a breach of customary international law by announcing their intent to mine the international seabed through the United States' Deep-Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act," the camapigner asserted. "This comes after the Metals Company has spent years exerting immense pressure on the International Seabed Authority to try and force governments to allow mining in the international seabed—the common heritage of humankind."
Casson stressed that "states, civil society, scientists, companies, and Indigenous communities continue to resist these efforts. Having tried and failed to pressure the international community to meet their demands, this reckless announcement is a slap in the face to international cooperation."
Less than a week later, the Norwegian deep-sea mining company Loke Marine Minerals declared bankruptcy—which Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, a campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic, noted came "on the same day that we shut down a deep-sea mining conference in Bergen."
The Norwegian government in December halted plans to move forward with deep-sea mining in the Arctic Ocean, which Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, had called "a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and... a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Doctors Without Borders Says Trump Aid Cuts 'Are a Human-Made Disaster' for Millions
"We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs."
Apr 24, 2025
As the Trump administration, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, dramatically slashes U.S. humanitarian assistance, the international medical charity Doctors Without Borders warned Thursday that the cuts are already "having devastating consequences for people who rely upon aid" across the Global South.
"The U.S. has long been the leading supporter of global health and humanitarian programs, responsible for around 40% of all related funding," Doctors Without Borders, known by its French acronym MSF, said in a statement. "These U.S. investments have helped improve the health and well-being of communities around the globe—and totaled less than 1% of the annual federal budget."
"It's shocking to see the U.S. abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts."
However, with the Trump administration slashing funding for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts by 90%, including for programs that fed and provided healthcare for millions of people and fought diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, MSF USA CEO Avril Benoît said there will be "more preventable deaths and untold suffering around the world."
"These sudden cuts by the Trump administration are a human-made disaster for the millions of people struggling to survive amid wars, disease outbreaks, and other emergencies," Benoît warned. "We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs."
"The risks are catastrophic, especially since people who rely on foreign assistance are already among the most vulnerable in the world," she added.
Although MSF received no U.S. government funding, the group noted that "we work closely with other health and humanitarian organizations to deliver vital services, and many of our activities involve programs that have been disrupted due to funding cuts."
"It will be much more difficult and costly to provide care when so many ministries of health have been affected globally and there are fewer community partners overall," the group said. "We will also be facing fewer places to refer patients for specialized services, as well as shortages and stockouts due to hamstrung supply chains."
"It's shocking to see the U.S. abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts," Benoît said. "U.S. assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people... We urge the administration and Congress to maintain commitments to support critical global health and humanitarian aid."
The MSF warning comes after the United Nations World Food Program said earlier this month that the Trump cuts to lifesaving aid programs "could amount to a death sentence for millions of people facing extreme hunger and starvation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular