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
Watch: After Key Senate Vote Dems Force Reading of 940-Page GOP Megabill
"If Senate Republicans won't tell the American people what's in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Jun 29, 2025
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
After an hourslong delay from the initial goal of noon, U.S. Senate Republicans on Saturday night kicked off the process of passing their 940-page budget reconciliation package—which the chamber's Democrats are making the clerks read in full, not only to draw out the process but also to highlight the various provisions expected to harm American families while giving tax cuts to the rich.
"Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill, released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don't realize what's in it," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor. "If Senate Republicans won't tell the American people what's in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish."
Watch the bill reading:
The updated bill text was released late Friday. Republicans then spent Saturday scrambling for enough support for the procedural vote. Ultimately, only Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted with Democrats against considering the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which U.S. President Donald Trump wants to sign by July 4, or Independence Day.
Tillis explained his position in a lengthy statement, saying in part: "I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population."
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) pointed out Saturday that "while Republican senators are securing baubles and trinkets for their political donors, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the Senate bill will cut $930 billion from Medicaid." That preliminary analysis doesn't account for other attacks on healthcare, including the Affordable Care Act.
"Just as before, these cruel cuts to Americans' healthcare will strike a mortal blow to rural healthcare, and threaten the health and safety of kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working families across the country," Wyden warned. "Life and death decisions of this magnitude should not be subjected to this rushed and reckless process. I urge Republican senators not to travel down this dangerous path: there is no band-aid that can heal these dangerous, deadly cuts."
It’s 2AM on a Sunday and I’m heading to the Capitol to FORCE a full reading of the Republicans’ 940-page bill.This bill will rip health care coverage away from 16 million people and cut food assistance.It’s sick. And we will not stand for it.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) June 29, 2025 at 2:02 AM
Paul suggested on social media Saturday evening that the GOP bill would add too much to the national debt. In his post on X, the senator also took a swipe at the platform's owner: the richest man on Earth, Elon Musk, who was the de facto leader of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency until his ugly exit from government last month.
Musk, meanwhile, also took to X to blast the package, criticizing the proposed taxes on wind and solar projects: "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future."
The bill would not only attack clean energy, but also give Big Oil $18 billion in new subsidies. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said in a Saturday statement that "these last-minute changes added in secret, behind closed doors, are breathtakingly stupid, as they would undermine thousands of energy projects under development, cause economic chaos, and make electricity more expensive and less reliable for Americans."
"Senate Republicans have zero interest in pursuing measured, thoughtful policy, and instead are only interested in pleasing Trump and extreme oil and gas campaign donors with inane culture war nonsense. The American people deserve better from their Senators than this absurd, harmful charade," he continued. "Trump's oil and gas donors will be delighted, but these cuts will hit America's working families with more expensive energy bills and less reliable service."
While celebrating the 51-49 procedural vote—and specifically praising Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) for their crucial support—Trump lashed out at both Paul and Tillis on his Truth Social platform Saturday, threatening the latter with a primary challenge.
Politicoreported that "Vice President JD Vance arrived at the Capitol shortly after 8:00 pm to break a possible tie," with Johnson, Paul, and Tillis having already voted "no." Johnson changed his vote after negotiations that involved Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and the other holdouts listed by Trump.
One win for critics of the megabill is the removal of Lee's provision to force the sale of public lands, which had generated widespread opposition, including from some Republican lawmakers. Lee had tried to slip a rewritten version of the measure back into the package after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled against it earlier this week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Velázquez Leads 'No Masks for ICE Act' Rally at NYC Field Office
"When agents hide their faces and identities they create chaos, fear, and open the door to abuse. Immigrant communities are left wondering if they're being arrested or kidnapped."
Jun 28, 2025
Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez on Saturday held a rally outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in New York City to promote her recently introduced No Masks for ICE Act.
"We would never accept it if the NYPD operated in masks without names or badges—and we shouldn't accept it from ICE either," Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, referring to the New York Police Department.
"When agents hide their faces and identities they create chaos, fear, and open the door to abuse," she continued. "Immigrant communities are left wondering if they're being arrested or kidnapped. That's not how law enforcement should operate in a democracy. This bill is about restoring basic standards and bringing basic transparency and accountability to immigration enforcement."
"If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?"
As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works to deliver on Republican President Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations, federal agents, including those with ICE, have taken immigrants into custody while wearing masks and plain clothes—sparking alarm over abuse by anonymous agents and also copycat criminals.
Velázquez's bill would bar ICE agents from wearing facial coverings during immigration enforcement, unless medically necessary or required for safety. It would also require written justification for any mask use, agents to wear clothing displaying their name and affiliation with ICE, and DHS to report annually to Congress on any related complaints and disciplinary actions.
A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement toldCBS News on Saturday that masks are optional but that "ICE law enforcement and their families are being targeted and are facing a 500% increase in assaults... due to the demonization of ICE by hostile groups and irresponsible elected officials."
"Politicians and activists must turn the temperature down and tone down their rhetoric," the spokesperson added.
Immigrant rights advocates, legal experts, and Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) also joined the rally. He noted in a statement that "the past few months we've seen a disturbing pattern: masked, plain-clothes agents ambushing immigrants outside courtrooms and on city streets."
"If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?" Nadler asked. "This bill will put an end to those intimidation tactics, restore transparency, and ensure the public knows exactly who is wielding federal power in our communities."
Today, outside 26 Federal Plaza, we joined Congress members @velazquez.house.gov + @nadler.house.gov, @thenyic.bsky.social, @legalaidnyc.bsky.social, and allies to spotlight the No Masks for ICE Act to call for immediate federal action to end secretive, unaccountable immigration enforcement.
[image or embed]
— Make the Road NY (@maketheroadny.bsky.social) June 28, 2025 at 12:12 PM
The rally was held at 26 Federal Plaza, a 41-floor building in Lower Manhattan that houses an ICE field office and one of New York City's immigration courts. Earlier this month, NYC Comptroller Brad Lander—then a Democratic mayoral candidate—was arrested by federal agents while escorting a defendant out of immigration court at the building.
On the 10th floor, "there is a holding area where immigration authorities have typically held a few dozen immigrants at a time for a few hours before transferring them to detention centers," The New York Timesreported a few days after Lander's arrest. "But as the Trump administration expands its immigration crackdown, the space has become overcrowded and people sleep sprawled on the floor, sometimes for days, according to those who have spent time there."
The Times also noted a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem signed by nine of the state's Democratic members of Congress—Nadler and Velázquez plus Reps. Yvette Clarke, Adriano Espaillat, Dan Goldman, Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ritchie Torres—who want to conduct oversight of the field office, which they argue is a detention facility.
"Congressional oversight is essential to bring transparency to the conduct of the Department of Homeland Security," they wrote. "Given the overaggressive and excessive force used to handcuff and detain elected officials in public, DHS's refusal to allow members of Congress to observe the conditions for immigrants behind closed doors begs the obvious question: What are you hiding?"
Following the introduction of Velázquez's bill, two Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced the No Secret Police Act, which would require all law enforcement officers and DHS agents to clearly display identification and their official badges when detaining or arresting people.
That legislation is led by Goldman and Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and backed by dozens of their Democratic colleagues. Espaillat said that "if you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous. DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Terminating TPS for Haitians Slammed as Potential 'Death Sentence'
"Ending TPS for Haitians is cruel and dangerous, and a continuation of President Trump's racist and anti-immigrant practices," said Amnesty International USA.
Jun 28, 2025
Outrage over U.S. President Donald Trump's administration terminating Temporary Protected Status for around half a million Haitians, despite dire conditions in the Caribbean country, continued to mount on Saturday, with critics decrying the decision as harsh and hazardous.
"This is not just cruel—it's state-sanctioned endangerment," declared Haitian Bridge Alliance executive director Guerline Jozef.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that the Trump administration "just decided to send thousands of innocent people who have been living and working here legally into imminent danger in Haiti. Trump will tear apart families, rip up communities, and leave businesses and nursing homes shorthanded. And no one will be safer."
Warren's fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ed Markey, also weighed in on social media Saturday, arguing that "the Trump administration knows Haiti is not safe. This is a callous and shameful political decision that will have devastating human consequences. Saving lives will always be in the national interest."
"This is a callous and shameful political decision that will have devastating human consequences."
TPS was initially granted after an earthquake hit Haiti in 2010. The designation expires August 3, and Trump's Department of Homeland Security announced in a Friday statement that the termination will be effective on September 2. A DHS spokesperson said that "this decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary."
"The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home," the spokesperson added. "We encourage these individuals to take advantage of the department's resources in returning to Haiti, which can be arranged through the CBP Home app. Haitian nationals may pursue lawful status through other immigration benefit requests, if eligible."
While the DHS statement claims Haiti is safe, ignoring the deadly gang violence that has engulfed the country, the Trump administration's official notice has another focus, as some critics highlighted.
The notice states that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "has determined that termination of TPS for Haiti is required because it is contrary to the national interest to permit Haitian nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) to remain temporarily in the United States."
The Miami Heraldreported that the U.S. Department of State currently "warns Americans not to travel to Haiti 'due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.' This week, the agency also urged U.S. citizens to 'depart Haiti as soon as possible' or 'be prepared to shelter in place for an extended time period.'
According to the newspaper:
And just on Thursday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau questioned the lack of action at the Organization of American States to address the crisis in Haiti.
"Armed gangs control the streets and ports of the capital city, and public order there has all but collapsed," he said. "While Haiti descends into chaos, the unfolding humanitarian, security, and governance crisis reverberates across the region."
The Miami Herald reached out to the State Department, asking the agency to explain its recommendations. A State Department spokesperson said the department does not comment on deliberations related to TPS determinations and referred questions to DHS.
"The administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent," the spokesperson said. "TPS is a temporary protection, not a permanent benefit."
Noting the discrepancy between the two departments, Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) denounced the termination as "a deliberate act of cruelty."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said that "this is an act of policy violence that could literally be a death sentence. We should NOT be deporting anyone to a nation still dealing with a grave humanitarian crisis like Haiti. I stand with our Haitian neighbors and urge the Trump administration to reverse course."
Also urging the administration to "reverse this inhumane decision immediately," Amnesty International USA said that "ending TPS for Haitians is cruel and dangerous, and a continuation of President Trump's racist and anti-immigrant practices. Haitian TPS holders have built lives here—working, raising families, and contributing to their communities—all while fleeing unsafe situations in Haiti."
The termination came just two weeks after Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said that "at this time of untold suffering and fear, I reiterate my call to all states not to forcibly return anyone to Haiti, and to ensure that Haitians who have fled their country are protected against any kind of discrimination and stigmatization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular