The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
District Court Dismisses Genesis B. Kids Climate Suit Against the EPA
The district court recognizes that the plaintiffs lack standing, but grants them leave to amend.
On Wednesday, District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the Central District of California dismissed Genesis B. v. Environmental Protection Agency, another "kids climate suit" against the federal government. In this case, as in the Juliana litigation, the plaintiffs sought to argue that the federal government is constitutionally obligated to take more aggressive action to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Among other things, the Genesis plaintiffs sought to argued that discounting future harms from climate change constitutes invidious age discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. As extravagant as such substantive arguments were, the plaintiffs here faced a larger threshold problem: Demonstrating federal court jurisdiction to hear the claims.
In the order, Judge Fitzgerald noted that there was no basis upon which to distinguish this case from the Juliana case, which the Ninth Circuit ordered dismissed on standing grounds. However, Judge Fitzgerald did grant the plaintiffs leave to amend, offering them another opportunity to reformulate their claims. No doubt the plaintiffs will file an amended complaint, but I am skeptical it will produce a different result.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We need to start sanctioning some of the lawyers taking advantage of these children, and the parents signing them up for the abuse.
It’s a curious view of the legal system to characterize being a civil plaintiff as abusive
What would you call signing your kids up to be political props by facilitating frivolous litigation? Tough love?
Maybe the kids want to be involved. You have no idea. To accuse someone of child abuse on this basis is risible.
I honestly did a doubletake on that.
If there had been a hoary and incorrect anecdote about Maine tossed in as well, I would have sworn it was a Dr. Ed comment.
Loki,
Government schools these days are grooming activists from the beginning. They've been building up to this for years.
It's all baked into SEL.
Since the lawyers are (for obvious reasons) targeting parents, not kids, with their recruitment efforts, I kind of doubt it. But regardless, if your eight year old says they want to be a plaintiff in a frivolous lawsuit, the proper response is to say no.
Again, you may view the substantive suit to be frivolous. I might even mostly agree with you!
However it is not child abuse under any definition I am familiar with. If you’re so sure it is— go ahead and post the same under your real name. And include your bar number. It’s a stunning accusation from an attorney.
Also Noscitur A Sociis,
If your eight year old son says he's a girl, you're a fascist bigot for not affirming his identify.
I have to agree with Noscitur on this.
The kids are simply props and should not be used for political purposes.
Gotta say this really highlights the convenient limitations of peoples' concerns for kids.
It's not being a plaintiff that's the problem. It's the meritless suits brought by the climate grifters/frauds.
Huh? People abuse the civil litigation process all the time. Tax protesters who file dozens of frivolous lawsuits against local elected officials in their personal capacity, election deniers who file suit against local clerks and registrars, etc. They should all be sanctioned, and imprisoned for contempt if they fail to cease after being warned.
As for sanctions— can you be more specific as to what you think was sanctionable here? What does the fact the judge gave leave to amend suggest to you?
That he wants do do exactly what Aiken did, despite admitting he already knows that he's not supposed to?
Once again, Brett, you've revealed that you didn't bother to read the (very short) source material, and just went to your already-decided conclusion.
Here is the what the District Court actually wrote, and I am going to get to the meat of the issue for you, given you past choices to not engage in the actual text-
Moreover, the Court is skeptical that Plaintiffs can amend their allegations to demonstrate redressability, especially in light of the spirit of the Mandamus Order, even if the procedural posture was quite different from that here. However, Defendants do not oppose leave to amend, and the record will be more complete for any future appeal. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiffs one more chance to amend their complaint to address the standing issues discussed in this Order and any other potential deficiencies as raised in the Motion.
It says other things, but here's the jist-
Leave to amend is liberally granted. Defendants DID NOT OPPOSE IT. And while the Court doubts that amendment can possibly cure the deficiencies, given the early procedural posture, lack of opposition, and liberality of amendment, the Court will give them ONE MORE CHANCE to amend, while stating that it will probably be futile.
(By the way, "one more chance" is both bolded and italicized in the original.)
That’s just the judge being extra tricky. Unfortunately, liberals have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull the wool over Brett’s eyes!
The fact that this relief is expressly barred by circuit and supreme court precedent, precedent which is itself clearly correct based on core principles of our legal order.
I don’t know Estragon, what do you think it means?
“The fact that this relief is expressly barred by circuit and supreme court precedent, precedent which is itself clearly correct based on core principles of our legal order.”
Well, as you should know (and you do know this, right????) sanctions in federal court are nearly impossible to get unless there has been a Rule 11 motion.
So what you’re saying is that the Court should have sanctioned them, despite … no apparent motion for same, because you think it was necessary? And despite no apparent evidence of the persistence of bad-faith litigation or lack of candor to the tribunal, or even any analysis of the timing or the allegations.
Cool story.
Oh, I’m under no illusions that they will be sanctioned in this case. But (to quote the Ninth Circuit), “Courts are established at public expense to try issues, not to play games.” Until game playing starts carrying consequences, they’re going to continue taking time and attention from litigants with actual cases to resolve.
Quote the Ninth all you want, but if you have actual experience litigating federal claims, you are more than familiar with sanctions.
We have enough DERP commenters here who say every single bad thing must be sanctioned who don't have experience. We don't need people with, you know, actual knowledge to be making stupid assertions.
Now, if you wanted to make an actual argument about what constitutes sanctionable conduct, what should be required (both in terms of a motion, and sua sponte), and how parties should conduct themselves if they are seeking a modification or reversal of current law, I'm all ears.
But given the procedural posture of this particular case, you and I both know that this doesn't even rise an eyebrow, let alone come close to the level of sanctionable conduct.
It suggests to me the judge thinks the complaint can be amended in a way to confer standing.
Actually, if you read the order, the judge doesn't think so. But it's more, "There was no opposition of an amendment, it's freely granted, and I doubt they can. One more shot, but not with this theory.
Fair enough
Here is what the judge actually said:
That does not suggest to me what it appears to suggest to you.
"We need to start sanctioning some of the lawyers taking advantage of these children, and the parents signing them up for the abuse."
Do you want people who disagree with your parenting choices sanctioning you?
We rightly set the bar very high for such interference, but not high enough.
The parents, no.
However, as far as the lawyers advancing such frivolous claims, I can agree. They lack jurisdiction, standing, the attributable damage caused by any one actor, and definitely the ability of the court to redress any of the effects. This has been consistent every time it has been brought up for decades, and they are deliberately wasting the court's time. This will keep happening until the lawyers involved get sanctioned.
Maybe these young people should adopt a different strategy . . . wait a couple of decades, then (1) cut benefits for old-timers, (2) stop subsidizing (completely) the conservative states, and (3) use the savings to address the effects of climate change.
...but wait, wouldn't they all be dead in a couple of decades?
Nope. They'll still be young enough to watch a bunch of selfish, antisocial old hayseeds enjoying pet food.
Yes, these kids probably should grow up and try to implement their policy preferences through politics, rather than through frivolous litigation.
The defendant in this case is the EPA, the same defendant as in Massachusetts v. EPA, which has a statutory but not constitutional duty to regulate pollution. The older case was a lawsuit against everybody in sight.
I think that there are, in fact, non-trivial distinctions with this case.
But I don’t think that those distinctions get around the standing issue.
That said, I think the judge did the right thing; I am really trying to think of the last time I was able to successfully dismiss a complaint in federal court on the first go-around without a single opportunity to amend; the only two that come to mind are one that was converted into a summary judgment (don’t ask, long story), and another that was by a “natural born citizen”, one of the other defendants filed an answer and moved for a judgment on the pleadings, and the plaintiff started showing up at the federal court house to harass the staff.
Climate hysteria is a fad that's declining among all age groups:
"Most Americans continue to acknowledge the existence of climate change, but the number who see this as a very serious problem has fallen below half. Support for government action to reduce activities that impact the climate has dipped below 6 in 10 for the first time since Monmouth began polling this topic nearly a decade ago,”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050624/
Possibly a fad.
There is no question the earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the LIA. While the theoritical scientific basis that Co2 is a factor in the warming, the empirical evidence isnt nearly as strong as the theory.
There are good reasons to believe CO2 levels of 280 ppm were too low, and posed a risk for catastrophic mass extinction. At 200-180 ppm plants face CO2 starvation. So to put that in perspective that's a reduction of just 1/100th of a percentage point (0.01%) before plants would struggle to be produce enough to support animal life.
Sure some of us would survive by growing our food in greenhouses in the worst case, and of course the change would happen slowly and we could remediate it by doing what we are doing now, recycling carbon that was sequestered by natural processed back into the atmosphere from whence it came.
In fact, that's why you see so much grass all over the place. Most plants use C3 photosynthesis, which pretty much stops at 150 ppm. But grasses use C4 photosynthesis, which keeps working down to much lower CO2 concentrations. So grasses have an enormous competitive advantage.
It isn't until you reach 800-1000 ppm that they're at parity. All of human history most plants have been struggling to survive CO2 starvation.
That's weird because over the course of human history plants have been struggling to survive human destruction of biodiversity and eco-systems. They were doing fine in terms of their C02 needs.
I think you'll find plants will struggle under conditions of drought, wildfire, flood, and conflict over dwindling resources.
The magnitude of the change in the last 150 years is unprecendeted and surpasses the rate and magnitude of change over the last 24,000 years, so, I'd say the empirical evidence is unimpeachable.
Nige - you are repeating a common talking point
contrary to your unsupported belief, the resolution proxy data is simply too low to reach that conclusion.
You mentioned the 24,000 years study (out of UofAz I presume). that study uses proxies with a resolution of 200-300 years. Quite frankly that is idiotic to compare 200+year proxy data against modern instrumental record.
The proxies do quite well, thank you. All the data shows the current rise is extreme and unprecedented.
Nige 34 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The proxies do quite well, thank you.
Nige - 200 year resolution is extremely poor temporal resolution compared to instrumental record. Teirney and Osman's conclusions are not nearly as strong as presented.
Oh wow, you're resurrecting the 'god of the gaps' argument from the old anti-evolution days!
Hysteria exhaustion. The global warming nuts seemingly didn't realize they couldn't keep predicting imminent disaster forever before people would get tired of them.
To be sure, the planet is warming, and thank goodness: We're still in an inter-glacial period (Known as the "Holocene") during an ice age, if it stopped warming the next thing to happen would be the temperature dropping, fast. Human CO2 is probably stretching this interglacial period out more than normal.
I mean you can keep telling people something is going to happen, gettin tired of hearing it, or more likely getting tired of seeing the people in charge refuse to do something about it, isn’t going to make the thing magically not happen.
‘Human CO2 is probably stretching this interglacial period out more than normal.’
That is not what’s happening.
&”Most Americans continue to acknowledge the existence of climate change, but the number who see this as a very serious problem has fallen below half.”
But almost 100% of the Washington Post commentariat consider it the most important issue ever, along with the impending Trump dictatorship, pronouns, meat, reparations, and whatever the next existential crisis is.
'Climate hysteria is a fad that’s declining'
If they wish hard enough or ignore it maybe it'll go away. It won't, obviously, but hey, calling it a fad will help with one, if not the other!
Yeah, I don't know what they're teaching these kids, but never trust air you can't see. That's what we were taught, amiright?
I'm stuck in a nihilistic spiral and I can't find my way out. Thank god I wasn't taught this earlier.
OH MY GOD! The children. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE CHILDREN???!!!
As they age, they will join the American mainstream in kicking religious, rural, bigoted, half-educated conservatives further toward the curb, painting those losers into increasingly small, desolate corners of America -- same as their predecessors.
Apparently nobody gives a shit what will happen to the children.