Supreme Court Refuses to Resurrect the Kids Climate Case

Unsurprisingly, no justice showed any interest in reviving a lawsuit that should have died long ago.

In yesterday's Orders List, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Kelsey Juliana, a last ditch attempt to revive the so-called "Kids Climate" case. At long last, this audacious effort to claim that the federal government is violating the constitution by failing to take more action to address climate change may be put to rest.

As I noted when the petition was filed, there was no chance the Supreme Court would act on this request, a point on which Dan Farber agreed. Nonetheless, the New York Times reported credulously on the filing, as if it had any legal merit or likelihood of success.

The Department of Justice recognized that the petition posed no risk and waived filing a response. Yesterday, not a single justice indicated any interest in the case.

From the start, Juliana was the sort of case that made for interesting discussions in the faculty lounge, but had no more than superficial grounding in any applicable precedent or doctrine (a point I briefly develop in this forthcoming symposium essay). Yet insofar as it attracted attention and resources, it risked diverting the focus of climate change efforts away from things that could be potentially meaningful.

I think one can finally say that Juliana is gone for good, and that climate law will be better for it.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

One article said the plaintiffs could still file a petition for certiorari before the case is gone for good.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I suppose there’s still the international court at the Hague.

[KenveeB]

There’s also the letter to Santa Claus.

[Joe_dallas]

change of subject – The Mann v Steyn , et al has 30-40 motions, replys etc post trial that have not been ruled on (or at least with no court posting of any of the motions. Does any one know the status of those post trial motions

https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/A7945FC90A25A3551839953AC5F7BE9550986558AB6B1180AB589D683457E6C26F6129A3235D5065B2D9085BFE1B36667667CBACC90F5D50E78D8E51EDF60504996B06B0CD5A87759166C7D39946DDD3/anon/portalembed

[Krayt]

How much damage to the environment (in general) as trade off for progress and advancement is exactly the kind of thing for democracy to decide.

You know. Problems, you then say, “there oughta be a law!”

[Bob from Ohio]

A crime that the lawyers still have their law licenses. I guess its (D)ifferent for left wingers.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I don’t follow the claim that the NYTimes reported “credulously” in the article. They reported on a group appealing to the Supreme Court. It is fairly normal that when a group loses in appellate court, they vow to appeal, and then subsequently do appeal. Nothing in the piece characterizes their odds of legal success — it notes both setbacks and successes in lower courts. There are three sets of quotes in the piece: a quote by one of the plaintiffs describing what’s going on, a quote from the filing, and a quote from one of the judges who ruled against them. This appears to follow the standard format for pieces like this. I don’t really see the credulity. Just as a matter of basic literacy if you’re going to try to complain about the dumb lying liberal media you might want to make sure you’re not projecting.

Is the objection to the NYT using the word “landmark” to describe the case? To the extent that kind of editorializing is vulgar, I think probably we’d start with the sub-lede of this post. It really just comes off a little snide, like you want to twist the knife on those teenagers and their half-cocked ideas. Fair enough, you win, they lose (???) but if I was a tenured law professor at a decent institution making mid 6 figures I probably wouldn’t feel the need to stunt on some dumb teenagers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The objection is to the Times reporting on the case “as if it had any legal merit or likelihood of success.”

They don’t write stories on most of the thousands of petitions for certiorari that are denied without comment, almost all of which present far stronger claims for relief than this one.

And the beef isn’t with the kids—it’s with the parents and lawyers exploiting them with this frivolous lawsuit, none of whom are likely to suffer any consequences for it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

superficial grounding in any applicable precedent or doctrine

And, it wasn’t some conservative lawsuit precedent-breaker, so ….

Yet insofar as it attracted attention and resources, it risked diverting the focus of climate change efforts away from things that could be potentially meaningful.

Lots of these message lawsuits are out there for many causes & I doubt net they hurt the causes involved. They keep the causes in the news and so on & once that happens, there is more possibility people and resources will also do other things.

[David Nieporent]

How much of the climate change community’s resources were tied up in a suit that was never ever going anywhere?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don’t know but I doubt it was net that significant.

Message litigation regularly doesn’t “go anywhere” as litigation but it still has some value to the cause.

If someone in the climate community net thinks this was a waste, I’ll respect their opinion, but without more, I have my doubts this was somehow totally useless. What is “meaningful” to a cause is a mixture.

I’d like to hear from someone who was part of this litigation & have them answer this take.

[gormadoc]

I was a key player in this litigation. It was extremely important, really “moved the needle,” and I deserve every penny. It is a shame I will not be able to present my case in front of the SC and earn more money.

[KenveeB]

I think the problem is when you flood the news with “message” lawsuits that have no legal value and get unceremoniously denied, you’re sending the message that your cause is silly and has no merit. I’m less likely to take future, possibly meritorious lawsuits seriously if you’ve been filing a bunch of Hail Marys you know are going to lose and have no real merit.

[David Nieporent]

I think the problem is when you flood the news with “message” lawsuits that have no legal value and get unceremoniously denied, you’re sending the message that your cause is silly and has no merit.

To be fair, when you take other types of action like throwing soup at paintings, it also sends the message that your cause is silly and has no merit.

[ReaderY]

Looking at it it as a form of advertising, I think you’d first have to estimate how much money you’d have to pay to generate a comparable amount of attention and coverage by some other means before you could describe generating the attention this way as a waste of money.

The suit didn’t go “nowhere”. It got into a great many readers’ and viewers’ hands, eyes, and minds. That may have been exactly where its originators wanted it to go. It may well have been successful, cost-effective marketing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

the New York Times reported credulously on the filing, as if it had any legal merit or likelihood of success.

The article spelled out what happened in the case, including how they repeatedly lost. Reading it, “likelihood of success” is not what I would take from it. I guess “so we have a chance” vibes are there & a person can say that was too positive. Still. As to “any legal merit,” the article spells out the uphill battle they had so far.

The article cites a win by Our Children’s Trust in Hawaii (a likely place for a win, I guess), which represents the group. One question that comes to mind is how important this group is to the climate cause & what other things they do.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

As the case against Climate Change dramatically increases, you have to pretend Greta Thunberg is Madame Curie,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlcAKE04YvM

So Yellen says we need at least $3 Trillion a year to fight climate change. Where I live tens of thousands had an unbearable actual summer , like poor people often do — and from actual present sufferers not a penny for air-conditioning out of 3 TRILLION.