District Court Dismisses Another Kids Climate Suit, As Existing Law Requires (Updated)

A suit asking a district court judge to undo every Trump Administration energy policy initiative is dismissed with prejudice; appeal to follow.

On Wednesday, Judge Dale Christensen on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump, the latest "kids climate suit," on standing grounds. The only thing surprising about this was that Judge Christensen thought it was necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing, featuring multiple witnesses, before reaching this conclusion. Existing Ninth Circuit precedent--from Juliana v. United States, a prior kids climate case--clearly controlled the outcome.

As with prior kids climate cases, Lighthiser involved youth plaintiffs alleging that the federal government's failure to act more aggressively to control greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. In particular, the Lighthiser plaintiffs claimed that the Trump Administration's various energy-related Executive Orders and efforts to undo the Biden Administration's climate policies violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and are otherwise unlawful. As Judge Christensen noted, the plaintiffs were "effectively asking that this Court order the United States to return to the environmental policy of the previous administration."

Even had the court found a way around the Ninth Circuit's rejection of standing for similar claims in Juliana, the district court would still have been justified in dismissing the case. The Constitutional claim, like those in other kids climate cases, are audacious (to say the least) and at odds with existing jurisprudence. The Lighthiser plaintiffs were nonetheless able to get multiple prominent academics to serve as expert witnesses in their case.

Judge Christensen dismissed the case with prejudice, as he recognized that the plaintiffs faced more than a pleading problem, and any amendment to their complaint "would be futile." An appeal is likely. A different ultimate outcome is not. Even were the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its Juliana decision en banc, any decision allowing this litigation to proceed would be unlikely to survive a trip to One First Street.

UPDATE: The New York Times suggests the decision has a "silver-lining" for the plaintiffs. As a P.R. matter, that may be true. (Indeed, the NYT story would itself be evidence of that.) As a legal matter, not so much. As I told the Times:

Jonathan Adler, a professor at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Va., who is not involved in the litigation, said the lawsuit was built on "fanciful" theories and its dismissal wasn't particularly surprising. Having young plaintiffs may make cases "a more interesting drama" for publicity reasons, he said, but it doesn't add legal heft. "This litigation is more about the court of public opinion than the courts of law," he said.

I disagree with Daniel Metzger of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law that the decision offers "very detailed guidance for designing cases that can overcome the challenges this one faced," unless one understands that to mean that the opinion indicated that the only sorts of climate cases that can succeed are those that don't seek sweeping relief or advance broad constitutional claims.

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

If the plaintiffs' did have a constitutional right to whatever environmental remedies they ask from the court, then the Trump administration would seem not to have a legitimate power to a contrary policy. Thus, Adler's argument looks either ill considered or prejudiced to insist in effect that the court lacks power to enforce the Constitution if doing so would frustrate President Trump. That part of Adler's argument makes no sense.

[Michael Ejercito]

The only way they could have such a right is if it were expressly enumerated in the Constititution.

[Kazinski]

The constitution says almost nothing about policy, what it does do is lay out the framework of how the policy is decided.

It is not:

A bunch of kids parent's sue and pretend its really the kids.
They are really sincere and cute, so the judge buys their argument.
Judge orders a complete revamping of US environmental policy, and the entire economic order.
The President and Congress meekly comply.

While Congress is always willing to spend money on pork, even if its green, they have never committed the US to anything like net zero.

In fact the Senate voted something like 97-3 on a resolution that stated "don't even think of bringing the Kyoto Treaty up for a vote, the Paris treaty was never brought to a vote either, for obvious reasons.

And yet the Judge somehow thinks standing is the only thing keeping n him from ordering both Kyoto and Paris implemented.

[David Nieporent]

If the plaintiffs' did have a constitutional right to whatever environmental remedies they ask from the court,

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. The entire point is that they don't.

Note that your argument doesn't even frame the issue correctly. In order for them to be entitled to "remedies," there must first be a violation of a right. Those are two separate questions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — The question of existence of a right is part and parcel of the suit. Counter-arguments tend to be protective of a notion that rights to access and privately exploit the public commons do exist. Extractive industries have been winning lawsuits on that basis for almost two centuries.

Allocation of water for agriculture has throughout the American West been assigned on the basis of a legal principle framed as, "first in time, first in right." That has been read as a matter of law to mean that the original water right claimant on a given supply gets to take water at pleasure, in unlimited quantities. When that claim is satisfied, use passes to the next-oldest claimant, and so on, until all claimants are satisfied, or until the supply runs out.

That, at least, was the legal tradition at the outset. Controversies since may or may not have modified those rules here, there, or everywhere.

Hard to square that history with a notion that no part of the public commons is protected as a matter of right for modern plaintiffs. But of course bias in favor of accustomed parties who began long ago to make their claims on the commons have become entrenched in the legal system, and can be read as tradition to exclude others who arrive later. I think courts which do that act on the basis of prejudice, not on the basis of legal tradition.

[Michael Ejercito]

Do these kids want the whole planet to be dark amd freezing cold all year long?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes...

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No. Their parents probably don't either. It's really the money funding them that wants control, and this lawsuit is just another way to try to get it. They sold the parents on some fairy tale.

[David Nieporent]

No. Why would you ask a bad faith question like that?

[Malika la Maize]

Professor Adler, I think you mean Judge Dana Christensen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_L._Christensen

[John F. Carr]

Here is an example of why factual findings by a single district court judge should not decide major cases.

[Joe_dallas]

Why did the judge even hold evidentiary hearing ? Especially considering that he had to dismiss the case due to Juliana.

Showboating perhaps?

[Brett Bellmore]

Wanted to give them everything he WAS allowed to give them.

[Area Man]

“Even were the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its Juliana decision en banc, any decision allowing this litigation to proceed would be unlikely to survive a trip to One First Street.”

Even that wouldn’t stop the exploitation of these and other children, just like it never stopped the exploitation of Greta Thunberg.

But, for now, these people haven’t gotten the memo that the current Supreme Court isn’t the Supreme Court of old, where if you can’t get your policy preferences passed by democratic means you just have the courts impose them on everyone under the guise of constitutional law. I’m sure that day will return, and there’s obviously concerted efforts to do just that re climate change, immigration, etc. But for now democracy is largely safe from those who shout “Democracy!” the loudest while doing everything they can to impose their views without it.

[David Nieporent]

where if you can’t get your policy preferences passed by democratic means you just have the courts impose them on everyone under the guise of constitutional law.

Oh, I think you missed Trump v. U.S..

[Brett Bellmore]

So, who's behind these nominal plaintiffs? Because I think we call know that kids aren't doing this on their own, they're just recruited sock puppets for somebody else.

[Krayt]

We live in a democracy. In a democracy, if you see a problem, you point your finger to the heavens, slam your other fist on the table, and expound, "There outta be a law!"

And it's a perfect use of democracy for The People to decide how much environmental damage is an acceptable tradeoff for economic progress. In every other instance, these folk justify environmental regulation by government as it is a "commons", so it's governnent's job to do so.