Seven years ago, on this day, December 26th, 2018,
On December 26, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the requested writ of mandamus as moot but granted the interlocutory appeal by a 2–1 vote.[52]
Juliana vs United States
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 409ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was the law is there, mostly, to protect the rich from the poor. You can dress it up how you like (and people are well paid to do so).
The specific context was, according to Wikipedia
Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 and dismissed in 2020. Filed by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez’s organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a “guardian for future generations.”
What I think we can learn from this – the law is there to protect the rich (present generations) from the poor and the claims of other species and the future generations of hairless murder apes, rich and poor. There, is that better?
What happened next
On January 17, 2020, on a 2–1 vote, the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing. Writing for the majority, Judge Hurwitz wrote that “it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.”[60] In dissent, Judge Staton characterized the majority as shirking its judicial responsibility to rectify a grave constitutional wrong in the manner the U.S. Supreme Court laudably did in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, stating, “My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.”[61] She further argued, “No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.”
And
On Dec. 29, 2023, Judge Aiken ruled that her court would hear the case as based on the amended complaint.[76] The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled on May 1, 2024, that the plaintiffs lacked standing and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case with no option to amend their filings.[77] On Sep 12, 2024, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of the case.[78] The Court declined to hear the appeal in March 2025.[79]
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Also on this day:
December 26, 1968 – “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution” symposium
December 26, 1997 – #climate denial machine exposed again and again
December 26, 2019 – Antarctic journeys…
