This is a major victory for the US federal government in the dispute over climate justice between them. In the "Juliana against the United States" case, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal held on Friday, January 17, " unwillingly " and by a majority of two judges to one, that it is not within the purview of the federal judiciary to compel the government of the United States to act on climate change.
Launched in August 2015 by twenty-one young people, now aged 12 to 23 and mostly from the state of Oregon, this case is the most publicized in a series of legal actions brought or supported by the Oregon-based NGO Our Children's Trust. By relying on the violation of the so-called “public trust” doctrine which implies that the government is the guarantor of natural resources which constitute the common good of all citizens, “the 21”, who also consider themselves victims of discrimination in oil industry, have filed lawsuits against President Barack Obama and his government, which the Trump administration inherited.
Fundamental right to a "livable climate"
The young applicants criticize the federal government for failing to protect them from climate change, by supporting the use of fossil fuels for more than fifty years. And to have thus flouted their constitutional right to "Life, freedom and property", and deliberately contributed to global warming.
In defense, the government has argued that neither law nor US history can support the plaintiffs' claim for a fundamental right to a "livable climate". He also called the trial an unconstitutional attempt to control climate and energy policy for the whole country through a single court.
On Friday, the San Francisco Federal Court of Appeal finally denied the young plaintiffs' legal capacity to bring the case to the merits in court. Addressing climate change, says judge Andrew D. Hurwitz in his written opinion, requires "Complex political decisions entrusted, for better or for worse, to wisdom and discretion" of the White House and Congress.
"The complainants have made a compelling case for action; it will become increasingly difficult, in the light of this dossier, for the political branches to deny that climate change is happening, that the government played a role in its appearance and that our elected officials have the moral responsibility to seek solutions , develops the decision. We reluctantly conclude, however, that the complainants' arguments must be presented to the political branches or to the entire electorate, the latter being able to change the composition of the political branches through the ballot boxes. "
