PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge in Oregon refused to pause a prominent children’s climate change lawsuit on Friday as the Ninth Circuit decides on the federal government’s attempt to dismiss the case before it heads to trial.
The 2015 lawsuit — filed by 21 young climate activists initially between the ages of 8 and 19 — accuses the federal government of contributing to climate change through fossil fuel production, thus harming them and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property while failing to protect public trust resources.
The case represents one of several landmark cases launched by young activists hoping to hold the government responsible for allowing activities that perpetuate climate change and, more notably, raise questions about the survivability of the future.
But while some cases have successfully moved through federal courts, the Oregon lawsuit has struggled to reach a trial due to government pushback.
In 2023, the lawsuit narrowly escaped dismissal after U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, a Bill Clinton appointee, allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. That decision followed a divided ruling from the Ninth Circuit in 2020 with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
Then, on Dec. 29, 2023, Aiken denied the government’s motion to dismiss again — prompting the federal government to request a stay on proceedings as the Ninth Circuit decides whether to grant its writ of mandamus seeking the case’s dismissal.
“The court should hold that the district court violated the rule of mandate by granting leave to file the amended complaint,” the federal government wrote in its petition on Feb. 2. “In the alternative, the court should order the district court to dismiss the case without leave to amend either for lack of Article III standing or for failure to state claims for relief.”
The government also requested the Ninth Circuit issue an administrative stay and pause the federal court’s proceedings while the appeals court decides on the petition, which it agreed to do on Feb. 29.
Aiken had other thoughts on the government’s requests.
On Friday, the judge denied the government’s Jan. 18 motion for a stay, explaining that the government defendants “have repeatedly delayed the case from reaching the evidentiary phase for nearly ten years.
“Staying this case will only add to this delay,” Aiken wrote in the order. “This court cannot discern any public interest in such delay.”
In a separate supplemental order — also issued on Friday — Aiken recommended that the appeals court deny the writ of mandamus in favor of a trial.
“This court has great regard for the judicial process,” Aiken wrote. “It has deliberately considered all motions the parties brought, and its decisions are accessible for appellate scrutiny in the due course of litigation. Trial courts across the country address complex cases involving similar jurisdictional, evidentiary and legal questions as those presented here without resorting to interlocutory appeal or petitioning for a writ of mandamus.”
Aiken then emphasized that the proper venue for the case is in the trial court, not with the Ninth Circuit.
“Defendants therefore have other means, such as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief,” Aiken wrote. “This court recommends denying defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus.”
The plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment or an interview following the orders. They did, however, file a strongly worded response to the government’s motion to stay on Feb. 1.
“The solicitor general of the United States and the Department of Justice have singled out these 21 youth plaintiffs, eleven of whom are Black, Brown and Indigenous, to use the most aggressive and discriminatory legal tactics to stop these youth — with physical, emotional, cultural, property and other tangible and deeply personal injuries — from having their trial against the United States federal government for its role in causing their injuries,” the plaintiffs write in the filing.
The plaintiffs note how the case is unique in how the federal government seeks to prevent an evidentiary record at trial for the sake of saving money.
The government’s goal, the plaintiff say, is to hide incriminating evidence.
“The only emergency in this case is the climate emergency that defendants created, and the Department of Justice prolongs with further delays,” the plaintiffs write. “Indeed, the only issue of public importance is the ongoing constitutional violations facing plaintiffs with each additional day of delay.”
Follow @alannamayhampdx
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
