The United States Supreme Court has put a temporary hold on Juliana v. United States, the landmark case that pits 21 youth plaintiffs against the inadequacy of federal climate policy, just 10 days before it was set to go to trial October 29.
In a one-page order Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted a Trump administration request to postpone the trial until the court, including new appointee Brett Kavanaugh, could review the latest in a series of government attempts to have the case thrown out.
- Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
- Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
- The Weekender: The climate news you need.
The youth responded by calling for a series of rallies across the U.S. October 28-29 to support their case.
Juliana “has survived numerous attempts by the government to dismiss the case since it was originally filed in 2015,” Climate Liability News reports. “The Trump administration has repeatedly asked both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the trial via writ of mandamus, a rarely used and even more rarely granted appeal in which a higher court overrules a lower court before a verdict has been issued. The Ninth Circuit has twice turned down the request for mandamus (and a third is pending), and the Supreme Court turned down a previous one, as well.”
That July 30 order “called the government’s request for relief ‘premature,’ though it also noted that plaintiffs’ claims were ‘striking’ in their breadth and presented grounds for differences of opinion,” CLN adds. “The denial was ordered without prejudice, meaning that defendants could try again.”
“We are confident once Chief Justice Roberts and the full Court receive the youth plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ mischaracterization of their case, the trial will proceed,” said Julia Olson, co-counsel for the 21 youth.
“As the Supreme Court has recognized in innumerable cases, review of constitutional questions is better done on a full record where the evidence is presented and weighed by the trier of fact,” she added. “This case is about already recognized fundamental rights and children’s rights of equal protection under the law.”