As I detail more fully here, more than three years ago Oregon federal district judge Ann L. Aiken issued perhaps the most pervasively lunatic ruling I have ever seen. In Juliana v. United States, she denied the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit in which “a group of young people,” ages eight to nineteen, claimed that they have a substantive due process right to a stable climate.
I’m pleased to report that a Ninth Circuit panel, taking the not-so-subtle hint that the Supreme Court provided, has finally determined that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their case. The majority—opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz, joined by Judge Mary Murguia—sensibly, though “[r]eluctantly,” concluded that the federal courts can’t provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek, i.e., an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.” Redressability being an essential component of standing, the majority directed Aiken to dismiss the lawsuit.
Judge Josephine L. Staton—a district judge sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit panel—dissented. I haven’t gotten much further than her third sentence, which reads—I’m not kidding—“Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”