On March 24, in Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America et al., the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition to hear an appeal from Our Children’s Trust from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision concluding that a lawsuit from youths alleging that current federal energy policies harm their future by exacerbating climate change.
In an order with no explanation, the Supreme Court Justices denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, which means the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision will stand. In their petition, the children argued that the Ninth Circuit improperly concluded they failed to prove that a federal agency or official could redress their injuries even if specific policies were found to be at fault.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision denied the youths’ appeal from the Oregon Federal District Court on the basis that it is “clearly explained that Article III courts could not ‘step into [the] shoes’ of the political branches to provide the relief the Juliana plaintiffs sought,” and that “neither the request for declaratory relief nor the request for injunctive relief was justiciable.”
Our Children’s Trust’s losing argument to the Supreme Court was that “the Article III redressability requirement does not require crystal-gazing into the likelihood of future post-judgment events.” They children claimed all a plaintiff needs to prove redressability is that there is a “concrete and particularized ongoing injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct.” They asked the Supreme Court to consider their petition after they tackled a similar question in Gutierrez v. Saenz, a Texas death penalty case the Supreme Court heard oral argument on in February 2025, where Ruben Gutierrez is suing the State of Texas to allow him to test DNA evidence he believes could reverse his death sentence. Our Children’s Trust argued that the question Gutierrez presented to the Supreme Court is very similar to Juliana case question and is centered on whether Article III standing requires a determination that a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.
Our Children’s Trust Chief Legal Counsel Julia Olsen issued a statement shortly after receiving the Supreme Court’s order:
“Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone. Juliana ignited a global youth-led climate rights movement that continues to grow stronger. It has inspired young people to stand up and demand their constitutional rights to a safe climate and a livable future.”
Groups similar to Our Children’s Trust have secured victories in the Montana (Rikki Held et al. v. State of Montana, et al.) and Hawaii (Navahine F., a minor v. Department of Transportation, et al.) state courts. It remains to be seen where the global youth-led climate rights movement will turn next.