Juliana v. United States

United States District Court for the District of Oregon · 2016 · Property

Propertystandinginjury in facttraceabilityredressabilityAdministrative Procedure Actconstitutional claimsequitable relief

Facts

Plaintiffs are young people, a youth environmental organization, and a guardian for future generations who allege that the federal government has long known that fossil-fuel combustion causes dangerous climate change but has continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil-fuel extraction, development, consumption, and exportation. Federal defendants admitted many core scientific allegations, including that climate change is happening, that human activity is likely the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s, that fossil-fuel activities produce CO2 emissions, and that climate change is already harming human and natural systems. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order requiring defendants to prepare and implement a national remedial plan to phase out fossil-fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2. In support of standing, plaintiffs submitted declarations describing individualized injuries from flooding, wildfire, sea-level rise, health harms, emotional trauma, and harms to cultural and recreational interests, along with expert declarations linking those injuries to fossil-fuel-induced climate change and to federal policies.

Issue

Whether the federal defendants were entitled to judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment because the APA supplied the exclusive avenue of review, separation of powers barred the suit or the requested relief, President Trump had to be dismissed, plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, or plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process theories failed as a matter of law. The court also had to decide whether the President should remain a defendant.

Rule

Constitutional claims for nonmonetary equitable relief against federal agencies are not automatically displaced by the APA; claims not grounded in the APA do not depend on the APA's final-agency-action requirement. A sitting President should be dismissed as a defendant when plaintiffs' injuries can likely be fully redressed by declaratory or injunctive relief against subordinate executive officials. At summary judgment, plaintiffs need only show a genuine dispute of material fact as to standing by producing specific facts supporting injury in fact, traceability, and redressability. Redressability requires a substantial likelihood that judicial relief would slow or reduce the harm, not certainty that it would eliminate it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Residents from Miami, Florida and Phoenix, Arizona sue several federal departments and agency heads, alleging that a decades-long pattern of federal leasing, subsidy, and permitting decisions has intensified a nationwide water crisis that is damaging their homes and health. They seek only declaratory and injunctive relief under the Constitution, not review of any single permit or rule.

The government moves to dismiss, arguing that because the challenged conduct involves agency action, the plaintiffs must identify a specific final agency action and proceed exclusively under the APA. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority opinion held that the APA is not automatically the exclusive avenue for judicial review whenever agency action is involved. The key distinction is between APA claims and direct constitutional claims for equitable relief. Where plaintiffs do not rely on the APA and instead bring constitutional claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against aggregate governmental conduct, the APA's final-agency-action requirement does not govern. The government therefore cannot force dismissal merely because plaintiffs did not identify one discrete final agency action.