U.S. Department of Justice comes down on the side of willful destruction of life on Earth

"Lack of standing" is the judicial scoundrels' last refuge.

In an order that undermines nearly a decade of efforts to address the unfolding climate catastrophe through the federal courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on May 1, 2024, to dismiss Juliana v. United States. This case, brought by Our Children's Trust on behalf of 21 youth plaintiffs, was designed to force the U.S. government to address the existential threat of climate change. The ruling came after a sustained campaign by the U.S. Department of Justice to quash the case.

Particularly infuriating is that this obstruction has persisted through both Democratic and Republican administrations, revealing a bipartisan dereliction of governmental civic responsibility. This entrenched resistance to addressing the demands of young climate activists seems worse today than ever.

In an earlier ruling, Judge Ann Aiken wrote:

Exercising my “reasoned judgment,” I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.

Despite Judge Ann Aiken's ruling in favor of the youth plaintiffs—acknowledging that their case deserved a full trial—the Department of Justice repeatedly filed motions to derail this critical constitutional climate case. The appellate court's decision shows how persistent this resistance has been, culminating in this fateful court decision.

In reading the court’s decision, just skip past the legal jargon that is routinely used to lend a veneer of respectability to a preconceived outcome. At the end, you’ll find the verdict handed down by the court. It reads:

We held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and told the district court to dismiss.

The judiciary is part of the problem

With libraries filled with case law—much of it sophistry and casuistry—it’s easy for courts to find a stick to beat a dog, allowing them to dismiss cases with minimal effort. While the so-called administrative deference doctrine might not have played a direct role in this particular court case, it has been a significant factor in explaining how the U.S. legal system has led us—and future generations—into the catastrophic climate chaos hole that we keep digging deeper.

An unintended consequence of the 1970 and 1972 Clean Air and Water Acts, along with the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has been the dysfunctionality of the U.S. legal system. In her book Nature's Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, Mary Christina Wood addresses these issues in depth. Her scholarship was a significant influence on Juliana v. United States and inspired many in the climate movement.

Mary Christina Wood describes the administrative deference doctrine as follows:

Because political motives lie concealed behind a thick morass of complexity created by the agencies themselves, it remains exceedingly difficult to untangle corruption or misuse of office. To make matters worse, the judiciary has largely relinquished its role as an institutional check on environmental agencies, regularly invoking the administrative deference doctrine to give weight to agency decisions. The deference principle assumes that expert agencies act as unbiased decision makers, ever faithful to statutory goals. This approach insulates agency decisions from rigorous judicial examination of inappropriate political motivations that regularly influence the agencies. Through the deference doctrine, courts unwittingly create a judicial prop for an administrative facade that conceals political influence and, at times, outright corruption.

This doctrine also explains why the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can effectively "get away with murder," as it continues to rubber-stamp one fossil fuel project after another, facing little legal accountability.

In summary:

The law is an ass,
It always carries water
For the ruling class.