Youth Climate Cases Everyone Should Be Following
By Kendall Chappell and Nina Jacobs, July 5, 2023
All around the world, youth are using the legal system to fight for the planet.
For the youth, the doom and gloom facing them as a result of destructive climate change can feel overwhelming. After all, their future is being directly threatened by governments which are willingly ignoring science. Yet some young adults are choosing to fight back in ways that are catching the attention of their leaders—through the courts. Both domestically and internationally, young people are rising up and using the legal system to fight for their rights to a safe and clean environment, and a future that they can look forward to.
The Next Generation - American Youth Take a Stand
Some United States youth climate activists have taken it upon themselves to jump into the legal fray and file their own cases. Yet their complaints take a different approach from the norm: instead of suing individual oil and gas companies or the faceless figure of Big Oil, their fight is with an even bigger adversary–the government itself. David Schwartz, a representative of the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, offered insight into how their youth-centered climate lawsuits frame their argument: “These lawsuits focus on the executive branch of the government—whether it'd be the executive branch of the federal government of the United States, or the executive branches of the various state governments in which we file state cases. This is taking a broader view and focusing on the government's actions systemically over a long period of time.”
Originally filed in March 2020 by 16 youth plaintiffs in Montana, Held v. State of Montana went to trial from June 12-20 as the first-ever children’s climate trial in U.S. history. The lawsuit claims that the state’s energy policy—which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels—is exacerbating the climate crisis and infringes on the constitutional right of state citizens to a healthy environment. Montana is one of only six states that explicitly mentions environmental rights in its constitution, represented by the 1972 Article IX: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” While the trial court claimed that it could not order the state to cease its actions through an injunction, it would still rule whether or not the state was violating constitutional rights of its citizens. One plaintiff, Grace, explained her reasoning behind the importance of the trial for youth, “Young people in Montana, like me and my fellow plaintiffs, are already being harmed by the impacts of the climate crisis in our state. We suffer from wildfires, smoke, increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and more. All of which impact our mental and physical health, our cultures, our activities, and our family’s livelihoods. Over time, it’s only going to get worse.”
The most well known youth-centered climate case is Juliana v. United States. Originally filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs, the case claims that the federal government is violating their due process rights to life, liberty, and property by continuing to use and promote fossil fuels. The plaintiffs called for the government to offer, “both declaratory and injunctive relief for their claim—specifically, a declaration of the federal government's fiduciary role in preserving the atmosphere and an injunction of its actions which contravene that role.” Although Juliana specifically targeted the federal government, multiple states took sides in the matter. Last year, eighteen Republican states filed a motion to intervene and object to potential settlements between the federal government and the plaintiffs, while six Democrat states filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs. As of now, the plaintiffs have not made any significant progress in settlement discussions with the federal government, and are still waiting on another ruling.
The key similarity between Juliana v. United States and Held v. State of Montana is the claim that the government (federal or state) is actively harming the environment and violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Schwartz touched on this point: “We've always been careful to frame it in an affirmative action—conduct that the government is taking, these clear and actual steps, that is worsening the crisis, not just not doing anything…When you have affirmative conduct it makes the constitutional violation all that much worse.” In other words, the plaintiffs must argue that the government is doing more than simply being passive during the climate crisis, but exacerbating it in documented ways.
In addition, Schwartz touches on the idea of standards of care, or the idea that “the government can't affirmatively act to deny certain constitutional rights… That's why the framers built the Constitution in the document to protect these certain rights: they were worried that if they were left to purely political processes, you could have the majority or the minority deny other factions of citizens their important rights that are essential to a functioning, stable liberal democracy in which you have a lot of competing viewpoints. That is affirmative action type cases, grounded in constitutional rights.” This is particularly important for youth cases as they try to hold the adults in positions of power responsible for the government’s actions.
Furthermore, Our Children’s Trust is seeing unprecedented attempts by the Justice Department to delay the trial for Juliana v. United States. In fact, Schwartz claims that “[the federal government] pulled out all the stops. What the government really didn't want was all the climate evidence, and all plaintiff testimony, being subjected to an official record. Especially since a lot of our allegations were premised on long standing government knowledge… The government sought legal maneuvering to avoid that in Julianna.” This poses the question, if the government has nothing to hide, why hide it at all? By avoiding a deep dive into the actions (and negligence) of the federal government relating to the climate crisis, the Justice Department makes a compelling case for the youth plaintiffs.
Ultimately, what Our Children’s Trust seeks to achieve is a clear ruling that continued dependence on fossil fuels does negatively impact the environment. For the plaintiffs, “a declaration from the court that a fossil fuel-based society violates and worsens climate change and violates the plaintiffs constitutional rights to life, property, personal security, etc.,” would be a positive outcome, despite some doubts. Schwartz points out that while, “we haven't gotten to the point yet in which currently sitting justices on any state or federal court are willing to put up their necks, the dissents are there. And we're hoping eventually to flip one of those dissenting papers to the majority opinion.” That would represent a powerful step forward for climate justice, and set a precedent for future climate-centered lawsuits.
International Courts Weigh In — Youth Lawsuits Around the World
Youth climate lawsuits aren’t just occurring in the United States. All around the world, young people are engaging with their country’s court systems in an effort to bring climate action. There have been many successful and unsuccessful cases, as well as several that are still in progress. Countries that have been involved in youth climate lawsuits include Pakistan, Portugal, Peru, the UK, China, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Colombia, Nepal, Australia, Belgium, and Italy.
The success of each case widely depends on the country’s current laws and precedent. Legal obstacles in one country may not be considered in other countries, and different environmental and human rights laws allow some regions to make a stronger legal case.
One recent international success occurred in Germany. Germany’s primary climate law is the 2019 Climate Protection Act. This act required several industries and sectors to reduce carbon emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030, and was intended to meet the Paris Climate Agreement’s demands. The climate lawsuit, brought by German youth with the help of an environmental NGO, was filed with Germany’s highest court in February 2020. The case is intended to require amendments to Germany’s Climate Protection Act so it complies with the Paris Climate Agreement. While previous lawsuits in Germany have resulted in stronger climate targets, they believe it is still not enough to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement’s demands.
The youth argued that the target did not account for both Germany’s and the EU’s obligation with the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees Celsius,” which would require the country to reduce emissions by 70%. Legally, their claims were based in Germany’s fundamental right to a future consistent with human dignity, as well as the fundamental right to life and physical integrity; these are encompassed within Article 1(1) and Article 2(2) respectively of the Basic Law, which serves as Germany’s constitution.
The Federal Constitutional Court decided in April 2021 to strike down parts of the German Climate Protection Act, agreeing that it is incompatible with the fundamental rights detailed above. More specifically, they found that the law does not balance the burden of climate action evenly throughout generations, stating that the reduction burden is being “unilaterally offloaded onto the future due to the insufficient reduction levels.”
Unlike Germany, the United States does not have constitutional laws protecting future generations. While the House of Representatives did introduce H.R.8312 (2020) and H.R.6168 (2021), the Future Generations Protection Act, which is intended to amend the Clean Air Act and prohibit greenhouse gas emissions from certain sources, it never proceeded in Congress past the introduction phase. However, several state constitutions and statutes specifically refer to “the protection of the environment for future and present generations.” NEPA, or the National Environmental Policy Act, is one federal law that makes this reference.
Another recent success was in Colombia. This case began in 2018, and while it was initially unsuccessful in lower courts, an appeal led the Supreme Court to reverse its decision. Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente included 25 youth with the non-profit Dejusticia. The plaintiffs alleged that the Colombian Government, by allowing for deforestation of the Amazon, contributes to climate change, violating their fundamental constitutional rights. The lawsuit was expedited as it was filed as a tutela, which allows for a quicker hearing in cases claiming a violation of fundamental rights. The case detailed how deforestation both contributes to emissions and degrades the environment through soil, land, water, and biodiversity damages. In April 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the youth, agreeing that the deforestation violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to life, health, food, water, and a healthy environment. They also took the case a step further by providing personhood to the Amazon Forest; by doing this, the Colombian government is required to protect it.
Another major difference between these countries and the United States is that American. courts tend to oppose requiring policy changes as remediation for lawsuits. This is seemingly due to concerns with maintaining separation of powers, as Congress is the body created to devise legislation. While both Germany and Colombia were able to require the creation or modification of policies to meet certain standards, the federal court in Juliana vs. the United States ruled against the youth plantiffs because the remediation plan would require federal changes in legislation.
Looking to the future there are additional major cases currently in progress. Italy currently has a case based on violations to the plaintiff’s, “right to health” due to longer allergy seasons and massive heat waves that will continue to grow in number, length, and intensity as climate change continues. Martina Comparelli is one of 200 plaintiffs suing Italy for insufficient action, and the case was first filed in 2021. If successful, Italy may be forced to make major cuts in pollution by 2030. The plaintiffs in this case specifically want the Civil Court of Rome to declare that “Italy is responsible for failing to tackle the climate emergency,'' and their efforts are insufficient for meeting the Paris Agreement goals. As the country has formally ratified the agreement, it is legally binding (unlike in the United States). As climate change continues to wreak havoc on lives all around the world, these climate lawsuits are expected to increase in both number and prominence.
[Update: On June 1st, the Judge in Juliana v. United States granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their case. This puts the case back on track for trial. Learn more here.]
Conclusion — Take Action and Support the Youth
Want to support the efforts of young people as they fight for their future? Check out some of the ways you can stay plugged into the fight, both in the United States and abroad:
Donate to Our Children’s Trust. They provide legal representation and support to many youth-led climate cases, both domestic and international, at no cost to the youth plaintiffs.
Sign up for their newsletter to get updates on cases like Juliana and Held, as well as invitations to future events and calls to action.
Stand in solidarity with the youth plaintiffs in Juliana and Held by signing a wall of support for both cases.
Post social media messages of support and solidarity with the Held and Juliana youth plaintiffs! Be sure to tag @youthvgov!
Volunteer with groups that look at international environmental law, like Greenpeace and Climate Foundation.
Sign up for the Center for International Environmental Law’s newsletter, follow their social media accounts, and participate in some of their featured action items.
Join Dejusticia’s mailing list and learn more about their lawsuit in Colombia.
Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on social media to help us change the Chamber.
Change The Chamber is a bipartisan coalition of over 100 student groups, including undergraduates, graduate students and recent graduates.