On Wednesday, District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the Central District of California dismissed Genesis B. v. Environmental Protection Agency, another "kids climate suit" against the federal government. In this case, as in the Juliana litigation, the plaintiffs sought to argue that the federal government is constitutionally obligated to take more aggressive action to control greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, the Genesis plaintiffs sought to argued that discounting future harms
On Wednesday, District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the Central District of California dismissedGenesis B. v. Environmental Protection Agency, another "kids climate suit" against the federal government. In this case, as in the Juliana litigation, the plaintiffs sought to argue that the federal government is constitutionally obligated to take more aggressive action to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Among other things, the Genesis plaintiffs sought to argued that discounting future harms from climate change constitutes invidious age discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. As extravagant as such substantive arguments were, the plaintiffs here faced a larger threshold problem: Demonstrating federal court jurisdiction to hear the claims.
In the order, Judge Fitzgerald noted that there was no basis upon which to distinguish this case from the Juliana case, which the Ninth Circuit ordered dismissed on standing grounds. However, Judge Fitzgerald did grant the plaintiffs leave to amend, offering them another opportunity to reformulate their claims. No doubt the plaintiffs will file an amended complaint, but I am skeptical it will produce a different result.
Today a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the U.S. Department of Justice's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking dismissal of Juliana v. United States, the so-called "Kids Climate Case." The brief order was short and direct. It noted that the Ninth Circuit had previously concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing and ordered the case dismissed. Contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, no intervening decisions changed that fact, and that there was no basis
Today a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the U.S. Department of Justice's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking dismissal of Juliana v. United States, the so-called "Kids Climate Case."
The brief order was short and direct. It noted that the Ninth Circuit had previously concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing and ordered the case dismissed. Contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, no intervening decisions changed that fact, and that there was no basis for the district court to allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint.
This decision should not have been a surprise. It should also be a relief to those who hope to see further climate litigation, as the Ninth Circuit panel saw no need to consider issues beyond the plaintiffs' Article III standing, and dismissal of the case obviates any need for the DOJ to seek Supreme Court review. Judge Aiken was wrong to revive this case, and now the Ninth Circuit has killed it for good.
Meanwhile, there are other (more well-grounded) climate cases proceeding in state courts under state law. More on those cases in future posts.
I've reproduced the Ninth Circuit's order after the jump.
Here is the text of the brief order:
In the underlying case, twenty-one plaintiffs (the Juliana plaintiffs) claim that—by failing to adequately respond to the threat of climate change—the government has violated a putative "right to a stable climate system that can sustain human life." Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2023 WL 9023339, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 29, 2023). In a prior appeal, we held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring such a claim. Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1175 (9th Cir. 2020). We remanded with instructions to dismiss on that basis. Id. The district court nevertheless allowed amendment, and the government again moved to dismiss. The district court denied that motion, and the government petitioned for mandamus seeking to enforce our earlier mandate. We have jurisdiction to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. We grant it.
1. "[M]andamus is an extraordinary remedy . . . reserved for extraordinary situations." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988). "[M]andamus is the appropriate remedy" when "sought on the ground that the district court failed to follow the appellate court's mandate." Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Wash., 173 F.3d 713, 719 (9th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of N.Y., 334 U.S. 258, 263 (1948). We review a district court's compliance with the mandate de novo. Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 615 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. The petition accuses the district court of failing to execute our mandate on remand. District courts must "act on the mandate of an appellate court, without variance or examination, only execution." United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). "[T]he only step" that a district court can take is "to obey the mandate." Rogers v. Consol. Rock Prods. Co., 114 F.2d 108, 111 (9th Cir. 1940). A district court must "implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking into account the [prior] opinion and the circumstances it embraces." Pit River Tribe, 615 F.3d at 1079 (emphasis added) (cleaned up).
3. In the prior appeal, we held that declaratory relief was "not substantially likely to mitigate the plaintiffs' asserted concrete injuries." Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1170. To the contrary, it would do nothing "absent further court action," which we held was unavailable. Id. We then clearly explained that Article III courts could not "step into the[] shoes" of the political branches to provide the relief the Juliana plaintiffs sought. Id. at 1175. Because neither the request for declaratory relief nor the request for injunctive relief was justiciable, we "remand[ed] th[e] case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing." Id. Our mandate was to dismiss.
4. The district court gave two reasons for allowing amendment. First, it concluded that amendment was not expressly precluded. Second, it held that intervening authority compelled a different result. We reject each.
The first reason fails because we "remand[ed] . . . with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing." Id. Neither the mandate's letter nor its spirit left room for amendment. See Pit River Tribe, 615 F.3d at 1079. The second reason the district court identified was that, in its view, there was an intervening change in the law. District courts are not bound by a mandate when a subsequently decided case changes the law. In re Molasky, 843 F.3d 1179, 1184 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016). The case the court identified was Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, which "ask[ed] whether an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury." 141 S. Ct. 792, 796 (2021). Thus, Uzuegbunam was a damages case which says nothing about the redressability of declaratory judgments. Damages are a form of retrospective relief. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 608–09 (2001). Declaratory relief is prospective. The Juliana plaintiffs do not seek damages but seek only prospective relief.
Nothing in Uzuegbunam changed the law with respect to prospective relief. We held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and told the district court to dismiss. Uzuegbunam did not change that. The district court is instructed to dismiss the case forthwith for lack of Article III standing, without leave to amend.
PETITION GRANTED.
For those interested, here are my prior posts on the Juliana litigation:
Venezuelans fleeing the socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro. (NA) Today, federal District Court Judge Drew Tipton issued a ruling in Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, rejecting a suit filed by a coalition of red states led by Texas, challenging the legality of the Biden Administration's CNVH parole program (also sometimes called "CHNV"), which allows migrants from four Latin American countries to enter the United States and live and work
Venezuelans fleeing the socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro. (NA)
Today, federal District Court Judge Drew Tipton issued a ruling in Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, rejecting a suit filed by a coalition of red states led by Texas, challenging the legality of the Biden Administration's CNVH parole program (also sometimes called "CHNV"), which allows migrants from four Latin American countries to enter the United States and live and work here for up to two years, if they can find a US-resident sponsor willing to support them.
Judge Tipton (a conservative Trump appointee) ruled that the states lacked standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the program. The plaintiff states argued Texas has standing because parolee migrants entering the state would lead the state government to incur various additional costs, thereby proving the necessary "injury in fact" required by Supreme Court standing precedent. But Judge Tipton concluded the evidence shows that the CNVH program actually reduces the number of migrants from these countries who enter the state. Thus, it doesn't increase the costs borne by the state, and therefore Texas hasn't suffered an "injury" sufficient to get standing:
To prove an injury in fact, Texas must show "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. at 2136…. In the context of state challenges to federal immigration policies, states have historically proven injury-in-fact by demonstrating the additional costs paid across state-funded industries because of additional aliens….
Texas's theory for standing "was based on allegations that the CHNV processes were likely to increase the number of CHNV nationals in the State and thus increase the State's costs…." And as observed by Intervenors [a group of sponsors of CHNV participants], the trial record disproves this theory…. Intervenors argue that the undisputed data presented at trial confirms that the CHNV Parole Program has reduced the total number of individuals from the four countries, and consequently, Texas has actually spent less money as a result of the Program….
Judge Tipton canvasses the relevant Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit court of appeals precedent and finds that the right way to measure costs is to consider the net impact of the program in question, not just the costs that may be created by program beneficiaries taken in isolation. Since the evidence shows the program reduces the total number of CNVH migrants in Texas, it actually saves Texas money, and thus the state lacks standing. Earlier in the litigation, the state plaintiffs stipulated that only Texas's costs were to be considered, not those of the other states.
How does the CNVH parole program actually reduce the number of migrants from these four countries entering Texas? Because it allows program participants to come to the US legally without ever having to cross the southern border, many migrants who might otherwise have tried to enter Texas or other border states illegally instead seek legal entry under CNVH. Many go directly to their final destinations in other states by ship, plane, or other means of transportation. Even those who do enter through border states might not stay there very long.
I covered this point in much more detail in an amicus brief I filed defending the legality of the program, on behalf of the Cato Institute, MedGlobal (a medical non-profit serving migrants and refugees, among others), and myself. Our brief does not address standing. But, for reasons explained in the brief, the alleviation of pressure on the border also matters for the merits of the case (which Judge Tipton didn't reach). See also my September 2023 article about the case in the Hill.
I am skeptical of narrow definitions of standing and would have preferred the court to uphold the CNVH program on the merits. However, Judge Tipton does make a good argument that this is the right result under current standing precedent. It is also broadly consistent with the Supreme Court's June 2023 8-1 decision in United States v. Texas, holding that many of the same red states that brought this case lack standing to challenge the Biden administration's immigration enforcement guidelines, even though the states argued that the administration's decision not to deport certain migrants increases states' costs (though there are also ways to potentially distinguish the two cases).
As David Bier and I explain in a November USA Today article, CNVH could do even more to alleviate border problems—and help migrants fleeing horrific oppression and violence—if the Biden administration were to expand it to cover more countries, and lift the arbitrary 30,000 per month cap on the number of participants. The cap has created a massive backlog of applicants.
And, while it may not be relevant to standing analysis (because of the indirect nature of such effects), the economic benefits of increased migration generally outweigh any additional costs to state and federal governments, especially given the immigrants also pay taxes.
This decision is likely to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Alternatively, the states might try to find some other way to get standing. The latter, however, may prove difficult if Judge Tipton's ruling stands. For the moment, however, the CNVH program can continue.
This case likely isn't over. But it's not a good sign for the states that they lost in district court despite the fact they chose to file in this district specifically because they were likely get Judge Tipton to hear the case. He's a conservative whom many observers expected to be sympathetic to the states' position.
NOTE: As indicated above, I filed an amicus brief in this case defending the legality of the program, on behalf of the Cato Institute, MedGlobal, and myself. However, the brief does not address the issue of standing. What I write on that question represents solely my own views, and not those of Cato, MedGlobal, or anyone else.
I am, as discussed in the brief, a sponsor in the Uniting for Ukraine program, which is based on the same statutory authority as CNVH, but was not challenged by plaintiff states.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the combined cases concerning the Food & Drug Administration's regulation of mifepristone, on March 26. This morning, on the Orders List, the Court denied a motion to intervene filed by Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho. These states argued that the should be allowed to intervene so as to ensure that the requirements of Article III standing a
This morning, on the Orders List, the Court denied a motion to intervene filed by Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho. These states argued that the should be allowed to intervene so as to ensure that the requirements of Article III standing are met so that the Court can reach the merits. (This is, I take it, a tacit admission that the plaintiffs' standing claims are quite tenuous, as I have argued at length in some of the poses linked below.) The states base this argument, in part, on their successful motion to intervene in the trial court (which Adam Unikowsky dissects here). In any event, the Court rejected the motion.
The Court also ruled on two applications to file late-submitted amicus briefs, one from the American Bar Association and one from former Commissioners of the FDA. Interestingly enough, the Court rejected the former brief, but accepted the latter. Looking at the two briefs, this seems like a reasonable call. The FDA Commissioners brief provides relevant expertise that might be absent from other filed briefs. The ABA brief, not so much. Indeed, one has to wonder why the ABA brief was filed at all, as this case does not relate (even tangentially) to the needs or interests of the legal profession and does not add much given what has already been filed on the FDA's behalf in this case. Moreover, filing briefs like this is something the ABA should avoid if it wants to be seen as an apolitical organization that represents the legal profession and can speak to questions relating to the practice of law with any degree of authority.
The Court also denied a motion to intervene filed by Gregory J. Roden as "Next Friend of Americans en ventre sa mere." No surprise there.
For those interested in more about this case, yesterday I participated in a panel discussion on this case with my colleague Jessie Hill, sponsored by the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Video of that program may be viewed here.
Also, here are my prior blog posts about this case and the issues it raises:
Přihlásit se
