{"id":266833,"date":"2023-07-11T21:03:17","date_gmt":"2023-07-11T19:03:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=266833"},"modified":"2023-07-11T21:03:19","modified_gmt":"2023-07-11T19:03:19","slug":"finally-a-legal-rebuttal-on-the-merits-of-kids-climate-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=266833","title":{"rendered":"Finally, a Legal Rebuttal on the Merits of Kids\u2019 Climate\u00a0Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

As reported last month, the Oregon activist judge invited the plaintiffs in Juliana vs US to reopen that case even after the Ninth Circuit shot it down.\u00a0 Now we have a complete and thorough\u00a0Motion from the defendant (US government)<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to dismiss this newest amended complaint.\u00a0 Most interesting is the section under the heading starting on page 30.\u00a0 Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims Fail on the Merits<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because\u00a0Plaintiffs\u2019 action fails at the jurisdictional threshold<\/strong>, the Ninth Circuit never reached\u2014and this Court need not reach\u2014the merits of the claims. . . Plaintiffs\u2019 second amended complaint, which supersedes the first amended complaint, asserts the same claims that were brought in the first amended complaint, which this Court addressed in orders that the Ninth Circuit reversed.\u00a0Defendants thus renew their objection that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims fail on the merits and should be dismissed<\/strong>\u00a0pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A. There is no constitutional right to a stable climate system.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts\u00a0considering novel due process claims<\/strong><\/em>
to \u201c\u2018exercise the utmost care whenever<\/strong>\u00a0. . . asked to break new ground in this field,\u2019\u2026\u00a0lest the liberty protected<\/strong>\u00a0by the Due Process Clause be subtly\u00a0transformed\u201d into judicial policy preferences<\/strong>. More\u00a0specifically, the Supreme Court has \u201cregularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially\u00a0protects those\u00a0fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, \u2018deeply rooted in this Nation\u2019s history and tradition.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d\u00a0 Plaintiffs\u2019 request that this Court recognize an implied fundamental\u00a0right to a stable climate system contradicts that directive,<\/strong>\u00a0because such a purported right is without basis in the Nation\u2019s history or tradition.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed right to a \u201cstable climate system\u201d is nothing like any fundamental right ever recognized by the Supreme Court.\u00a0The state of the climate is a public and generalized issue<\/strong>, and so interests in the climate are\u00a0unlike the particularized personal liberty or personal privacy interests of individuals<\/strong>\u00a0the Supreme Court has previously recognized as being protected by fundamental rights.\u00a0 \u201c[W] henever federal courts have faced assertions of fundamental rights to a \u2018healthful environment\u2019 or to freedom from harmful contaminants, they have invariably rejected those claims.\u201d. Plaintiffs\u2019 First Claim for Relief must be dismissed.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B.\u00a0 Plaintiffs fail to allege a cognizable state-created danger claim.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First Claim for Relief must also be dismissed because the\u00a0Constitution does not impose an affirmative duty to protect individuals<\/strong>, and Plaintiffs have failed to allege a cognizable claim under the \u201cstate-created danger\u201d exception to that rule.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n


As a general matter:[The Due Process Clause] is phrased as a\u00a0limitation on the State\u2019s power to act<\/strong>, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without \u201cdue process of law,\u201d but its language\u00a0cannot fairly be extended<\/strong>\u00a0to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the Due Process Clause imposes\u00a0no duty on the government to protect persons<\/strong>\u00a0from harm inflicted by third parties that would violate due process if inflicted by the government.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs contend that the government\u2019s \u201cdeliberate actions\u201d and \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0with regard to the dangers of climate change amount to a due process violation under the state-created danger exception.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, Plaintiffs have identified no harms to their \u201cpersonal security or bodily integrity\u201d of the kind and immediacy that qualify for the state-created danger exception<\/strong>. . . But here, Plaintiffs allege that general degradation of the global climate has harmed their \u201cdignity, including their capacity to provide for their basic human needs, safely raise families, practice their religious and spiritual beliefs, [and] maintain their bodily integrity\u201d and has prevented them from \u201clead[ing] lives with access to clean air, water, shelter, and food.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Those types of harm are unlike the immediate, direct, physical, and personal harms at issue in the above-cited cases.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, Plaintiffs identify no specific government actions\u2014much less government actors\u2014that put them in such danger<\/strong>. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that a number of (mostly unspecified) agency actions and inactions spanning the last several decades have exposed them to harm. This allegation of slowly-recognized, long-incubating, and generalized harm by itself\u00a0conclusively distinguishes their claim from all other state-created danger cases recognized by the Ninth Circuit.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, Plaintiffs do not allege that government actions endangered Plaintiffs in particular.<\/strong>\u00a0. . As explained above, Plaintiffs\u2019 asserted injuries arise from\u00a0a diffuse, global phenomenon that affects every other person in their communities, in the United States, and throughout the world.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For all these reasons, there is\u00a0no basis for finding a violation of Plaintiffs\u2019 due process right<\/strong>\u00a0under the state-created danger doctrine, and Plaintiffs\u2019 corresponding claim must be dismissed.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C. No federal public trust doctrine creates a right to a stable climate system.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Claim for Relief, asserting public trust claims, should be\u00a0dismissed for two independent reasons. First<\/strong>, any public trust doctrine is\u00a0a creature of state law that applies narrowly and exclusively to particular types of state-owned property<\/strong>\u00a0not at issue here. That doctrine has\u00a0no application to federal property<\/strong>, the use and management of which is entrusted exclusively to Congress. . .Consequently, there is no basis for Plaintiffs\u2019 public trust claim against the federal government under federal law.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the \u201cclimate system\u201d or atmosphere is not within any conceivable federal public trust.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. No public trust doctrine binds the federal government.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs rely on an asserted public trust doctrine for the proposition that the federal government must \u201ctake affirmative steps to protect\u201d \u201cour country\u2019s life-sustaining climate system,\u201d which they assert the government holds in trust for their benefit.\u00a0 But because any\u00a0public trust doctrine is a matter of state law only,<\/strong>\u00a0public trust claims may not be asserted against the federal government under federal law. . . The Supreme Court has without exception treated public trust doctrine as a matter of state law with no basis in the United States Constitution.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Any public trust doctrine would not apply to the \u201cclimate system\u201d or the atmosphere.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Independently, any asserted public trust doctrine does not help Plaintiffs here. Public trust cases have\u00a0historically involved state ownership of specific types of natural resources<\/strong>, usually limited to submerged and submersible lands, tidelands, and waterways. . . The\u00a0climate system or atmosphere<\/strong>\u00a0is unlike any resource previously deemed subject to a public trust. It\u00a0cannot be owned and, due to its ephemeral nature, cannot remain within the jurisdiction of any single government<\/strong>. No court has held that the climate system or atmosphere is protected by a public trust doctrine. Indeed, the concept has been widely rejected.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For all these reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Claim for Relief.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Background Post\u00a0Update on Zombie Kids Climate Lawsuits: (Juliana vs. US) (Held vs Montana)<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As reported last month, the Oregon activist judge invited the plaintiffs in Juliana vs US to reopen that case even after the Ninth Circuit shot it down.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":266848,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691819552,691820989,691818670],"class_list":{"0":"post-266833","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-system","9":"tag-climate-lawsuit-2","10":"tag-supreme-court","12":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0our-childrens-trust-kids-banner-climate_credit-our-childrens-trust_facebook-1024x512-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-17pL","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293364,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293364","url_meta":{"origin":266833,"position":0},"title":"Judge Resurrects Zombie Kids\u2019 Climate Case: Expect More Eating of Brains","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Judge Aiken on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon revived Juliana v. United States, aka the \u201cKids Climate Case,\u201d by granting the plaintiffs\u2019 motion to amend their complaint, some two years after the motion was filed.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Case\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Case","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-case"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/zombie-apocalypse-header-1.jpg?fit=920%2C500&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219609,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219609","url_meta":{"origin":266833,"position":1},"title":"Court Again Refuses to Legislate Climate Policy","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Climatists again fail to get a judge to order their program and thus bypass lawmaking by elected representatives.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-939.png?fit=1200%2C819&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-939.png?fit=1200%2C819&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-939.png?fit=1200%2C819&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-939.png?fit=1200%2C819&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-939.png?fit=1200%2C819&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":201755,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=201755","url_meta":{"origin":266833,"position":2},"title":"Claim: President Biden \u201cAiming to Destroy a \u2026 Climate Lawsuit\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/05\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Essay by Eric Worrall A lawsuit to make climate action a constitutional right; A team of young plaintiffs including\u00a0James Hansen\u2019s\u00a0granddaughter is shocked that Biden is opposing their effort to make climate action a binding requirement on the US government. Biden Is Aiming to Destroy a Historic Climate Change LawsuitBY JULIA\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/00lawsuit1.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/00lawsuit1.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/00lawsuit1.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/00lawsuit1.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/00lawsuit1.webp?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219835,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219835","url_meta":{"origin":266833,"position":3},"title":"Virginia Child Climate Lawsuit Bites the Dust","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Greens using children as political props in my opinion is utterly reprehensible.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1000.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1000.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1000.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1000.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219397,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219397","url_meta":{"origin":266833,"position":4},"title":"Virginia judge dismisses youth climate change lawsuit","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Out of order. Next!","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/0Screenshot-2022-09-17-190127.png?fit=840%2C556&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/0Screenshot-2022-09-17-190127.png?fit=840%2C556&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/0Screenshot-2022-09-17-190127.png?fit=840%2C556&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/0Screenshot-2022-09-17-190127.png?fit=840%2C556&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":438963,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=438963","url_meta":{"origin":266833,"position":5},"title":"Climate Industry Intersectionality","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"In short, \"Climate Industry Intersectionality\" spotlights how climate advocacy has fused environmental claims with social engineering, creating a powerful, self-perpetuating sector. Whether this delivers better outcomes for people and the planet depends on scrutinizing evidence, trade-offs, and incentives rather than narratives. Truth-seeking requires separating measurable physical risks from policy rent-seeking\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate lawsuits\"","block_context":{"text":"climate lawsuits","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-lawsuits"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Climate-Industry-Intersectionality.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=266833"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266833\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":266849,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266833\/revisions\/266849"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/266848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=266833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=266833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=266833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}