{"id":326369,"date":"2024-05-05T09:25:29","date_gmt":"2024-05-05T07:25:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=326369"},"modified":"2024-05-05T09:25:32","modified_gmt":"2024-05-05T07:25:32","slug":"may-day-appeals-court-rules-against-kids-climate-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=326369","title":{"rendered":"May Day: Appeals Court Rules Against Kids\u2019 Climate\u00a0Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"723\" data-attachment-id=\"326382\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326382\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?fit=1080%2C1080&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1080,1080\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?fit=723%2C723&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=723%2C723&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326382\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=1024%2C1024&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=300%2C300&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=768%2C768&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=800%2C800&amp;ssl=1 800w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=600%2C600&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=400%2C400&amp;ssl=1 400w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=200%2C200&amp;ssl=1 200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=450%2C450&amp;ssl=1 450w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=60%2C60&amp;ssl=1 60w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?resize=550%2C550&amp;ssl=1 550w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?w=1080&amp;ssl=1 1080w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From <a href=\"https:\/\/rclutz.com\/2024\/05\/02\/may-day-appeals-court-rules-against-kids-climate-lawsuit\/\">Science Matters <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/rclutz.com\/author\/ronaldrc\/\">Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"336\" height=\"364\" data-attachment-id=\"326370\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326370\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-96.png?fit=336%2C364&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"336,364\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-96\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-96.png?fit=336%2C364&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-96.png?resize=336%2C364&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326370\" style=\"width:378px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-96.png?w=336&amp;ssl=1 336w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-96.png?resize=277%2C300&amp;ssl=1 277w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 336px) 100vw, 336px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Update May 1, 2024<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals grants Federal government\u2019s petition<\/strong>\u00a0for writ of mandamus in the case of Juliana v. United States, originally filed in 2015.\u00a0 Ruling excerpts are below in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/20240501_docket-24-684_order.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of 20240501_docket-24-684_order.\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-261c1d8c-b99d-4570-b8cb-a27714fae7c7\" href=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/20240501_docket-24-684_order.pdf\">20240501_docket-24-684_order<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/20240501_docket-24-684_order.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-261c1d8c-b99d-4570-b8cb-a27714fae7c7\">Herunterladen<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>In the underlying case, twenty-one plaintiffs (<strong>the Juliana plaintiffs) claim<\/strong>&nbsp;that\u2014by failing to adequately respond to the threat of climate change\u2014the&nbsp;<strong>government has violated a putative \u201cright to a stable climate system that can sustain human life.\u201d<\/strong>&nbsp;Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2023 WL 9023339, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 29, 2023). In a prior appeal,&nbsp;<strong>we held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack Article III standing<\/strong>&nbsp;to bring such a claim. Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1175 (9th Cir. 2020).&nbsp;<strong>We remanded with instructions to dismiss<\/strong>&nbsp;on that basis. Id. The<strong>&nbsp;district court nevertheless allowed amendment<\/strong>, and the&nbsp;<strong>government again moved to dismiss<\/strong>. The&nbsp;<strong>district court denied that motion<\/strong>, and the&nbsp;<strong>government&nbsp;<\/strong><\/em><em><strong>petitioned for mandamus<\/strong>&nbsp;seeking<strong>&nbsp;to enforce our earlier mandate.<\/strong>&nbsp;We have jurisdiction to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651.&nbsp;<strong>We grant it.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>In the prior appeal, we held that&nbsp;<strong>declaratory relief was \u201cnot substantially likely to mitigate the plaintiffs\u2019 asserted concrete injuries.\u201d<\/strong>&nbsp;Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1170. To the contrary, it&nbsp;<strong>would do nothing \u201cabsent further court action,\u201d which we held was unavailable.<\/strong>&nbsp;Id. We then clearly explained that&nbsp;<strong>Article III courts could not \u201cstep into the[] shoes\u201d of the political branches<\/strong>&nbsp;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 \u201cremand[ed] th[e] case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.\u201d Id.&nbsp;<strong>Our mandate was to dismiss.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>The district court gave two reasons for allowing amendment.<\/strong>&nbsp;First, it concluded that amendment was not expressly precluded. Second, it held that intervening authority compelled a different result.&nbsp;<strong>We reject each.<br><\/strong>The&nbsp;<strong>first<\/strong>&nbsp;reason fails because we \u201cremand[ed] . . . with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.\u201d Id.&nbsp;<strong>Neither the mandate\u2019s letter nor its spirit left room for amendment.<\/strong>&nbsp;See Pit River Tribe, 615 F.3d at 1079.<\/em><br><em>The&nbsp;<strong>second<\/strong>&nbsp;reason the district court identified was that, in its view, there was an intervening change in the law. District courts are&nbsp;<strong>not bound by a mandate when a subsequently decided case changes the law.<\/strong>&nbsp;In re Molasky, 843 F.3d 1179, 1184 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016). The case the court identified was Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, which \u201cask[ed] whether an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury.\u201d 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. &amp; Care Home v. W. Va. Dep\u2019t of Health &amp; Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 608\u201309 (2001). Declaratory relief is prospective. The&nbsp;<strong>Juliana plaintiffs do not seek damages but seek only prospective relief. Nothing in&nbsp;<\/strong><\/em><em><strong>Uzuegbunam changed the law with respect to prospective relief.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>We held that the&nbsp;<strong>Juliana plaintiffs lack standing<\/strong>&nbsp;to bring their claims and told the district court to dismiss. Uzuegbunam did not change that.&nbsp;<strong>The district court is instructed to dismiss the case forthwith for lack of Article III standing, without leave to amend.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Background July 2023: Finally, a Legal Rebuttal on the Merits of Kids\u2019 Climate Lawsuit<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.&nbsp; Now we have a complete and thorough<a href=\"http:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/16\/case-documents\/2023\/20230622_docket-615-cv-01517_motion-to-dismiss.pdf\"><strong>&nbsp;Motion from the defendant (US government)<\/strong><\/a>&nbsp;to dismiss this newest amended complaint.&nbsp; Most interesting is the section under the heading starting on page 30.&nbsp; Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em><strong>Plaintiffs\u2019 Claims Fail on the Merits<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Because\u00a0<strong>Plaintiffs\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.\u00a0<strong>Defendants 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 class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"494\" data-attachment-id=\"326374\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326374\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?fit=1500%2C1024&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1500,1024\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-97\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?fit=723%2C494&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?resize=723%2C494&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326374\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?resize=1024%2C699&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?resize=300%2C205&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?resize=768%2C524&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?resize=1200%2C819&amp;ssl=1 1200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?w=1500&amp;ssl=1 1500w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-97.png?w=1446&amp;ssl=1 1446w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em><strong>A. There is no constitutional right to a stable climate system.<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts&nbsp;<strong>considering novel due process claims<\/strong><\/em><br><em><strong>to \u201c\u2018exercise the utmost care whenever<\/strong>&nbsp;. . . asked to break new ground in this field,\u2019\u2026<strong>&nbsp;lest the liberty protected<\/strong>&nbsp;by the Due Process Clause be subtly&nbsp;<strong>transformed\u201d into judicial policy preferences<\/strong>. More&nbsp;<\/em><em>specifically, the Supreme Court has \u201cregularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially&nbsp;<\/em><em>protects those&nbsp;<strong>fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, \u2018deeply rooted in this Nation\u2019s history and tradition.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d&nbsp; Plaintiffs\u2019 request that this Court recognize an implied fundamental&nbsp;<strong>right to a stable climate system contradicts that directive,<\/strong>&nbsp;because such a purported right is without basis in the Nation\u2019s history or tradition.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>The proposed right to a \u201cstable climate system\u201d is nothing like any fundamental right ever recognized by the Supreme Court.<strong>\u00a0The state of the climate is a public and generalized issue<\/strong>, and so interests in the climate are\u00a0<strong>unlike 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<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"604\" height=\"420\" data-attachment-id=\"326376\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326376\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-98.png?fit=604%2C420&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"604,420\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-98\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-98.png?fit=604%2C420&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-98.png?resize=604%2C420&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326376\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-98.png?w=604&amp;ssl=1 604w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-98.png?resize=300%2C209&amp;ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 604px) 100vw, 604px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em><strong>B.&nbsp; Plaintiffs fail to allege a cognizable state-created danger claim.<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>The First Claim for Relief must also be dismissed because the<strong>&nbsp;Constitution 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><br><em>As a general matter:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>[The Due Process Clause] is phrased as a&nbsp;<strong>limitation 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&nbsp;<strong>cannot fairly be extended<\/strong>&nbsp;to 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Thus, the Due Process Clause imposes<strong>&nbsp;no duty on the government to protect persons<\/strong>&nbsp;from harm inflicted by third parties that would violate due process if inflicted by the government.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>Plaintiffs contend that the government\u2019s \u201cdeliberate actions\u201d and \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d<\/strong>&nbsp;with 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>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&nbsp;&nbsp;<strong>Those 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>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&nbsp;<strong>conclusively distinguishes their claim from all other state-created danger cases recognized by the Ninth Circuit.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>Third, Plaintiffs do not allege that government actions endangered Plaintiffs in particular.<\/strong>&nbsp;. . As explained above, Plaintiffs\u2019 asserted injuries arise from&nbsp;<strong>a 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>For all these reasons, there is<strong>\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<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"600\" height=\"458\" data-attachment-id=\"326377\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326377\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-99.png?fit=600%2C458&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"600,458\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-99\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-99.png?fit=600%2C458&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-99.png?resize=600%2C458&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326377\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-99.png?w=600&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-99.png?resize=300%2C229&amp;ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em><strong>C. No federal public trust doctrine creates a right to a stable climate system.<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Claim for Relief, asserting public trust claims, should be&nbsp;<strong>dismissed for two independent reasons. First<\/strong>, any public trust doctrine is&nbsp;<strong>a creature of state law that applies narrowly and exclusively to particular types of state-owned property<\/strong>&nbsp;not at issue here. That doctrine has&nbsp;<strong>no 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>Second, the \u201cclimate system\u201d or atmosphere is not within any conceivable federal public trust.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>1. No public trust doctrine binds the federal government.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>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.&nbsp; But because any&nbsp;<strong>public trust doctrine is a matter of state law only,<\/strong>&nbsp;public 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>2. Any public trust doctrine would not apply to the \u201cclimate system\u201d or the atmosphere.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Independently, any asserted public trust doctrine does not help Plaintiffs here. Public trust cases have&nbsp;<strong>historically involved state ownership of specific types of natural resources<\/strong>, usually limited to submerged and submersible lands, tidelands, and waterways. . . The&nbsp;<strong>climate system or atmosphere<\/strong>&nbsp;is unlike any resource previously deemed subject to a public trust. It&nbsp;<strong>cannot 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<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>For all these reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 Fourth Claim for Relief.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"512\" height=\"356\" data-attachment-id=\"326379\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326379\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-100.png?fit=512%2C356&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"512,356\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-100\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-100.png?fit=512%2C356&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-100.png?resize=512%2C356&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326379\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-100.png?w=512&amp;ssl=1 512w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-100.png?resize=300%2C209&amp;ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 512px) 100vw, 512px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Background Post\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/rclutz.com\/2023\/06\/13\/update-on-zombie-kids-climate-lawsuits-juliana-vs-us-held-vs-montana\/\"><strong>Update on Zombie Kids Climate Lawsuits: (Juliana vs. US) (Held vs Montana)<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"473\" height=\"265\" data-attachment-id=\"326380\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=326380\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-101.png?fit=473%2C265&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"473,265\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-101\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-101.png?fit=473%2C265&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-101.png?resize=473%2C265&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-326380\" style=\"width:635px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-101.png?w=473&amp;ssl=1 473w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/image-101.png?resize=300%2C168&amp;ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 473px) 100vw, 473px\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The proposed right to a \u201cstable climate system\u201d is nothing like any fundamental right ever recognized by the Supreme Court. The state of the climate is a public and generalized issue, and so interests in the climate are unlike the particularized personal liberty or personal privacy interests of individuals the Supreme Court has previously recognized as being protected by fundamental rights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":326382,"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":[691820398,691819552,691828480,691828481],"class_list":{"0":"post-326369","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-lawsuit","9":"tag-climate-system","10":"tag-constitutional-right","11":"tag-stable-climate","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/GF9mBIUWwAAG1Gy.jpeg?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1mU1","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":266833,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=266833","url_meta":{"origin":326369,"position":0},"title":"Finally, a Legal Rebuttal on the Merits of Kids\u2019 Climate\u00a0Lawsuit","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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","rel":"","context":"In \"climate system\"","block_context":{"text":"climate system","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-system"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"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&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"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&resize=350%2C200 1x, 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&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, 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&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":221808,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=221808","url_meta":{"origin":326369,"position":1},"title":"untitled","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"At the end of the day, it is likely not a question of if the Supreme Court will hear these cases, but when.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-71.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-71.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-71.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-71.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-71.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":403207,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=403207","url_meta":{"origin":326369,"position":2},"title":"Our Children\u2019s Trust Launches a Youth Climate Lawsuit","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/09\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"This time aimed personally at President Trump.","rel":"","context":"In \"children\u2019s climate lawsuit\"","block_context":{"text":"children\u2019s climate lawsuit","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=childrens-climate-lawsuit"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNCHw9v2Al17PA82DqnmRmwV1U7ScUdYkH8zg0VNlNtewGdpfXP-oCyijVmr9xI_Bydzto3qJiSvU7QYbGfCv_1w37hbJMX8Nw9Yk01kibzCW8WDuEDhXfWLwCyPg-Wpr7aCdIF7UO9qYoauln11UABy-e4Fw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNCHw9v2Al17PA82DqnmRmwV1U7ScUdYkH8zg0VNlNtewGdpfXP-oCyijVmr9xI_Bydzto3qJiSvU7QYbGfCv_1w37hbJMX8Nw9Yk01kibzCW8WDuEDhXfWLwCyPg-Wpr7aCdIF7UO9qYoauln11UABy-e4Fw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNCHw9v2Al17PA82DqnmRmwV1U7ScUdYkH8zg0VNlNtewGdpfXP-oCyijVmr9xI_Bydzto3qJiSvU7QYbGfCv_1w37hbJMX8Nw9Yk01kibzCW8WDuEDhXfWLwCyPg-Wpr7aCdIF7UO9qYoauln11UABy-e4Fw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNCHw9v2Al17PA82DqnmRmwV1U7ScUdYkH8zg0VNlNtewGdpfXP-oCyijVmr9xI_Bydzto3qJiSvU7QYbGfCv_1w37hbJMX8Nw9Yk01kibzCW8WDuEDhXfWLwCyPg-Wpr7aCdIF7UO9qYoauln11UABy-e4Fw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0AQNCHw9v2Al17PA82DqnmRmwV1U7ScUdYkH8zg0VNlNtewGdpfXP-oCyijVmr9xI_Bydzto3qJiSvU7QYbGfCv_1w37hbJMX8Nw9Yk01kibzCW8WDuEDhXfWLwCyPg-Wpr7aCdIF7UO9qYoauln11UABy-e4Fw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255305,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255305","url_meta":{"origin":326369,"position":3},"title":"No Supreme Ruling on Deadbeat Cities\u2018 Climate Lawsuits","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"29\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The United State\u00a0Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a lawsuit\u00a0Boulder and two other local governments filed against oil refiners Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil and deemed similar climate change-related lawsuits matters for state courts.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/0supremecourt_science_GettyImages-1252001023.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253570,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253570","url_meta":{"origin":326369,"position":4},"title":"More Federal Climate Lawfare","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Federal courts would undoubtedly reject these claims, which is why activists are fighting to keep their claims in front of their favorite state courts.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00INGSOC_George_Orwell_1984.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":432871,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=432871","url_meta":{"origin":326369,"position":5},"title":"SCOTUS to Hear Colorado Climate Case, What\u2019s at\u00a0Stake","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/03\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the City and County of Boulder\u2019s climate lawsuit against two major energy companies. This offers the first real opportunity to rein in the nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign that has sought to force policy outcomes through the courts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Carbon Tax\"","block_context":{"text":"Carbon Tax","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-tax"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/0-A-Turning-Point-for-Litigation-Campaig-SCOTUS-Takes-Up-Boulder-Climate-Lawsuit.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326369","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=326369"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":326383,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326369\/revisions\/326383"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/326382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=326369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=326369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=326369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}