In a significant but deeply disappointing development for youth climate advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Juliana v. United States, a landmark case brought by 21 young plaintiffs who argued that the federal government’s role in fostering climate change violated their constitutional rights. The case, filed in 2015 in Oregon, has become one of the most widely recognized legal efforts to hold the U.S. government accountable for its contribution to global warming through its support of a fossil fuel-driven economy.
This final judicial denial effectively ends a legal battle that spanned a decade, weathered multiple presidential administrations, and inspired a global youth-led climate rights movement.
Background of the Lawsuit
The Juliana v. United States case began in 2015 when 21 young plaintiffs, ranging in age from 8 to 19 at the time, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon. They alleged that by supporting and promoting a fossil fuel-based energy system, the U.S. government had knowingly endangered their health and future, thereby violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. They also claimed that the government had failed to safeguard essential public trust resources like air and water.
At the heart of the case was a bold and unprecedented legal theory: that the Constitution guarantees a right to a livable climate, and that courts should intervene to protect it. The case was named for Kelsey Juliana, one of the most vocal plaintiffs, who was 19 when the lawsuit began and is now a 29-year-old elementary school teacher in Oregon.
Represented by the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, the plaintiffs were not asking for monetary damages. Instead, they sought a court order requiring the federal government to adopt a science-based plan to reduce carbon emissions and transition away from fossil fuels.
Legal Journey and Roadblocks
Despite its passion and public support, Juliana faced repeated legal hurdles and delays. The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all opposed the case, arguing that it sought to use the courts to rewrite federal energy policy—something that belongs in the hands of Congress and the Executive Branch.
The case was originally allowed to proceed to trial by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, who found that the plaintiffs had made a valid constitutional claim. But the federal government repeatedly petitioned for dismissal, and in 2018, just days before the trial was set to begin, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay, halting the proceedings.
In 2020, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case dismissed, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and that climate policy is not an issue for the courts to decide. Nonetheless, Judge Aiken allowed the plaintiffs to amend their case in hopes of a new trial, reigniting hope among advocates.
However, that momentum was short-lived. In 2023, responding to a Biden administration request, a new panel of 9th Circuit judges overruled Aiken’s decision and instructed her to dismiss the case. She complied, and the plaintiffs’ final attempt to revive the case came in the form of a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition was denied on March 24, 2025, officially closing the door on the lawsuit.
The Broader Legal Landscape for Youth Climate Cases
Though the Supreme Court declined to hear Juliana, youth climate lawsuits are not over. Our Children’s Trust has filed similar actions in all 50 states and continues to pursue active cases in several, including Florida, Utah, and Alaska.
A particularly notable win came in Montana, where the state Supreme Court recently upheld a groundbreaking lower court ruling in favor of youth plaintiffs. That case, Held v. Montana, asserted that the state’s fossil fuel policies violated the environmental protections enshrined in Montana’s state constitution. The court agreed—a landmark ruling and the first of its kind in the United States.
These victories, though distinct from federal cases like Juliana, provide legal hope for the climate rights movement. State constitutions, many of which contain environmental provisions, may offer a more accessible path for legal challenges than the U.S. Constitution, which lacks explicit climate protections.
Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, stated that her organization is already preparing a new federal action, grounded in the same constitutional principles as Juliana. She emphasized that the movement’s influence far outweighs the loss of a single case.
“Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights,” Olson said. “It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future. We’ve already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Juliana v. United States may mark the end of one lawsuit, but it is far from the end of the youth climate movement it helped spark. From Oregon to Alaska, from law schools to reindeer herding associations, the plaintiffs of Juliana are continuing their fight in new ways.
