Genesis B. v. EPA

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court that 18 youth plaintiffs lacked standing for their claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other federal defendants’ discounting policies violated their constitutional rights by valuing the present more than the future and by causing the federal defendants to underregulate greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in climate change harms to the plaintiffs. First, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs did not allege a viable injury to their equal protection rights. The court said they failed to plead facts supporting an inference that discrimination against children was a factor “motivating” the discounting policies or their application. Second, the Ninth Circuit found that even if the plaintiffs pleaded cognizable injuries from climate change, the theory of how the discounting policies caused those injuries was “too speculative and tenuous” to satisfy standing requirements. Third, the Ninth Circuit concluded that its decision in Juliana v. United States foreclosed the plaintiffs’ contention that a declaration that the discounting policies violated their constitutional rights would redress their alleged injuries. The Ninth Circuit wrote that “[s]peculation is the only pathway to conclude that declaratory relief will remedy” the injuries. Fourth, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying them leave to further amend their complaint. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that “deep, fundamental flaws” in the plaintiffs’ theories would make amendment of the complaint futile.