In re United States

On November 2, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order denying the federal government's application for a stay of district court proceedings in the constitutional climate case brought by young plaintiffs in the District of Oregon. The Court also vacated an administrative stay granted by Chief Justice Roberts on October 19. The federal government had sought a stay pending the Court's disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the suit. The Court said the petition for a writ of mandamus did not have a "fair prospect" of success because the government could still seek mandamus relief in the Ninth Circuit. The Court noted that while the Ninth Circuit had denied two earlier requests for mandamus relief in this case, "the court’s basis for denying relief rested, in large part, on the early stage of the litigation, the likelihood that plaintiffs’ claims would narrow as the case progressed, and the possibility of attaining relief through ordinary dispositive motions." The Supreme Court indicated that those reasons were, "to a large extent, no longer pertinent" since a 50-day trial was scheduled to begin on October 29, 2018 and had been held in abeyance only because of Chief Justice Roberts's administrative stay. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas would have granted the stay.

The plaintiffs filed a response to the government’s stay application on October 22. They argued that staying the case and reaching the substantive constitutional questions “prematurely” would “deprive this Court of the record necessary for considered appellate review of the claims presented, profoundly disrupt the separation of powers underlying this Court’s most vital role, severely interfere with the orderly administration and resolution of cases and the reservation of appellate consideration until after final judgment, and unnecessarily undermine the confidence of the American people in our Nation’s justice system.” They contended that the government had not established any likelihood of irreparable harm that could not be corrected on appeal after trial, and that, on the other hand, the young plaintiffs were already suffering irreparable harm due to accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions and would continue to be irreparably harmed by additional delay. They also argued that it was “fairly unlikely” that a majority of the Court would vote to intervene in the case at this stage of the proceedings.

On October 19, 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s application for an administrative stay of discovery and trial in the case brought by young people asserting constitutional claims against the United States and other federal defendants, Proceedings were stayed pending further order of Chief Justice Roberts or of the Court. The trial had been scheduled to start on October 29. Chief Justice Roberts ordered the stay four days after the federal district court for the District of Oregon largely denied the federal government’s dispositive motions in the case.

In an application to the Supreme Court for a stay several days after the district court denied its dispositive motions, the federal government argued that the district court “manifestly erred” in recognizing a fundamental right to certain climate conditions in a “deeply flawed” and nonjusticiable case in which the court lacked jurisdiction. The government contended that the upcoming trial would “violate bedrock requirements for agency decisionmaking and judicial review,” constituting “obvious harms” to the government, while the harms to plaintiffs from additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere while the government’s mandamus petition was pending were “plainly de minimis.”