Juliana v. United States

On December 9, 2024, the youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ granting of the federal government’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 7, 2025, the Solicitor General requested an extension until February 12, 2025 for the filing of the government’s response. The petition presented two questions: (1) When plaintiffs have established their ongoing injuries are traceable to defendants’ policies and practices, does Article III require a particularized factual determination of whether a federal agency or official will redress plaintiffs’ injuries following a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves the constitutional controversy?, and (2) Whether exceptions exist to the three demanding conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). The plaintiffs argued that the first question was “nearly identical” to the question presented in a case in which the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument later this term. The plaintiffs asked the Court to hold their petition pending the Court’s opinion in the other case and then grant their petition, vacate the Ninth Circuit’s order, and remand to the Ninth Circuit for review. Regarding the second question, the plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit was wrong because it did not apply Cheney’s “demanding conditions” for mandamus and that its decision “deepens an acknowledged circuit split” over whether an exception to Cheney exists when mandamus is sought to enforce an appellate court’s mandate.