United States v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

On July 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Juliana plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing or reconsideration en banc of the court’s May 2024 order that granted the federal government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss the case. Each judge on the panel that issued the decision on the petition voted to deny the motion, and after the motion was distributed to the full court, no judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the May order and recall the mandate.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

The youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States filed a petition for rehearing en banc (or, alternatively, reconsideration) of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order granting the federal government’s request for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case for lack of standing. The plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit’s order conflicted with U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establishing the standard for granting mandamus relief, and also conflicted with precedent concerning district courts’ discretion to grant leave to amend for a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction as well as with precedent establishing that declaratory relief provides sufficient redress to serve as a basis for standing to assert constitutional violations. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to vacate the order and recall the mandate.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s petition for writ of mandamus and directed the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss Juliana v. United States for lack of Article III standing, without leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit noted that it had held in 2020 that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case on that basis. The Ninth Circuit further stated that mandamus was appropriate remedy when “sought on the ground that the district court failed to follow the appellate court’s mandate.” Although the district court had concluded that amendment of the complaint “was not expressly precluded” by the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the Ninth Circuit’s May 1 order stated that “[n]either the mandate’s letter nor its spirit left room for amendment.” The Ninth Circuit also disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that an intervening change in the law made it permissible to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The Ninth Circuit found that the U.S. Supreme Court decision cited by the district court did not change the law with respect to prospective relief, and therefore did not affect the redressability of the plaintiffs’ claims.

–

–

–

Youth plaintiffs filed their response to the federal government’s petition for writ of mandamus in which the government asks the Ninth Circuit to order the federal district court for the District of Oregon to dismiss the plaintiffs’ climate-based constitutional claims. The plaintiffs argued that the federal defendants failed to satisfy their high burden of establishing that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to award mandamus because the defendants would be able to appeal the district court’s orders, including the denial of the motion to dismiss, after trial. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendants would not be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; that the district court’s orders were not clearly erroneous as a matter of law; that the district court orders did not commit an “oft-repeated error”; and that no new novel question of law was before the court. The plaintiffs contended that the Ninth Circuit had previously rejected similar arguments for mandamus jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion by the U.S. and other federal parties for a motion to stay proceedings in Juliana v. United States while the Ninth Circuit considers the government’s petition for writ of mandamus, which asks the Ninth Circuit to order the district court to dismiss the case. The stay motion was denied without prejudice to renewal following the district court’s decision on a pending stay motion. The Ninth Circuit also found that the petition for writ of mandamus “raises issues that warrant answer” and directed the real parties in interest (i.e., the plaintiffs) to file an answer within 21 days.

–

–

–