Medford, OR – More than 40 members of Congress, including Oregon Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to revive the landmark climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States. The lawsuit, filed nearly a decade ago by 21 young Americans, argues that the federal government’s continued support for fossil fuel production and its failure to address the worst effects of climate change violate the constitutional right of the plaintiffs, including 11 Oregonians, to a livable environment.
Merkley and Wyden, along with other Democratic lawmakers and independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, have expressed strong support for the plaintiffs in the case, who range in age from their teens to early 20s. In a statement, Merkley voiced his commitment to the youth plaintiffs’ fight for a healthy planet and livable future, emphasizing the urgency of the case.
“These young people — including Oregonians — fighting for their right to a healthy planet and livable future have my full support,” Merkley said. “That’s why I am leading my congressional colleagues in an amicus brief in support of this momentous case.”
Wyden, citing the record 1.9 million acres burned in wildfires in Oregon and devastating wildfires in California, called climate change a direct threat to public health and safety.
“I’m proud to stand with these youth plaintiffs taking a leadership role to press for an urgent, comprehensive, science-based plan to address the climate crisis now,” Wyden said in his statement.
The Juliana lawsuit, which has not yet gone to trial, has faced several legal hurdles. In 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims could not be resolved through a court verdict. The young plaintiffs have since petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, and Congress members are backing that request in their amicus brief.
The case centers on the issue of whether the 9th Circuit’s dismissal was justified, particularly concerning the “redressability requirement,” which questions whether a favorable court ruling could provide adequate relief to the plaintiffs. Julia Olson, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, believes the resolution of this issue is crucial not only for Juliana but also for other climate change cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear.
Olson also noted that if the Court rules on the redressability question, it could set a precedent that might prompt the 9th Circuit to reconsider its dismissal of the case in light of the Court’s decision.
The brief filed by the members of Congress stresses that allowing the 9th Circuit’s decision to stand would weaken the 1935 Declaratory Judgment Act, a key legal provision that ensures plaintiffs have access to the courts for declaratory relief. According to the brief, such access is vital to the administration of justice and serves to hold the government accountable.
Since its filing, the case has been challenged by government attorneys from three different presidential administrations, both Democratic and Republican. Olson has pointed out that while the case has encountered resistance from both sides of the political aisle, it has nevertheless become a focal point in the broader fight for climate justice.
“This is a nonpartisan issue,” Olson said in an interview. “The reality is that both Democrats and Republicans have done a tremendous amount to keep fossil fuels in place and to keep people out of court.”
Despite the setbacks, Olson believes the case has already made a lasting impact, noting that it is taught in law schools across the country, including environmental law classes in China. Regardless of the final outcome, Olson believes the case will continue to shape the discourse around climate change litigation for years to come.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will take up the case, with the court’s term typically ending in late June or early July. Given the packed docket of the current term, it remains unclear whether the Court will address the petition this year. However, advocates hope that the case’s resolution will set a significant precedent in the fight against climate change.