The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / Judge Dismisses ‘Right to Wilderness’ Climate Suit Against U.S. Government
Judge Dismisses ‘Right to Wilderness’ Climate Suit Against U.S. Government

Judge Dismisses ‘Right to Wilderness’ Climate Suit Against U.S. Government

August 1, 2019 Filed Under: Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

Despite recognizing that climate change is a “diffuse, global phenomenon that affects every citizen of the world,” a federal judge in Oregon dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by groups alleging that the federal government is violating their Constitutional rights by contributing to climate change.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane on Wednesday said the plaintiffs—the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Seeding Sovereignty and six individuals—do not have standing to sue because they are not uniquely affected by the harms associated with climate change. McShane also said the plaintiffs do not have a fundamental “right to wilderness” as they had claimed in the suit.

The lawsuit alleged that by supporting the fossil fuel industry and failing to take action on climate change, the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies are violating the right to be left alone guaranteed under the First, Fifth and Ninth amendments. They urged the court to engage in “nothing short of revolutionary thinking” by recognizing a right to wilderness.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), maintained that no court has recognized a fundamental right to wilderness and said there is no First Amendment right to be “free from human influence in wilderness,” as the plaintiffs had claimed.

McShane agreed.

“The lower courts—bound by rule of law—are not the forum for the ‘revolutionary’ thinking that plaintiffs articulately espouse in their briefing,” McShane wrote in his order. “Indeed, this Court has previously declined invitations to create new fundamental rights that are not enumerated in the constitution or found in Supreme Court precedent.”

In their complaint, the plaintiffs had cited the federal judge’s ruling in Juliana v. United States, the landmark Constitutional youth climate case, that the government has a “continued affirmative duty to safeguard public trust assets” and that there exists a “right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”

But McShane said the reasoning in Juliana did not apply to this case. The Juliana plaintiffs, he wrote, “did not object to the government’s role in just any pollution or climate change, but rather catastrophic levels of pollution or climate change.” He said in this case, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Seeding Sovereignty and the six individuals “allege nothing of the sort” and said the right to a stable climate system is narrower than the right to wilderness.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling.

“It would be odd if the Constitution and the right to be free protected us from minor governmental intrusions, but not an existential threat. The Supreme Court has described freedom as the right to be let alone, which creates a baseline for environmental protection that includes wilderness,” said Carter Dillard, a senior policy adviser for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. 

“We are faced with the climate crisis because the government has failed to protect our right to be free—but it’s not too late to change course.”

The government successfully argued to McShane that the plaintiffs do not have standing because they could not show why they were specifically impacted by climate change, an argument the government is also using in trying to keep Juliana from going to trial. A European court also used this reasoning to dismiss a lawsuit against the European Union filed by families and a youth group from eight countries alleging their rights are being violated by inadequate action against climate change.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Groups appeal dismissal of 'right to wilderness' climate suit says:
    August 20, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    […] Constitutional rights by contributing to climate change have filed an appeal of a federal judge’s decision to throw out their lawsuit against the Trump […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Judge Agrees to Divest from Exxon Before New York's Climate Fraud Case
  • Youth Climate Case in Washington State Dismissed by King County Judge
  • Battling for Big Oil: Manufacturing Trade Group Leads Assault on Climate Suits

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.