Related Experiment Videos
"No Ordinary Lawsuit": Climate Change, Due Process, and the Public Trust Doctrine
Michael C Blumm1, Mary Christina Wood2
1Lewis and Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon.
The American University Law Review
|September 12, 2018
Summary
Youth plaintiffs sued the U.S. government over fossil fuel policies, asserting a constitutional right to a stable climate. The court recognized this right, potentially transforming energy policy for future generations.
Area of Science:
- Environmental Law
- Constitutional Law
- Climate Change Litigation
Background:
- The Juliana v. United States case challenges federal fossil fuel policies.
- Plaintiffs allege these policies violate constitutional rights and the public trust doctrine.
- Greenhouse gas emissions threaten a stable climate system.
Purpose of the Study:
- Examine the Juliana case, its legal context, and reasoning.
- Analyze the implications of the court's decision domestically and internationally.
- Discuss the case's significance in global climate change litigation.
Main Methods:
- Legal analysis of the Juliana v. United States decision.
- Examination of the public trust doctrine and constitutional due process.
- Review of atmospheric trust litigation globally.
Main Results:
- The federal district court recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.
- The court found the public trust doctrine implicitly part of due process.
- The decision refused to dismiss the youth plaintiffs' lawsuit.
Conclusions:
- The Juliana decision could be transformative for global energy policy.
- The case establishes a fundamental rights approach to climate change.
- Further trials and appeals will determine the full impact of this "no ordinary lawsuit."