Yesterday, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Lighthiser v. Trump, the latest in a series of lawsuits filed on behalf of youth plaintiffs alleging that the federal government's failure to take meaningful action to mitigate climate change--and, in particular, the Trump Administration's promotion of fossil fuels--violate the U.S. Constitution.
The panel made quick work of the plaintiffs' claims in a brief, unpublished opinion. Despite the impressive roster of amici lined up to support their claims, the plaintiffs could not convince any of the three judges on the panel (Owens, Van Dyke, and Sung) that they had standing, or that the merits of their claims were worth discussing.
A central argument in this appeal was whether the plaintiffs could distinguish their case sufficiently from the Juliana case, which the Ninth Circuit had also dismissed on standing grounds. Unsurprisingly, the court did not find the effort to distinguish the cases convincing.
