The Right to a Healthy and Stable Climate: Fundamental or Unfounded?

Abstract

In a case orchestrated by Our Children’s Trust, Juliana v. U.S., twenty-one plaintiffs ages eight to nineteen filed suit against the federal government. In their complaint, these young plaintiffs alleged that the right to a stable and healthy climate should constitute a fundamental, unenumerated right. On April 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the federal District Court of Oregon denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, and on November 10, 2016 the case survived a motion to dismiss in the District Court of Oregon and will proceed to trial. According to the National Climate Assessment, the average national temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit since recordkeeping began in 1895. This rise in temperature is expected to impact the United States in various ways during the plaintiffs’ lifetimes, from sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, drought, and increased spread of infectious diseases. In a time when the impacts of climate change are expected to intensify, and current case law effectively bars individuals from suing for climate change-related injuries due to restrictions on standing, this landmark constitutional climate change lawsuit has the potential to finally accomplish what many others have attempted to do since the 1970s: recognize that the right to a healthy environment, or in this case, a healthy climate, is fundamental to ordered liberty.