A decadelong climate lawsuit saw plaintiffs grow from childhood to adulthood

ABC News - Mar 25th, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the case brought by young climate activists, effectively ending the landmark legal battle initiated in 2015. The plaintiffs, who ranged from 8 to 19 years old at the start, argued that the federal government's promotion of a fossil fuel economy violated their constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate. Despite repeated challenges from successive administrations, the case, known as Juliana v. United States, has been a beacon for youth-led climate advocacy. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case means the legal challenge concludes without a trial, but the activists remain undeterred, with plans for future actions.

The significance of the Juliana case extends beyond the courtroom, having inspired a global youth movement for climate rights. Julia Olson, the chief legal counsel for Our Children's Trust, emphasized the empowerment and momentum gained through the case. The decision, while a setback, does not diminish the case's impact on climate advocacy. The plaintiffs, now aged 17 to 29, continue their environmental work across various fields. The case has also inspired over 60 youth-led climate lawsuits worldwide, with Our Children's Trust actively pursuing cases in multiple states, including a notable victory in Montana that upheld the constitutional right to a clean environment.

U.S. Supreme Court Juliana V. United States Our Children's Trust Youth Climate Activism Constitutional Rights Fossil Fuel Economy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

8.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and accurate account of the *Juliana v. United States* case, effectively detailing the legal journey and its broader impact on youth-led climate activism. It scores highly across most dimensions, particularly in accuracy, clarity, and public interest, due to its precise reporting and relevance to ongoing climate debates. The story is well-balanced, though it could benefit from a wider range of sources to enhance credibility. The article's timely nature and its potential to engage and influence readers make it a valuable piece in the context of environmental advocacy. Overall, it is a well-crafted narrative that successfully communicates the significance of the case and the persistent efforts of the young plaintiffs involved.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear the petition from young climate activists, ending the *Juliana v. United States* case. It provides precise details about the case's history, including the original filing in 2015 by 21 plaintiffs and the subsequent legal challenges by various administrations. The article correctly notes the involvement of Chief Justice John Roberts in halting a trial in 2018 and the 9th Circuit's dismissal of the case in 2020. Additionally, the story accurately describes the plaintiffs' current activities and the broader impact of the lawsuit. Overall, the article's claims align well with verified facts, with no significant inaccuracies detected.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by detailing both the plaintiffs' perspective and the legal arguments against the case. It highlights the plaintiffs' belief in their constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate and the counterarguments from the government that policy decisions should not be made by the judiciary. However, the article could have benefited from more insights into the government's perspective or statements from officials to provide a fuller picture of the opposing viewpoints. Despite this, the representation of the youth activists' side is comprehensive and well-articulated.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language, making it easy to follow the complex legal history of the *Juliana v. United States* case. It logically presents the sequence of events, from the initial filing to the Supreme Court's decision, and effectively explains the implications of each legal development. The use of direct quotes from key figures adds depth and clarity to the narrative. Overall, the article maintains a neutral tone and provides a coherent account of the story.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, such as statements from Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children's Trust, and the plaintiffs themselves. It mentions specific judicial actions and rulings, which are verifiable through court records and legal documents. However, the story could have enhanced its credibility by including direct quotes or statements from government officials or independent legal experts to provide a more rounded perspective. The reliance on Our Children's Trust as a primary source is understandable given their direct involvement, but additional sources would strengthen the article's authority.

Transparency

The article is transparent about its sources, primarily citing statements from Julia Olson and the plaintiffs involved in the case. It provides a clear timeline of events and legal decisions, allowing readers to understand the basis of its claims. However, the article could improve transparency by explicitly stating any potential biases or affiliations of the sources used, particularly Our Children's Trust, which is directly involved in the case. Nonetheless, the article does a good job of explaining the context and significance of the legal proceedings.