This legal memo discusses the case Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America, in which 21 youth plaintiffs sued the US government claiming that continued support for fossil fuels violates their constitutional rights. The memo analyzes where the case currently stands, examining whether the plaintiffs have standing and if the government has violated the public trust doctrine and the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment rights based on precedents like Massachusetts v. EPA. If the plaintiffs can demonstrate the government illegally endangered them through climate policy, it remains to be seen if courts can legitimately decide climate policy through this litigation.

1. Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America
MEMO:
On March 9, 2016 an abnormally energetic district court observed an equally abnormal
legal case. Alongside 21 plaintiffs aged 8-19, Oregon nonprofit Our Children’s Trust filed a suit
against the U.S. claiming that the children’s—and their entire generation’s—Fifth Amendment
rights and the public trust doctrine had been violated.1 Fundamentally, this is an environmental
justice issue contending that the federal government has neglected the welfare of future
Americans who will be disproportionately harmed by the fossil fuel extraction and use condoned
by current policymakers. The Obama administration has countered that the plaintiffs lack the
right to bring forth these allegations and that the court lacks authority to establish climate
policy.2 For redress, the plaintiffs ask that the U.S. limit carbon emissions to 350 ppm by 2100
and further act against ocean acidification and warming.3
My intent in writing this brief is to demonstrate where the case currently stands and to
predict its future trajectory by evaluating past judicial decisions. The audience for whom I write
is the district judge in Oregon expected to review the case following the magistrate’s approval.
The difficulty of writing a legal brief on such a recent and innovative case is that few external
resources are available to provide a fuller understanding of the sometimes esoteric legal terms of
court reports especially in the context of something as complicated as contemporary climate
change—and the human dimensions surrounding it.
1 Clayton Aldern, “Should Kids Be Allowed to Sue for a Safe Climate,” Grist.
2 John Light, “For the Kids Suing Over Climate Change,” Grist.
3 “Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America,” Our Children’s Trust,

2. When a federal magistrate approved the case for district review in April, Kelsey Cascade
Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America achieved a mile marker in its quest to employ the
judiciary to coerce other branches into reducing GHG emissions to prevent drastic climate
consequences.4 Proving that the government has known for decades that carbon dioxide
emissions have negatively impacted the environment and consciously exacerbated these
environmental alterations will likely be easy; the foremost accusations up for contestation entail
that federal government action and inaction have violated (1) the common law of public trust
doctrine and (2) the children’s Fifth Amendment rights.
The mandate for a plaintiff to prove that the accused performs the action in question while
aware of its detriment to society—while not requiring them to prove the defendants’ awareness
of regulations forbidding these actions—were precedents set by U.S. v. Laughlin (1993) and U.S.
v. International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (1971) in the context of hazardous waste.5
So did the government knowingly endanger the public by continuing to endorse fossil fuels in
spite of climate science admonitions? One branch established that yes, the U.S. government
knows that carbon emissions threaten public health and safety. In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007),
the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to abide by the CAA mandate to regulate air pollutants
including carbon dioxide, pointing to the governmental acknowledgement that further leasing
and subsidizing fossil fuels pose significant risks to general welfare by causing climate change.6
The public trust doctrine was furthered in two California land use cases, Boone v. Kingsbury
(1928) and Marks v. Whitney (1971), in which courts upheld that the state government is
responsible for protecting the greater good by favoring public health and safety over narrow
4 Michael Gerrard, “Our Children’s Trust Suit against US Government Surmounts Litigation,” Climate Law Blog.
5 Ibid, 251-252.
6 Ibid, 12.

3. commercial interests.7 This issue is at the core of the argument forged by Our Children’s Trust,
who contend that it must be similarly applied to the federal government.8 To support this
extrapolation, plaintiffs cite the Ninth Amendment guaranteeing the public retain rights not
explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Essentially, the implicit violation claimed is that the
federal government has ignored the welfare of the majority in favor of a few financial powers.
The other portion of this case contends that Fifth Amendment rights were breached by
federal action. The Fifth Amendment ensures that no American be denied the right to life,
liberty, or property without due process, usually in the context of criminal cases. Miranda v.
Arizona (1966) expanded this framework to any instance in which personal freedoms are
denied.9 Thus the plaintiffs argue the government deprives them of life, liberty, and property
without judicial review by supporting fossil fuel consumption. Indeed, there is consensus that the
increased carbon emissions the federal government allowed will lead to more frequent and
severe storms, infrastructure damage, conflict, and loss of life.10
If the youth have standing to bring this suit to the courts, what remains to be seen is whether
the plaintiffs can successfully demonstrate that climate policy can be legitimately decided
through judicial review—as Mass. v. EPA suggests—and that the plaintiffs have standing
because the federal government has acted illegally and adversely affected them. Additionally, in
spite of the novelty of using litigation to address climate change, lower and international courts
provide precedents upon which a federal court can hinge their decisions regarding the validity of
the plaintiffs’ claims that Fifth and Ninth Amendments have been violated.
7 Daniel Farber, Environmental Law in a Nutshell, (St. Paul: West Academic, 2014), 285.
8 “Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America,” Our Children’s Trust, 2.
9 “Fifth Amendment,” Cornell University Law School.
10 Lisa V. Alexander et al., “WG1 AR5 SPM,” IPCC.

4. Bibliography
Aldern, Clayton. “Should Kids Be Allowed to Sue for a Safe Climate? This Federal Court is
About to Decide.” Grist. WordPress, 10 Mar. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Alexander, Lisa V., Simon K. Allen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, François-Marie Bréon, John A.
Church, Ulrich Cubasch, Seita Emori, Piers Forster, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan
Gillett, Jonathan M. Gregory, Dennis L. Hartmann, Eystein Jansen, Ben Kirtman, Reto
Knutti, Krishna Kumar Kanikicharla, Peter Lemke, Jochem Marotzke, Valérie Masson-
Delmotte, Gerald A. Meehl, Igor I. Mokhov, Shilong Piao, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Qin
Dahe, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, David Randall, Monika Rhein, Maisa Rojas,
Christopher Sabinr, Drew Shindell, Thomas F. Stocker, Lynne D. Talley, David G.
Vaughan, and Shang-Ping Xie. “WG1 AR SPM.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. United Nations, 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Farber, Daniel A. Environmental Law in a Nutshell. 9th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Academic, 2014.
Gerrard, Michael. “Our Children’s Trust Suit against US Government Surmounts Litigation
Hurdle.” Climate Law Blog. Columbia Law School, 9 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 April 2016.
“Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America.” Our Children’s Trust. United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, 8 Apr. 2016. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Light, John. “For the Kids Suing Over Climate Change, Things Are Going Well So Far.” Grist.
WordPress, 27 Nov. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
“Fifth Amendment.” Cornell University Law School. Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web. 30
Apr. 2016.