Nearly two dozen students who sued the federal government over "climate change" must take their arguments to the nation's executive branch, not its courts.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint while saying students "have made a compelling case that action is needed." Two judges, in the majority opinion, said the students' complaint will make it harder for "political branches to deny that climate change is occurring, that the government has had a role in causing it, and that our elected officials have a moral responsibility to seek solutions."
However, the court said the case must be "made to the political branches or to the electorate at large."
The Washington Examiner reported two judges found the federal courts were the wrong place to argue the issue, while a third judge would have allowed a federal court to decide the case.
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
The report said the group of 21 youth plaintiffs challenged the Obama administration in 2015.
"The teenagers notched a small victory shortly after President Trump was elected when a federal district court in Oregon ruled the case could move forward to trial — but the 9th Circuit ultimately took up the case after the Supreme Court intervened," the Examiner said.
The plaintiffs wanted the courts to create a new constitutional right, charging the federal government had violated their "constitutional right to a livable climate" by allowing fossil fuels.
The majority explained the problem wasn't simple.
"Our dissenting colleague quite correctly notes the gravity of the plaintiffs' evidence; we differ only as to whether an Article III court can provide their requested redress. In suggesting that we can, the dissent reframes the plaintiffs' claimed constitutional right variously as an entitlement to 'the country's perpetuity,' or as one to freedom from 'the amount of fossil-fuel emissions that will irreparably devastate our Nation.' But if such broad constitutional rights exist, we doubt that the plaintiffs would have Article III standing to enforce them. Their alleged individual injuries do not flow from a violation of these claimed rights. Indeed, any injury from the dissolution of the Republic would be felt by all citizens equally, and thus would not constitute the kind of discrete and particularized injury necessary for Article III standing.
"The plaintiffs' experts opine that atmospheric carbon levels of 350 parts per million are necessary to stabilize the global climate. But, even accepting those opinions as valid, they do not suggest how an order from this court can achieve that level, other than by ordering the government to develop a plan. Although the plaintiffs' invitation to get the ball rolling by simply ordering the promulgation of a plan is beguiling, it ignores than an Article III court will thereafter be required to determine whether the plan is sufficient to remediate the claimed constitutional violation of the plaintiffs' right to a 'climate system capable of sustaining human life.'
"In the end, any plan is only as good as the court's power to enforce it."
The majority opinion said that "absent court intervention, the political branches might conclude – however inappropriately in the plaintiffs' view – that economic or defense considerations called for continuation of the very programs challenged in this suit."