The Case that Wouldn’t Die

The Juliana case represents a significant legal effort aimed at reforming federal climate and energy policies. Recently, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to a violation of the separation of powers, prompting the district court to attempt to bypass this ruling. In response, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandamus writ to terminate the case, leading the plaintiffs to seek a similar writ from the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision. This situation has become increasingly complex, with multiple mandamus writs involved. Despite the plaintiffs' efforts, the likelihood of success at the Supreme Court appears slim. The conservative majority on the Court is expected to view any procedural errors made by the Ninth Circuit as harmless, particularly given their skepticism towards the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. This perspective is informed by past cases, such as Roe v. Wade, which involved implied constitutional rights and was criticized by the same Justices. Furthermore, the district judge's intention to conduct a lengthy trial examining broad government policies raises additional concerns regarding separation of powers. The Supreme Court has previously indicated that extensive public hearings on government programs could infringe upon this principle. The Court's apprehension about the implications of such a trial suggests that they may be reluctant to allow the case to proceed. In summary, the combination of procedural complexities, the conservative majority's views, and the potential separation of powers issues significantly undermine the plaintiffs' chances of reviving their case in the Supreme Court.