PROTECTIVE ORD,STAYED
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Eugene (6)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:15−cv−01517−AA

Juliana, et al v United States of America, et al Assigned to: Judge Ann L. Aiken Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/12/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana

represented by Julia A. Olson Wild Earth Advocates 1216 Lincoln St. Eugene, OR 97401 415−786−4825 Email: juliaaolson@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea K. Rodgers Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers 3026 NW ESplanade Seattle, WA 98117 206−696−2851 Fax: (541) 485−2457 Email: andrearodgers42@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Galpern Law Offices of Daniel M. Galpern 2495 Hilyard St., Suite A Eugene, OR 97405 541−968−7164 Email: dan.galpern@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/04/2017

Philip L. Gregory Gregory Law Group 1250 Godetia Drive Redwood City, CA 94062 650−278−2957 Email: pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M. through his Guardian Tamara Roske−Martinez

represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017

Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Alexander Loznak
Plaintiff Jacob Lebel
Plaintiff Zealand B. through his Guardian Kimberly Pash−Bell
Plaintiff Avery M. through her Guardian Holly McRae

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address)

Plaintiff Sahara V. through her Guardian Toa Aguilar
Plaintiff Kiran Isaac Oommen
Plaintiff Tia Marie Hatton

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Isaac V. through his Guardian Pamela Vergun
Plaintiff Miko V. through her Guardian Pamela Vergun
Plaintiff Hazel V. through her Guardian Margo Van Ummersen

Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory

Plaintiff Sophie K. through her Guardian Dr. James Hansen
Plaintiff Jaime B. through her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai
Plaintiff Journey Z. through his Guardian Erika Schneider
Plaintiff

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria B. through her Guardian Daisy Calderon
Plaintiff Nathaniel B. through his Guardian Sharon Baring
Plaintiff Aji P. through his Guardian Helaina Piper
Plaintiff Levi D. through his Guardian Leigh−Ann Draheim

represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers

Plaintiff Jayden F. through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin
Plaintiff Nicholas V. through his Guardian Marie Venner
Plaintiff Earth Guardians a nonprofit organization

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017

Plaintiff Future Generations through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen
V. Defendant Barack Obama in his official capacity as President of the United States TERMINATED: 02/09/2017

Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia A. Olson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea K. Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel M. Galpern (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2017
Philip L. Gregory (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division 999 18th St. South Terrace, Suite 370 Denver, CO 80202 303−844−1362 Fax: 303−844−1350 Email: clare.boronow@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 601 D. Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202−305−0475 Fax: 202−305−0506 Email: erika.norman@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Post Office Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044−7611 202−616−9409 Fax: 202−305−0506 Email: frank.singer@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Christy Goldfuss in her official capacity as Director of Council on Environmental Quality

Justin Torres U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 601 D Street NW Washington, DC 20044 202−305−0874 Fax: 202−305−0506 Email: justin.torres@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Sean C. Duffy U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division 150 M Street NE Washington, DC 20002 202−305−0445 Fax: 202−305−0506 Email: sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato U.S. Department of Justice 601 D. St. NW Washington, DC 20004 202−305−0470 Fax: 202−305−0506 Email: marissa.piropato@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema United States Department of Justice Enviorment and Natural Resources Division/Natural Resources P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044−7611 202−298−7474 Fax: 202−305−0506 Email: peter.dykema@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Shaun Donovan in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Defendant John Holdren Dr., in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Defendant Ernest Moniz Dr., in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy

represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Department of Interior
Defendant Sally Jewell in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior

Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address)

Defendant United States Department of Transportation
Defendant Anthony Foxx in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015

Defendant United States Department of Agriculture
Defendant Thomas J. Vilsack in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture

Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address)

Defendant United States Department of Commerce
Defendant Penny Pritzker in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Department of Defense
Defendant Ashton Carter in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense
Defendant United States Department of State

represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Kerry in his official capacity as Secretary of State
Defendant Gina McCarthy in her official capacity as Administrator of the EPA

Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres

Defendant United States of America
Defendant Office of the President of the United States

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency
Defendant United States Department of Energy

Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Torres (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/11/2015
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States
V. Intervenor Defendant The National Association of Manufacturers TERMINATED: 06/28/2017

represented by Sean C. Duffy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clare Boronow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Norman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Singer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marissa Piropato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Kryn Dykema (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin E. Tannen Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736−8574 Fax: (202) 736−8711 Email: btannen@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C. Marie Eckert Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 205−2477 Fax: (503) 224−0155 Email: marie.eckert@millernash.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank R. Volpe Sidley Austin, LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736−8366 Fax: (202) 736−8711 Email: fvolpe@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Hopson

Intervenor Defendant American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers TERMINATED: 06/28/2017
Intervenor Defendant

Sidley Austin, LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202−736−8188 Fax: 202−736−8711 Email: mhopson@sidley.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Quin M. Sorenson Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736−8000 Fax: (202) 736−8711 Email: qsorenson@sidley.com TERMINATED: 01/04/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Roger R. Martella , Jr. Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202−736−8097 Fax: 202−736−8711 Email: rmartella@sidley.com TERMINATED: 03/03/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Benjamin E. Tannen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C. Marie Eckert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank R. Volpe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Hopson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Quin M. Sorenson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Roger R. Martella , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by

American Petroleum Institute TERMINATED: 06/28/2017
Amicus Global Catholic Climate Movement and Leadership Council of Women Religious
Amicus John Davidson Amicus

Benjamin E. Tannen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C. Marie Eckert (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank R. Volpe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Hopson (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Quin M. Sorenson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Roger R. Martella , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Sean T. Malone 259 E. 5th Ave Suite 200−C Eugene, OR 97401 (303) 859−0403 Email: seanmalone8@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M. Tebbutt Law Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt 451 Blair Blvd. Eugene, OR 97440 541−344−3505 Fax: 541−344−3516 Email: charlie@tebbuttlaw.com TERMINATED: 09/10/2018
represented by Michelle A. Blackwell Blackwell Law, P.C. P.O. Box 10326 Eugene, OR 97440 541−345−8800 Fax: 541−972−8854 Email: mblackwell@blackwell.law TERMINATED: 07/17/2018
represented by

League of Women Voters of the United States/League of Women Voters of Oregon

Travis Stephen Eiva Zemper Eiva Law 101 E Broadway Suite 303 Eugene, OR 97401 541−636−7480 Fax: 458−205−8658 Email: travis@zempereiva.com TERMINATED: 05/09/2017
Courtney B. Johnson Crag Law Center 3141 E Burnside St. Portland, OR 97214 503−525−2728 Fax: 503−296−5454 Email: courtney@crag.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/12/2015
08/12/2015 08/12/2015
08/13/2015
08/14/2015 08/19/2015 09/10/2015

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Filing fee in the amount of $400 collected. Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4236704 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Nathaniel B., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Earth Guardians, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Aji P., Future Generations, Victoria B., Sophie K., Avery M., Alexander Loznak, Tia Hatton, Hazel V., Jayden F., Journey Z., Jaime B., Kiran Oommen, Jacob Lebel, Levi D., Isaac V., Zealand B. against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3). (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
2 Proposed Summons (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
3 Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. Discovery is to be completed by 12/10/2015. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 1/11/2016. Pretrial Order is due by 1/11/2016. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (kf) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
4 Summons Issued Electronically as to Ashton Carter, Shaun Donovan, Anthony Foxx, Christy Goldfuss, John Holdren, Sally Jewell, John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, Ernest Moniz, Barack Obama, Office of the President of the United States, Penny Pritzker, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, United States Department of Transportation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Thomas J. Vilsack. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. (kf) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
5 Proposed Summons Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
6 Summons Issued Electronically as to United States of America. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. (kf) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
7 First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Filed by Nicholas V., Sahara V., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Nathaniel B., Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Aji P., Victoria B., Jaime B., Jayden F., Isaac V., Miko V., Earth Guardians, Future Generations, Sophie K., Avery M., Alexander Loznak, Tia Marie Hatton, Hazel V., Journey Z., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Jacob Lebel, Levi D., Zealand B. against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3). (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/15/2015 09/21/2015 09/23/2015
09/23/2015 09/28/2015 10/19/2015
11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015

8 Notice of Appearance of Justin Torres appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants (Torres, Justin) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
9 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Philip L. Gregory . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4293065. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Galpern, Daniel) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
10 ORDER: Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Philip L. Gregory for Jaime B.,Philip L. Gregory for Nathaniel B.,Philip L. Gregory for Victoria B.,Philip L. Gregory for Zealand B.,Philip L. Gregory for Levi D.,Philip L. Gregory for Earth Guardians,Philip L. Gregory for Jayden F.,Philip L. Gregory for Future Generations,Philip L. Gregory for Tia Marie Hatton,Philip L. Gregory for Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana,Philip L. Gregory for Sophie K.,Philip L. Gregory for Jacob Lebel,Philip L. Gregory for Alexander Loznak,Philip L. Gregory for Avery M.,Philip L. Gregory for Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M.,Philip L. Gregory for Kiran Isaac Oommen,Philip L. Gregory for Aji P.,Philip L. Gregory for Hazel V.,Philip L. Gregory for Isaac V.,Philip L. Gregory for Miko V.,Philip L. Gregory for Nicholas V.,Philip L. Gregory for Sahara V.,Philip L. Gregory for Journey Z.. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−4293065 issued. Signed on 9/23/15 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
11 Notification of CM/ECF Account for Attorney Philip L. Gregory (appearing Pro Hac Vice). Your login is: plgregory. Go to the CM/ECF login page to set your password. (ljb) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
12 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or File Responsive Pleading. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Torres, Justin) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
13 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 12 . Answer is due by 11/13/2015. Response to any motions filed by defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 are due by 12/11/2015. Reply in support of any motions filed by defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 are due by 12/30/2015. Oral Argument on any motions will set after the motions have been filed. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
14 Motion to Intervene . Oral Argument requested. Filed by The National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
15 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene 14 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
16 Declaration of Dr. Chad Moutray of the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Proposed Intervenor−Defendants' Motion for Intervention. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene 14 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
17 Declaration of Howard J. Feldman of the American Petroleum Institute in Support of Proposed Intervenor−Defendants' Motion for Intervention. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene 14 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
18 Declaration of David Friedman of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers in Support of Proposed Intervenor−Defendants' Motion for Intervention. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene 14 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
19 Motion to Dismiss Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Oral Argument requested. Filed by The National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)

11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015 11/16/2015 11/16/2015
11/16/2015
11/16/2015 11/16/2015
11/16/2015 11/17/2015

20 Memorandum in Support of Intervenor−Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,, 19 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
21 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Quin M. Sorenson . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4366747. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
22 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Benjamin E. Tannen . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4366779. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
23 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Roger R. Martella, Jr. . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4366788. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
24 Corporate Disclosure Statement Intervenor−Defendants' Corporate Disclosure Statement. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
25 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or File Responsive Pleading. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Torres, Justin) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
26 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 25 . Answer is due by 11/18/2015. Response to any motions filed by defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 are due by 12/16/2015. Reply in support of any motions filed by defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 are due by 12/31/2015. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
28 ORDER: Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Roger R. Martella, Jr for American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers,Roger R. Martella, Jr for American Petroleum Institute,Roger R. Martella, Jr for The National Association of Manufacturers. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−4366788 issued. Signed on 11/16/15 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
29 ORDER: Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Benjamin E. Tannen for American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers,Benjamin E. Tannen for American Petroleum Institute,Benjamin E. Tannen for The National Association of Manufacturers. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−4366779 issued. Signed on 11/16/15 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
30 Notification of CM/ECF Account for Attorney Benjamin E. Tannen (Pro Hac Vice admission). Your login is: betannen. Go to the CM/ECF login page to set your password. (ljb) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
31 ORDER: Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Quin M. Sorenson for American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers,Quin M. Sorenson for American Petroleum Institute,Quin M. Sorenson for The National Association of Manufacturers. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−4366747 issued. Signed on 11/16/15 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
32 Notification of CM/ECF Account for Attorney Quin M. Sorenson (Pro Hac Vice admission). Your login is: qmsorenson. Go to the CM/ECF login page to set your password. (ljb) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Cassandra Bernstein,

11/30/2015 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 12/15/2015
12/17/2015 12/21/2015 01/05/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016

# 3 Proposed Order) (Torres, Justin) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
33 Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene 14 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Julia A. Olson In Support of Plaintiffs' REsponse in Opposition to Motion to Intervene) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
34 Notice of Attorney Substitution:Attorney Sean C. Duffy is substituted as counsel of record in place of Attorney Justin Torres Filed by All Defendants (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
35 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
36 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss 27 filed by United States Department of Interior, Thomas J. Vilsack, Barack Obama, Christy Goldfuss, Penny Pritzker, Gina McCarthy, John Holdren, Shaun Donovan, Office of the President of the United States, United States Department of Commerce, Anthony Foxx, John Kerry, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Transportation, Ashton Carter, Sally Jewell, United States of America, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of State, Ernest Moniz, United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Response is due by 1/6/2016. Reply is due by 2/3/2016. Oral Argument is set for 2/17/2016 at 02:00PM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
37 Reply in Support of Proposed Intervenor−Defendants' Motion to Intervene. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion to intervene 14 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
38 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin regarding Motion to Intervene 14 . Oral Argument is set for 1/13/2016 at 02:00PM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The court will initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
39 Motion to File Excess Pages on January 6, 2016 Response re Order on motion for extension of time to file Response/Reply,,, 36 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
40 ORDER: Granting Motion to File Excess Pages 39 . Plaintiffs are allowed to file a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss 27 not to exceed 45 pages. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
41 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 , Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 35 , Motion to File Excess Pages on January 6, 2016 Response re Order on motion for extension of time to file Response/Reply,,, 36 39 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Alex Loznak in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Attachment Declaration of Avery M. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 3 Attachment Declaration of Jacob Lebel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 4 Attachment Declaration of Jaime B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 5 Attachment Declaration of Journey Z. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 6 Attachment Declaration of Kelsey Juliana in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 7 Attachment Declaration of Levi D. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 8 Attachment Declaration of Sahara V. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 9 Attachment Declaration of Victoria B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 10 Attachment Declaration of Xiuhtezcatl M. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 11 Attachment Declaration of Zealand B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss) (Olson, Julia) (Entered:

01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016 01/08/2016 01/12/2016 01/13/2016
01/14/2016 01/15/2016 01/27/2016 02/01/2016
02/02/2016

01/06/2016)
42 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. James E. Hansen in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, 41 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
43 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, 41 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
44 Declaration of Dr. Michael C. MacCracken in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, 41 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
45 Proposed Form of Order Submitted Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
46 Declaration of John E. Davidson in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, 41 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
47 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. James E. Hansen Corrected with Caption. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, 41 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
48 ORDER: The order setting oral argument on the Motion to Intervene 14 38 is amended as follows: parties who wish to participate in the hearing are ordered to call into the Court's conference line no less than 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. The conference information will be be sent to the parties by separate e−mail. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
49 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Motion Hearing. Order granting Motion to Intervene 14 . Formal order to follow. Response to Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss 19 is due by 2/2/2016. Oral Argument re: Motions to Dismiss 19 and 27 is reset from 2/17/2016 to 3/9/2016 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin Julia Olson; Philip Gregory; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy present as counsel for defendants. Marie Eckert; Quin Sorenson present as counsel for intervenors. (Court Reporter Deborah Bonds.) Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
50 ORDER: Granting Motion to Intervene 14 . Signed on 1/14/2016 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
51 Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae . Filed by Global Catholic Climate Movement and Leadership Council of Women Religious. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS) (Tebbutt, Charles) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
52 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
53 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 1/13/2016 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Deborah M. Bonds, telephone number 541−485−0111. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 2/11/2016. Redaction Request due 2/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/7/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/5/2016. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
54 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 filed by United States Department of Interior, Thomas J. Vilsack, Barack Obama, Christy Goldfuss, Penny Pritzker, Gina McCarthy, John Holdren, Shaun Donovan, Office of the President of the United States, United States Department of Commerce, Anthony

02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/10/2016 02/10/2016 02/19/2016
02/24/2016 02/24/2016 03/03/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/09/2016
04/05/2016
04/08/2016

Foxx, John Kerry, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Transportation, Ashton Carter, Sally Jewell, United States of America, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of State, Ernest Moniz, United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Reply is due by 2/10/2016. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
55 ORDER: Granting Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 51 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
56 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 19 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
57 Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
58 Motion to Strike . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
59 Reply Entitled Reply in Support of Intervenor−Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to Motion to Dismiss Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 19 . Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
60 Amicus Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae . Filed by John Davidson. (Blackwell, Michelle) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
61 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike 58 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
62 Response in Opposition to Amicus Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 60 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
63 Notice of Case Reassignment: This case has been reassigned from Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin to Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. (eo) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
64 Notice of Case Reassignment: This case has been reassigned from Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. NOTE: This case was reassigned from Judge Coffin to Judge Russo in error. This reassignment corrects that error and reassigns the case back to Judge Coffin. (eo) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
65 Response Entitled: Intervenors' Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief [ECF No. 60] to Amicus Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 60 . Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
66 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing Held regarding Motion to Dismiss 27 and Motion to Dismiss 19 . Motions are taken under advisement as of 3/14/2016. Julia Olson present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy present as counsel for defendants. Quin Sorenson present as counsel for intervenors. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
67 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 3/9/2016 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 4/15/2016. Redaction Request due 4/29/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/9/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/8/2016. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
68 Order and Findings & Recommendation: Order denying Motion to Strike 58 . Findings & Recommendation: Motion to Dismiss 19 , Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 should be denied. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 4/25/2016. Signed on 4/8/2016 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 04/08/2016)

04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/20/2016 04/20/2016 05/02/2016
05/02/2016
05/16/2016 05/16/2016 06/08/2016 09/07/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/13/2016

69 Order referring Motion to Dismiss 19 , Findings & Recommendation 68 , Motion to Dismiss 27 to Judge Ann L. Aiken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
70 ORDER: Granting Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 60 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
71 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File an Objection to Findings and Recommendation to 68 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
72 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Objection to F & R 71 . Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 5/2/2016. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
73 Objections to Findings & Recommendation: Motion to Dismiss Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 19 , Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss 68 Oral Argument requested. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
74 Objections to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 , Findings & Recommendation: Motion to Dismiss Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 19 , Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss 68 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
75 Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation. of Federal Defendants Related document(s): 74 Objections to Findings & Recommendation,. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
76 Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation. of Intervenor Defendants Related document(s): 73 Objections to Findings & Recommendation,. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
77 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken regarding Findings & Recommendation 68 : Motion to Dismiss 19 , Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 should be denied. Oral Argument is set for 9/13/2016 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
78 Declaration of Jayden F in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, 41 , Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation 76 , Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation 75 , Response in Opposition to Motion, 56 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
79 Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae . Filed by League of Women Voters of the United States/League of Women Voters of Oregon. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document) (Eiva, Travis) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
80 Notice re Response in Opposition to Motion 41 , Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation 76 , Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation 75 , Response in Opposition to Motion, 56 of Supplemental Authority Filed by All Plaintiffs (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 41 , Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation 76 , Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation 75 , Response in Opposition to Motion, 56 .) (Olson, Julia) Modified to correct typos on 9/14/2016 (ljb). (Entered: 09/12/2016)
81 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing Held regarding Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction 27 , Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 19 , and Findings & Recommendation 68 . Motions are taken under advisement as of 9/19/2016. Julia Olson present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy present as counsel for defendants. Quin Sorenson present as counsel for intervenors. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Judge Ann L. Aiken presiding. (plb) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

10/06/2016
11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016
11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016
11/28/2016

82 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 9/13/16 before Judge Ann Aiken, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 10/17/2016. Redaction Request due 10/31/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/10/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/9/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
83 ORDER: Granting Findings and Recommendation. The Court adopts Judge Coffin's Findings & Recommendation 68 , as elaborated in this opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 27 and Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss 19 are DENIED. 68 . Signed on 11/10/2016 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rr) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
84 ORDER: Denying Motion to Dismiss 19 ; Denying 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. See, formal Order and Opinion 83 Ordered on 11/10/2016 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rr) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
85 ORDER: Denying 27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Denying Motion to Dismiss Case for Lack of Jurisdiction 27 . See, formal Order and Opinion 83 . Ordered on 11/10/2016 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rr) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
86 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Rule 16 Conference is set for 11/28/2016 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Call−in information will be sent to the parties by separate order. The parties are ordered to call in at least five (5) minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. The parties should be prepared to discuss the status of discovery, any actual or potential discovery related conflicts, magistrate consent, potential trial dates, other issues presented by this action, and proposed modifications to the schedule outlined in the initial Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Ordered issued by the court at the commencement of the action. The parties additionally should be prepared to discuss Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) pursuant to L.R. 16.4. Pursuant to this minute order the parties are relieved of their responsibility set forth in the Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order, Section (c). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
87 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer First Amended Complaint,, 7 . Filed by The National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
88 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
89 Response in Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 88 , Motion for Extension of Time to Answer First Amended Complaint,, 7 87 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
90 ORDER: Granting Motions for Extension of Time to Answer 87 and 88 insofar as the current answer deadlines of 11/28/2016 are vacated. In addition to hearing from the parties regarding a discovery and pretrial schedule, the court will hear further argument with regard to the requested answer deadlines by defendants and intervenor defendants at the Rule 16 Conference set for 11/28/2016 at 10:00AM by Telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
91 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Rule 16 Conference. Order granting Motions for Extension of Time to Answer 87 and 88 . Intervenor Defendants' answers are due by 12/15/2016. Defendants' answers are due by 1/13/2017. No further extensions of time will be allowed. Parties are ordered to meet and confer after answers are filed regarding a pretrial schedule and to file status reports by 1/31/2017 with a proposed schedule. Rule 16 Conference is continued to 2/7/2017 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Call−in information will be sent by separate order. The parties are ordered to call in at least 5 minutes before the scheduled hearing. Julia Olson; Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy present as counsel for defendants. Benjamin Tannen; Marie Eckert; Quin Sorenson present as counsel for intervenor defendants. (Court Reporter Kristi

11/30/2016 12/15/2016 01/04/2017 01/04/2017 01/10/2017 01/10/2017 01/13/2017
01/19/2017 01/24/2017
01/25/2017 01/25/2017

Anderson.)Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) Added counsel present for intervenor defendants on 1/11/2017 (plb). (Entered: 11/30/2016)
92 ORDER: Granting Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 79 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
93 Answer to 7 Amended Complaint,, Titled: Intervenor−Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Filed by The National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
94 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Titled: Intervenor−Defendants' Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney Quin M. Sorenson Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
95 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Frank R. Volpe . Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4860282. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
96 ORDER: Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Frank R. Volpe for American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers,Frank R. Volpe for American Petroleum Institute,Frank R. Volpe for The National Association of Manufacturers. Application Fee in amount of $300 collected. Receipt No. 0979−4860282 issued. Signed on 1/10/17 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
97 Notification of CM/ECF Account for Frank R. Volpe (Pro Hac Vice admission). Your login is: frvolpe. Go to the CM/ECF login page to set your password. (ljb) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
98 Answer to 7 Amended Complaint,, . Filed by United States of America, Ashton Carter, United States Department of Energy, Office of the President of the United States, Sally Jewell, Anthony Foxx, Thomas J. Vilsack, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Barack Obama, Ernest Moniz, John Kerry, Christy Goldfuss, United States Department of State, Shaun Donovan, United States Department of Agriculture, John Holdren, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Transportation, Gina McCarthy, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Interior. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
99 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Discovery Hearing is set for 1/27/2017 at 09:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Call−in information will be sent by separate order. The parties are ordered to call in at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
100 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 11/28/2016 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 2/3/2017. Redaction Request due 2/17/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/27/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/27/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
101 Motion to Compel DEPOSITION OF REX TILLERSON. Filed by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3) (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
102 Brief Intervenor−Defendants' Brief Regarding Notice of Deposition. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)

01/25/2017 01/26/2017 01/26/2017 01/26/2017 01/27/2017
01/31/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017
02/03/2017 02/07/2017

(Eckert, C.) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
103 Brief Setting Forth Federal Defendants Position on Discovery Dispute. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
104 Memorandum in Support Reply in Support of Intervenor−Defendants Brief Regarding Notice of Deposition. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Brief, 102 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
105 Reply to Motion to Compel DEPOSITION OF REX TILLERSON 101 . Filed by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
106 Memorandum in Support Federal Defendants' Position on Discovery Dispute. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
107 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Discovery Hearing. Order Denying Motion to Compel 101 to the extent that Intervenor Defendants are not obligated to produce Rex Tillerson for deposition as he is no longer affiliated with Intervenor Defendants. The Rule 16 Conference is reset on 2/7/2017 at 10:00AM to occur in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Philip Gregory; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy present as counsel for defendants. Marie Eckert; Frank Volpe present as counsel for intervenor defendants. (Court Reporter Kristi Anderson.) Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
108 Status Report by All Defendants. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
109 Status Report titled Intervenor−Defendants' Status Report Re Discovery and Proposed Pre−trial Schedule by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
110 Status Report with a proposed schedule by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. Filed by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. (Gregory, Philip) Modified to correct typos on 2/1/2017 (ljb). (Entered: 01/31/2017)
111 Exhibits 1 and 2 re Status Report,,, 110 . Filed by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
112 MINUTES of Proceedings: Rule 16 Conference. Plaintiffs are ordered to disclose expert witnesses and make document requests within 45 days of this hearing. Status Conference is set for 3/8/2017 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The parties are ordered to call into the court's conference line at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. Call−in information will be sent by separate order. Julia Olson; Philip Gregory; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy; Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Marie Eckert; Frank Volpe present as counsel for intervenor defendants. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/07/2017
02/09/2017 02/17/2017
02/17/2017 03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/07/2017 03/07/2017 03/07/2017 03/08/2017
03/10/2017 03/13/2017

113 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 1/27/2017 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 2/17/2017. Redaction Request due 3/3/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/13/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
114 Notice Plaintiffs' Substitution of Parties Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 25(d) Filed by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
115 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 2/7/2017 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 2/27/2017. Redaction Request due 3/13/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/23/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/22/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
116 Notice of Consent to Extend Deadline to Serve Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions Filed by All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
117 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Intervenor−Defendants' Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney Roger R. Martella, Jr. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
118 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Mark D. Hopson . Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4927602. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
119 Status Report AS OF MARCH 7, 2017 WITH A PROPOSED SCHEDULE by All Plaintiffs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
120 Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
121 Motion for Stay . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
123 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference. Defendants are allowed 60 days from the date of this hearing to submit responses to plaintiffs' requests for admissions and documents. The parties' are ordered to file a Status Report by 3/31/2017. Status Conference is set for 4/7/2017 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The parties are ordered to call into the court's conference line at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. Call−in information will be sent by separate order. Julia Olson; Philip Gregory; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Peter Dykema; Sean Duffy; Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Frank Volpe present as counsel for intervenor defendants. Court Reporter: Jan Duiven. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
122 Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Tannen, Benjamin) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
128 ORDER: Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mark D. Hopson for American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum

03/14/2017
03/14/2017
03/17/2017
03/17/2017 03/21/2017 03/21/2017 04/03/2017 04/03/2017 04/03/2017 04/03/2017 04/03/2017 04/06/2017 04/07/2017

Institute, and for The National Association of Manufacturers. Application Fee in amount of $300 collected. Receipt No. 0979−4927602 issued. Signed on 3/13/2017 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (rdr) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
124 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Telephonic Status Conference held on March 8, 2017 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Jan Duiven, telephone number 541−485−0111. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 3/21/2017. Redaction Request due 4/4/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/14/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/12/2017. (cw) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
125 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Stay 121 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Philip L. Gregory in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
126 Response in Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Stay 121 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 125 , Motion for Stay 121 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
127 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Responses are due by 4/3/2017. Ordered on 3/17/2017 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (rdr) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
129 Notification of CM/ECF Account for Mark D. Hopson (Pro Hac Vice admission). Your login is: mdhopson. Go to the CM/ECF login page to set your password. (rdr) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
130 First Application for to the bar of the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon NOTE: failure to update your account information under the Utilities menu could result in a delay processing your application. Filed by All Defendants. (Piropato, Marissa) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
131 Joint Status Report As of April 3, 2017. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
132 Response in Opposition to Intervenor Defendants' to Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
133 Response in Opposition to Federal Defendants' to Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
134 Response in Opposition to Motion for Stay 121 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
135 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Federal Defendants Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 134 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
136 Supplemental Declaration of Julia A. Olson . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 134 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
137 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference. Order denying request for stay pending consideration of the Motions to Certify 120 and 122 . The deadline for production of documents is extended until the parties meet and confer regarding discovery. The parties are ordered to file a status report by 5/11/2017. Status

04/10/2017 04/10/2017 04/10/2017
04/18/2017 04/20/2017 04/24/2017
04/24/2017 04/25/2017
05/01/2017

Conference is set for 5/18/2017 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The parties are ordered to call into the the previously ordered conference line at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. Julia Olson; Philip Gergory; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy; Marisa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Marie Eckert; Frank Volpe present as counsel for defendant intervenors. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
138 Reply Titled: Reply in Support of Intervenor−Defendants' Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave to Appeal, 122 .) (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
139 Reply in Support to Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
140 Reply in Support to Motion for Stay 121 . Filed by Ashton Carter, Shaun Donovan, Anthony Foxx, Christy Goldfuss, John Holdren, Sally Jewell, John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, Ernest Moniz, Barack Obama, Office of the President of the United States, Penny Pritzker, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, United States Department of Transportation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America, Thomas J. Vilsack. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
141 Notice of Appearance of Marissa Piropato appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants (Piropato, Marissa) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
142 ORDER: Intervenor Defendants are ordered to electronically file with the court their responses to Plaintiffs' requests for admissions. If Intervenor Defendants have not yet submitted responses to Plaintiffs' requests for admissions, they are ordered to electronically file them with the court concurrent to their submission to plaintiffs. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
143 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 4/7/2017 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, e−mail address kristi_anderson@ord.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 5/1/2017. Redaction Request due 5/15/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/25/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
144 Motion for Clarification of April 10, 2017 Minute Order. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
145 ORDER: Granting Motion for Clarification 144 as follows: At the status conference of April 7, 2017, the court viewed the government to be requesting to stay production of documents until after a meet and confer with plaintiffs and the court agreed for the reason that the meet and confer would conceivably reduce the request for production. The subject of the requests for admission addressed to the government was not a topic of discussion and the court did not rule on those. In view of the confusion over this matter, the court will extend the deadline for the government to respond to the request for admission from May 8, 2017, to May 31, 2017. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
146 Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 and Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 should be denied. Motion for Stay 121 is denied. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 5/15/2017. Signed on 5/1/2017 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

05/01/2017 05/05/2017
05/05/2017
05/09/2017 05/09/2017 05/09/2017 05/10/2017 05/11/2017 05/11/2017

147 Order referring Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 and Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 should be denied 146 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 to Judge Ann L. Aiken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
148 Application for to the bar of the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon NOTE: failure to update your account information under the Utilities menu could result in a delay processing your application. Filed by Ashton Carter, Shaun Donovan, Anthony Foxx, Christy Goldfuss, John Holdren, Sally Jewell, John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, Ernest Moniz, Office of the President of the United States, Penny Pritzker, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, United States Department of Transportation, United States of America, Thomas J. Vilsack. (Dykema, Peter) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
149 Objections to Findings & Recommendation APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to a District Court Judge by Ashton Carter, Shaun Donovan, Anthony Foxx, Christy Goldfuss, John Holdren, Sally Jewell, John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, Ernest Moniz, Barack Obama, Office of the President of the United States, Penny Pritzker, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, United States Department of Transportation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America, Thomas J. Vilsack re 146 Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 should be denied . Filed by Ashton Carter, Shaun Donovan, Anthony Foxx, Christy Goldfuss, John Holdren, Sally Jewell, John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, Ernest Moniz, Barack Obama, Office of the President of the United States, Penny Pritzker, Donald J. Trump, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Interior, United States Department of State, United States Department of Transportation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America, Thomas J. Vilsack. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
150 Notice of Attorney Substitution:Attorney Courtney B. Johnson is substituted as counsel of record in place of Attorney Travis Stephen Eiva Filed by League of Women Voters of the United States/League of Women Voters of Oregon (Johnson, Courtney) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
151 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Scheduling, Findings & Recommendation,, 146 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
152 Objections Intervenor−Defendants' Objections to Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 should be denied 146 . Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
153 Motion for Extension of Time Intervenor−Defendants' Motion for An Extension of Time to Respond to Plainitffs' Requests for Admissions. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
154 Response in Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time Intervenor−Defendants' Motion for An Extension of Time to Respond to Plainitffs' Requests for Admissions 153 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
155 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Intervenor Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs Request for

05/12/2017 05/12/2017 05/18/2017
05/19/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/23/2017
05/23/2017 05/25/2017 05/25/2017 05/26/2017

Admissions. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 154 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
156 ORDER: Granting in part Motion for Extension of Time 153 to the extent that Intervenor Defendants' responses to plaintiffs' requests for admissions are due by 5/18/2017. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
157 Joint Status Report by All Defendants. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
158 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference. Further Status Conference is set for 6/14/2017 at 10:30AM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Order granting intervenor defendant's oral motion for extension of time to submit responses to plaintiffs' requests for admissions. Responses are due by 5/25/2017. Julia Olson; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy; Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Marie Eckert; Frank Volpe present as counsel for intervenor defendants. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
159 Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation. Related document(s): 149 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court Judge,,,,,,. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
160 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Objection of Intervenor Defendants to Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 122 , Motion for Leave to Appeal Order Denying Motions to Dismiss 120 should be denied 146 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
161 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
162 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Objection to F & R 160 . Responses to any objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 5/26/2017. Ordered on 5/22/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
163 Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant The National Association of Manufacturers' Motion to Withdraw. Filed by The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
164 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 5/18/2017 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 5/30/2017. Redaction Request due 6/13/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/23/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/21/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
165 Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation. DENYING MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION Related document(s): 151 Objections to Magistrate Judges Order,. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
166 Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant American Petroleum Institutes Motion to Withdraw. Filed by American Petroleum Institute. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
167 Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Motion to Withdraw. Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
168 Response to Objections to Findings & Recommendation. Related document(s): 152 Objections to Findings & Recommendation,. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/06/2017 06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/09/2017 06/09/2017 06/12/2017 06/14/2017
06/16/2017

169 Response to Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant The National Association of Manufacturers' Motion to Withdraw 163 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
170 Declaration of Julia A. Olson IN RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR DEFENDANT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS MOTION TO WITHDRAW. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 169 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
171 Notice re Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court Judge,,,,,, 149 Filed by All Defendants (Related document(s): Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court Judge,,,,,, 149 .) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
172 ORDER: The Court Adopts the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin 146 . Defendants' Motions to certify the November 10 Order for Interlocutory appeal 120 122 are denied. Defendants' request for a stay 121 is denied as moot. See, Formal Order. Signed on 6/8/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
173 Response to Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant American Petroleum Institutes Motion to Withdraw 166 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
174 Declaration of Julia A. Olson In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Intervenor API's Motion to Withdraw. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 173 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
175 Response to Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Motion to Withdraw 167 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
176 Declaration of Julia A. Olson In Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Intervenor AFPM's Motion to Withdraw. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 175 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
177 Notice of Filing Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed by All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition for Writ of Mandamus) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
Writ of Mandamus Filed in the 9th Circuit. Case number 17−71692 assigned. (kf) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
178 Joint Status Report As of June 12, 2017. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
181 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference. Plaintiffs' disclosure of Group 2 experts must be completed by 6/23/2017. Exchange of Plaintiffs' Group 1 Expert Witness Reports must be completed by 7/5/2017. Exchange of Plaintiffs' Group 2 Expert Witness Reports must be completed by 7/31/2017. Defendants' disclosure of rebuttal experts must be completed by 9/14/2017. Exchange of Defendants' Rebuttal Expert Witness Reports must be completed by 10/13/2017. Exchange of Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Witness Reports must be completed by 11/1/2017. Trial Memoranda are due by 12/4/2017. Intervenor Defendants' oral motion to submit a consolidated reply to the pending motions to withdraw and for extension of time to 6/22/2017 is granted. Intervenor Defendants' discovery obligations are stayed pending resolution of the motions to withdraw. Julia Olson; Philip Gregory; Daniel Galpern present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy; Frank Singer present as counsel for defendants. Marie Eckers; Frank Volpe present as counsel for intervenor defendants. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
179 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 6/14/2017 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of

06/22/2017
06/28/2017 10/04/2017 03/07/2018 03/16/2018 03/16/2018 03/19/2018 03/21/2018
03/26/2018
03/30/2018
04/12/2018

Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 6/23/2017. Redaction Request due 7/7/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2017. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
180 Reply in Support of Intervenor−Defendants' Separate Motions to Withdraw to Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Motion to Withdraw 167 , Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant The National Association of Manufacturers' Motion to Withdraw 163 , Motion to Withdraw Intervenor−Defendant American Petroleum Institutes Motion to Withdraw 166 . Filed by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, The National Association of Manufacturers. (Eckert, C.) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
182 ORDER: Granting Motion to Withdraw 163 ; Granting Motion to Withdraw 166 ; Granting Motion to Withdraw 167 . Signed on 6/28/2017 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
183 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
184 Notice of Change of Address. and Counsel Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
185 Motion for Hearing Status Conference. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
186 Declaration of Philip L. Gregory in Support of Motion of Plaintiffs Requesting Status Conference. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Hearing 185 .) (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
187 Response to Motion for Hearing Status Conference 185 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
188 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin regarding Motion for Hearing Status Conference 185 . Status Conference is set for 3/26/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Parties wishing to participate in the status conference are ordered to call into the Court's conference line at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. Call−in information will be sent by separate order. Parties should be prepared to discuss a schedule moving forward and whether an in−person status conference should be scheduled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
189 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference. Order granting Motion for Status Conference 185 . The parties are ordered to meet and confer at the U.S. Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon on 4/11/2018. Status Conference is set for 4/12/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. It is further ordered that exchange of plaintiffs' expert witness statements (except that of James Gustave Speth) must be completed by 4/13/2018. Exchange of defendants' rebuttal expert witness statements must be completed by 7/12/2018. Exchange of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert witness statements must be completed by 8/13/2018. Trial memoranda are due by 9/12/2018. Julia Olson; Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy; Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. (Court Reporter Kristi Anderson.) Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
190 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Status Conference held on 3/26/2018 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 4/6/2018. Redaction Request due 4/20/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/30/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/28/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
192 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference. Status Conference is set for 5/10/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Disclosure of defendants' expert witnesses must be completed by 7/12/2018. Exchange

04/13/2018
05/07/2018 05/08/2018 05/09/2018 05/09/2018 05/10/2018 05/10/2018
05/16/2018
05/18/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018
05/18/2018
05/18/2018

of defendants' expert witness statements must be completed by 8/13/2018. Exchange of rebuttal expert witness statements must be completed by 9/12/2018. Court Trial is set for 10/29/2018 at 09:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Julia Olson; Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy; Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
191 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 4/12/2018 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi L. Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 4/20/2018. Redaction Request due 5/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/14/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/12/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
193 Notice of Appearance of Clare Boronow appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
194 Joint Status Report by All Defendants. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
195 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
196 Motion for Protective Order , Motion for Stay of All Discovery. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) Notice for Dept. of Interior, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) Notice for USDA) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
197 Notice of Appearance of Frank J. Singer appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants. (Singer, Frank) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
198 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference. A further Status Conference is set for 6/6/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Sean Duffy, Marissa Piropato, Frank Singer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Jan Duiven. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (ck) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
199 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Telephonic Oral Argument regarding scheduling is set for 5/23/2018 at 02:30PM in Eugene by telephone before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The parties shall call in to the conference. Conference call information will be provided by the Court in a separate entry. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
200 Notice of Appearance of Andrea K. Rodgers appearing on behalf of All Plaintiffs Filed by on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
201 Motion for Extension of Time to file Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
202 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Motion for Extension of Time to File Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 201 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Gregory, Philip) Incorrect event selected; Modified from Affidavit to Declaration on 5/21/2018; Parties noticed. (kf) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
203 Declaration of Philip L. Gregory in Support of Motion for Extension of Time to File Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 201 .) (Gregory, Philip) Incorrect event selected; Modified from Affidavit to Declaration on 5/21/2018; Parties noticed. (kf) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
204 Response to Motion for Extension of Time to file Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 201 . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/21/2018
05/22/2018 05/22/2018 05/23/2018 05/23/2018
05/23/2018
05/24/2018 05/25/2018 05/29/2018
05/30/2018 06/01/2018 06/01/2018 06/04/2018 06/05/2018

205 ORDER: I have reviewed the parties' submissions in connection with plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time 201 to file a response to defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings 195 . Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings will be due, at the earliest, on 6/15/2018. I reserve ruling on plaintiffs' request for a further extension pending the telephonic oral argument that is already set for 5/23/2018 at 2:30 p.m. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
206 Joint Brief Letter re briefing schedule for Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
207 Motion for Summary Judgment . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
208 Response in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order Motion for Stay of All Discovery 196 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
209 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order and Stay of Discovery Pending Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 208 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
210 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Motion Hearing Held regarding 201 Motion for Extension of Time to file Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The Court grants no further extension than what was previously allowed. Response is due by 6/15/2018. Reply is due by 6/29/2018. The parties are to confer and propose a date and time for Oral Argument to the Court by 5/30/2018 at 5:00 p.m. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory, Andrea Rodgers present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Frank Singer, Sean Duffy, Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. (ck) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
211 Notice of Filing Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
212 ORDER: Denying Motion for a Protective Order 196 ; Denying Motion for Stay 196 . Signed on 5/25/2018 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Main Document 212 replaced on 5/29/2018) (plb). (Entered: 05/25/2018)
213 Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction regarding Order on motion for protective order, Order on motion for stay 212 . The PDF attached to this entry at filing was incorrect. A corrected PDF has been uploaded and has replaced the incorrect attachment. The Notice of Electronic Filing will be regenerated to all parties. (plb) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
214 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Oral Argument regarding Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 is set for 7/18/2018 at 02:00PM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Motion is taken under advisement as of 7/18/2018. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
215 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order: Order on motion for protective order, Order on motion for stay 212 . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) Modified on 6/15/2018 to term erroneously filed motion event. (kf). (Entered: 06/01/2018)
216 Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Objections. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
217 Motion for Protective Order . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (Piropato, Marissa) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
218 Joint Status Report as of June 5, 2018. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/05/2018)

06/06/2018
06/06/2018
06/07/2018 06/07/2018 06/08/2018
06/08/2018 06/08/2018 06/08/2018 06/08/2018 06/08/2018 06/08/2018 06/11/2018 06/12/2018

219 Stipulation Protective Order by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. Filed by Jaime B., Nathaniel B., Victoria B., Zealand B., Levi D., Earth Guardians, Jayden F., Future Generations, Tia Marie Hatton, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, Sophie K., Jacob Lebel, Alexander Loznak, Avery M., Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., Kiran Isaac Oommen, Aji P., Hazel V., Isaac V., Miko V., Nicholas V., Sahara V., Journey Z.. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
220 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference. A further Status Conference is set for 7/17/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory, Andrea Rodgers present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy, Marissa Piropato, Frank Singer (by phone), Clare Boronow (by phone) present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (ck) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
221 Stipulated Protective Order. Signed on 6/7/2018 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ck) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
222 Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to STay Discovery Pending Resolution of Objections to Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Objections 216 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
223 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 6/6/2018 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, email kristi_anderson@ord.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 6/15/2018. Redaction Request due 6/29/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Main Document 223 replaced on 6/11/2018) (plb). (Entered: 06/08/2018)
224 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply in Opposition to Defendants' to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
225 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 224 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
226 Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
227 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 226 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
228 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 226 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
229 Declaration of Philip L. Gregory in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 226 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
230 Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction regarding Transcript of Proceedings, 223 . The PDF attached to this entry at filing was incorrect. A corrected PDF has been uploaded and has replaced the incorrect attachment. The Notice of Electronic Filing will be regenerated to all parties. (plb) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
231 Reply to Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Objections 216 . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

06/12/2018 06/12/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/14/2018
06/14/2018 06/14/2018
06/15/2018

232 Notice re Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 224 Notice of Errata Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 224 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
233 Corrected Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
234 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Defendants' to Motion for Protective Order 217 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
235 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to Respond To Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 234 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
236 Response in Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply in Opposition to Defendants' to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 224 , Corrected Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 233 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
237 Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Defendants' to Motion for Protective Order 217 234 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
238 ORDER: As the Government notes in its motion, in order to stay discovery pending resolution of objections to a discovery order, the movant must show that (1) it is likely it will succeed on the merits of the appeal, (2) it will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a stay, (3) other parties will not be substantially injured by a stay, and (4) the stay will not harm public interest. See NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 2:14−cv− 492−RFB−VCF, 2015 WL 3489684, at *4 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015). In briefing the motion, the Government does not clearly explain what "irreparable harm" it will suffer in the absence of a stay pending resolution of the Government's objections, Nor does the Court find irreparable harm likely under the circumstances. To the extent that the Government does address the "balance of hardships," formulation of the relevant test, NML Capital, 2015 WL 3489684, at *4, its concerns would seem to be better addressed by specific objections to specific discovery requests, rather than by a blanket stay of all discovery pending this Court's review of the Government's objections. Accordingly, the motion, 216 is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
239 ORDER: Having considered the arguments in briefing, plaintiffs' Corrected Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response 233 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Response shall be due no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. Defendants' request to continue the trial date by an equal number of days is DENIED. Plaintiffs' original Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response 224 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' Response is due by 6/28/2018, Defendants' Reply is due by 7/12/2018. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
240 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Protective Order 217 filed by United States Department of Interior, Thomas J. Vilsack, Barack Obama, Christy Goldfuss, Penny Pritzker, Gina McCarthy, John Holdren, Shaun Donovan, Office of the President of the United States, United States Department of Commerce, Anthony Foxx, John Kerry, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Transportation, Ashton Carter, Donald J. Trump, Sally Jewell, United States of America, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of State, Ernest Moniz, United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Response is due by 6/28/2018. Motion is taken under advisement as of 7/2/2018. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
241 Response in Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Answer to Writ Petition) (Gregory, Philip) Modified on 6/18/2018, per attorney's 6/18/18 e−mail notice. (kf) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

06/15/2018 06/21/2018
06/22/2018
06/22/2018 06/25/2018 06/25/2018 06/25/2018 06/27/2018
06/27/2018 06/27/2018 06/27/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018

242 Response In Opposition to Defendants' Objections to Order Denying Motion For A Protective Order And Stay of Discovery (Not Filed Pursuant To Protective Order) Related document(s): 215 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) Modified on 6/18/2018, per attorney's 6/18/18 e−mail notice. (kf) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
243 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Oral argument held on 5/23/2018 before Judge Ann Aiken, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 6/28/2018. Redaction Request due 7/12/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
244 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Status conference held on 5/10/2018 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Jan Duiven, telephone number 541−485−0111. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 6/29/2018. Redaction Request due 7/13/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/20/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
245 Response in Opposition to Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 226 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
246 Notice of Filing Application for a Further Extension of Time Within Which to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
247 Unopposed Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion for Protective Order in Abeyance and to Suspend Briefing Schedule. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
248 Declaration of Philip Gregory in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion for Protective Order in Abeyance and to Suspend Briefing Schedule. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 247 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
249 ORDER: Granting Motion to Hold Defendants' Motion for Protective Order 217 in Abeyance and to Suspend Briefing Schedule 247 until the Court decides Plaintiffs motions to seek judicial notice of the documents referenced in Requests for Admissions and to give the parties the opportunity to reach agreement on substituting contention interrogatories for the pending Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
250 Consent Motion to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
251 Declaration of Philip Gregory in Support of Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Enlarge Page Limits for Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to File Excess Pages 250 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
252 ORDER: Granting Motion to File Excess Pages 250 . Plaintiffs are granted leave to enlarge the size of their response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 207 to 55 pages, with no word limitation. Ordered on 6/27/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
253 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The Status Conference set for 7/17/2018 at 10:00AM before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin is reset from Eugene Courtroom 3 to Eugene Courtroom 1. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ck) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
254 Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018

255 Response in Opposition to Defendants' to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
256 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
257 Declaration of Frank Ackerman in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
258 Declaration of Peter Erickson in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
259 Declaration of Dr. Howard Frumkin in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
260 Declaration of Dr. Ove Hoegh−Guldberg in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
261 Declaration of Dr. Mark Jacobson in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
262 Declaration of Dr. Eric Rignot in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
263 Declaration of Dr. G. Philip Robertson in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
264 Declaration of Dr. Steven W. Running in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
265 Declaration of Catherine Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
266 Declaration of Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
267 Declaration of Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
268 Declaration of Dr. James H. Williams in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/28/2018 06/28/2018
06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018

269 Declaration of Andrea Wulf in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
270 Declaration of Julia A. Olson In Support of Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 254 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 39, # 2 Exhibit 40, # 3 Exhibit 41, # 4 Exhibit 42, # 5 Exhibit 43, # 6 Exhibit 44, # 7 Exhibit 45, # 8 Exhibit 46, # 9 Exhibit 47, # 10 Exhibit 48, # 11 Exhibit 49, # 12 Exhibit 50, # 13 Exhibit 51, # 14 Exhibit 52, # 15 Exhibit 53, # 16 Exhibit 54, # 17 Exhibit 55, # 18 Exhibit 56, # 19 Exhibit 57, # 20 Exhibit 58, # 21 Exhibit 59, # 22 Exhibit 60, # 23 Exhibit 61, # 24 Exhibit 62, # 25 Exhibit 63, # 26 Exhibit 64, # 27 Exhibit 65, # 28 Exhibit 66, # 29 Exhibit 67, # 30 Exhibit 68, # 31 Exhibit 69, # 32 Exhibit 70, # 33 Exhibit 71, # 34 Exhibit 72, # 35 Exhibit 73, # 36 Exhibit 74, # 37 Exhibit 75, # 38 Exhibit 76, # 39 Exhibit 77, # 40 Exhibit 78, # 41 Exhibit 79, # 42 Exhibit 80, # 43 Exhibit 81, # 44 Exhibit 82, # 45 Exhibit 83, # 46 Exhibit 84, # 47 Exhibit 85, # 48 Exhibit 86, # 49 Exhibit 87, # 50 Exhibit 88, # 51 Exhibit 89, # 52 Exhibit 90, # 53 Exhibit 91, # 54 Exhibit 92, # 55 Exhibit 93, # 56 Exhibit 94, # 57 Exhibit 95, # 58 Exhibit 96, # 59 Exhibit 97, # 60 Exhibit 98, # 61 Exhibit 99, # 62 Exhibit 100, # 63 Exhibit 101, # 64 Exhibit 102, # 65 Exhibit 103, # 66 Exhibit 104, # 67 Exhibit 105, # 68 Exhibit 106, # 69 Exhibit 107, # 70 Exhibit 108, # 71 Exhibit 109, # 72 Exhibit 110, # 73 Exhibit 111, # 74 Exhibit 112, # 75 Exhibit 113, # 76 Exhibit 114, # 77 Exhibit 115, # 78 Exhibit 116, # 79 Exhibit 117, # 80 Exhibit 118, # 81 Exhibit 119, # 82 Exhibit 120, # 83 Exhibit 121, # 84 Exhibit 122, # 85 Exhibit 123, # 86 Exhibit 124, # 87 Exhibit 125, # 88 Exhibit 126, # 89 Exhibit 127, # 90 Exhibit 128, # 91 Exhibit 129, # 92 Exhibit 130, # 93 Exhibit 131, # 94 Exhibit 132, # 95 Exhibit 133, # 96 Exhibit 134, # 97 Exhibit 135, # 98 Exhibit 136, # 99 Exhibit 137, # 100 Exhibit 138, # 101 Exhibit 139, # 102 Exhibit 140, # 103 Exhibit 141, # 104 Exhibit 142, # 105 Exhibit 143, # 106 Exhibit 144, # 107 Exhibit 145, # 108 Exhibit 146, # 109 Exhibit 147, # 110 Exhibit 148, # 111 Exhibit 149, # 112 Exhibit 150, # 113 Exhibit 151, # 114 Exhibit 152, # 115 Exhibit 153, # 116 Exhibit 154, # 117 Exhibit 155, # 118 Exhibit 156, # 119 Exhibit 157, # 120 Exhibit 158, # 121 Exhibit 159, # 122 Exhibit 160, # 123 Exhibit 161, # 124 Exhibit 162, # 125 Exhibit 163, # 126 Exhibit 164, # 127 Exhibit 165, # 128 Exhibit 166, # 129 Exhibit 167, # 130 Exhibit 168, # 131 Exhibit 169, # 132 Exhibit 170, # 133 Exhibit 171, # 134 Exhibit 172, # 135 Exhibit 173, # 136 Exhibit 174, # 137 Exhibit 175, # 138 Exhibit 176, # 139 Exhibit 177, # 140 Exhibit 178, # 141 Exhibit 179, # 142 Exhibit 180, # 143 Exhibit 181, # 144 Exhibit 182, # 145 Exhibit 183, # 146 Exhibit 184, # 147 Exhibit 185, # 148 Exhibit 186, # 149 Exhibit 187, # 150 Exhibit 188, # 151 Exhibit 189, # 152 Exhibit 190, # 153 Exhibit 191, # 154 Exhibit 192, # 155 Exhibit 193, # 156 Exhibit 194, # 157 Exhibit 195, # 158 Exhibit 196) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
271 Declaration of Dr. Lise Van Susteren in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
272 Declaration of Dr. Susan E. Pacheco in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
273 Exhibits C to the Declaration and Expert Report of Dr. Lise Van Susteren in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 255 . (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Main Document 273 replaced on 7/12/2018) (cw). (Entered: 06/28/2018)
274 Declaration of Dr. James E. Hansen in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24

06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018

Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
275 Declaration of Dr. Harold R. Wanless in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
276 Exhibits 26 to the Declaration of James E. Hansen in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment re Response to Motion 255 . (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
277 Declaration of Alexander Loznak in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
278 Declaration of Avery M. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
279 Declaration of Hazel V. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
280 Declaration of Isaac V. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
281 Declaration of Jacob Lebel in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
282 Declaration of Jaime B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
283 Declaration of Jayden F in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
284 Declaration of Journey Z. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
285 Declaration of Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
286 Declaration of Kiran Isaac Oommen in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
287 Declaration of Levi D. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018

288 Declaration of Miko V. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
289 Declaration of Nathaniel B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
290 Declaration of Nicholas V. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
291 Declaration of Sahara V. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
292 Declaration of Sophie K. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
293 Declaration of Tia Marie Hatton in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
294 Declaration of Victoria B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
295 Declaration of Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
296 Declaration of Zealand B. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
297 Declaration of Aji P. in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
298 Declaration of James Gustave "Gus" Speth in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
299 Exhibits Declaration of Julia A. Olson re Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents 254 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 197, # 2 Exhibit 198, # 3 Exhibit 199, # 4 Exhibit 200, # 5 Exhibit 201, # 6 Exhibit 202, # 7 Exhibit 203, # 8 Exhibit 204, # 9 Exhibit 205, # 10 Exhibit 206, # 11 Exhibit 207, # 12 Exhibit 208, # 13 Exhibit 209, # 14 Exhibit 210, # 15 Exhibit 211, # 16 Exhibit 212, # 17 Exhibit 213, # 18 Exhibit 214, # 19 Exhibit 215, # 20 Exhibit 216, # 21 Exhibit 217, # 22 Exhibit 218, # 23 Exhibit 219, # 24 Exhibit 220, # 25 Exhibit 221, # 26 Exhibit 222, # 27 Exhibit 223, # 28 Exhibit 224, # 29 Exhibit 225, # 30 Exhibit 226, # 31 Exhibit 227, # 32 Exhibit 228, # 33 Exhibit 229, # 34 Exhibit 230, # 35 Exhibit 231, # 36 Exhibit 232, # 37 Exhibit 233, # 38 Exhibit 234, # 39 Exhibit 235, # 40 Exhibit 236, # 41 Exhibit 237, # 42 Exhibit 238, # 43 Exhibit 239, # 44 Exhibit 240, # 45 Exhibit 241, # 46 Exhibit 242, # 47 Exhibit 243, # 48 Exhibit

06/29/2018
06/29/2018 06/29/2018 06/29/2018 06/29/2018

244, # 49 Exhibit 245, # 50 Exhibit 246, # 51 Exhibit 247, # 52 Exhibit 248, # 53 Exhibit 249, # 54 Exhibit 250, # 55 Exhibit 251, # 56 Exhibit 252, # 57 Exhibit 253, # 58 Exhibit 254, # 59 Exhibit 255, # 60 Exhibit 256, # 61 Exhibit 257, # 62 Exhibit 258, # 63 Exhibit 259, # 64 Exhibit 260, # 65 Exhibit 261, # 66 Exhibit 262, # 67 Exhibit 263, # 68 Exhibit 264, # 69 Exhibit 265, # 70 Exhibit 266, # 71 Exhibit 267, # 72 Exhibit 268, # 73 Exhibit 269, # 74 Exhibit 270, # 75 Exhibit 271, # 76 Exhibit 272, # 77 Exhibit 273, # 78 Exhibit 274, # 79 Exhibit 275, # 80 Exhibit 276, # 81 Exhibit 277, # 82 Exhibit 278, # 83 Exhibit 279, # 84 Exhibit 280, # 85 Exhibit 281, # 86 Exhibit 282, # 87 Exhibit 283, # 88 Exhibit 284, # 89 Exhibit 285, # 90 Exhibit 286, # 91 Exhibit 287, # 92 Exhibit 288, # 93 Exhibit 289, # 94 Exhibit 290, # 95 Exhibit 291, # 96 Exhibit 292, # 97 Exhibit 293, # 98 Exhibit 294, # 99 Exhibit 295, # 100 Exhibit 296, # 101 Exhibit 297, # 102 Exhibit 298, # 103 Exhibit 299, # 104 Exhibit 300, # 105 Exhibit 301, # 106 Exhibit 302, # 107 Exhibit 303, # 108 Exhibit 304, # 109 Exhibit 305, # 110 Exhibit 306, # 111 Exhibit 307, # 112 Exhibit 308, # 113 Exhibit 309, # 114 Exhibit 310, # 115 Exhibit 311, # 116 Exhibit 312, # 117 Exhibit 313, # 118 Exhibit 314, # 119 Exhibit 315, # 120 Exhibit 316, # 121 Exhibit 317, # 122 Exhibit 318, # 123 Exhibit 319, # 124 Exhibit 320, # 125 Exhibit 321, # 126 Exhibit 322, # 127 Exhibit 323, # 128 Exhibit 324, # 129 Exhibit 325, # 130 Exhibit 326, # 131 Exhibit 327, # 132 Exhibit 328, # 133 Exhibit 329, # 134 Exhibit 330, # 135 Exhibit 331, # 136 Exhibit 332, # 137 Exhibit 333, # 138 Exhibit 334, # 139 Exhibit 335, # 140 Exhibit 336, # 141 Exhibit 337, # 142 Exhibit 338, # 143 Exhibit 339, # 144 Exhibit 340, # 145 Exhibit 341, # 146 Exhibit 342, # 147 Exhibit 343, # 148 Exhibit 344, # 149 Exhibit 345, # 150 Exhibit 346, # 151 Exhibit 347, # 152 Exhibit 348, # 153 Exhibit 349, # 154 Exhibit 350, # 155 Exhibit 351, # 156 Exhibit 352, # 157 Exhibit 353, # 158 Exhibit 354, # 159 Exhibit 355, # 160 Exhibit 356, # 161 Exhibit 357, # 162 Exhibit 358, # 163 Exhibit 359, # 164 Exhibit 360, # 165 Exhibit 361, # 166 Exhibit 362, # 167 Exhibit 363, # 168 Exhibit 364, # 169 Exhibit 365, # 170 Exhibit 366, # 171 Exhibit 367, # 172 Exhibit 368, # 173 Exhibit 369, # 174 Exhibit 370, # 175 Exhibit 371, # 176 Exhibit 372, # 177 Exhibit 373, # 178 Exhibit 374, # 179 Exhibit 375, # 180 Exhibit 376, # 181 Exhibit 377, # 182 Exhibit 378, # 183 Exhibit 379, # 184 Exhibit 380, # 185 Exhibit 381, # 186 Exhibit 382, # 187 Exhibit 383, # 188 Exhibit 384, # 189 Exhibit 385, # 190 Exhibit 1, # 191 Exhibit 2, # 192 Exhibit 3, # 193 Exhibit 4, # 194 Exhibit 5, # 195 Exhibit 6, # 196 Exhibit 7, # 197 Exhibit 8, # 198 Exhibit 9, # 199 Exhibit 10, # 200 Exhibit 11, # 201 Exhibit 12, # 202 Exhibit 13, # 203 Exhibit 14, # 204 Exhibit 15, # 205 Exhibit 16, # 206 Exhibit 17, # 207 Exhibit 18, # 208 Exhibit 19, # 209 Exhibit 20, # 210 Exhibit 21, # 211 Exhibit 22, # 212 Exhibit 23, # 213 Exhibit 24, # 214 Exhibit 25, # 215 Exhibit 26, # 216 Exhibit 27, # 217 Exhibit 28, # 218 Exhibit 29, # 219 Exhibit 30, # 220 Exhibit 31, # 221 Exhibit 32, # 222 Exhibit 33, # 223 Exhibit 34, # 224 Exhibit 35, # 225 Exhibit 36, # 226 Exhibit 37, # 227 Exhibit 38) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
300 ORDER: The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Coffin's order in light of Defendants' objections. The Court concludes that the order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Coffin's Order 212 denying Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Stay of All Discovery 196 . The Court declines to certify this decision for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Signed on 6/29/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
301 Administrative Record Lodged with the Clerk's Office. Thumb Drive Lodged by Plaintiffs. Lodged administrative records are maintained in the Clerk's Office but are not filed or made a part of the electronic record in CM/ECF. (kf) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
302 Reply to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
303 Declaration of Julia A. Olson Noticing the Conventional Filing of Documents in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Certificate of Service. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
304 Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs to Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 226 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

07/02/2018 07/03/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/10/2018 07/10/2018 07/10/2018 07/11/2018 07/12/2018
07/12/2018
07/12/2018 07/13/2018
07/13/2018 07/16/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018

306 Notice from USSC of extension of time regarding Application No. 17A1304. USSC 17−71692. (kf) Modified file date to match USCA on 8/10/2018. (kf) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
305 Motion to Amend/Correct Schedule for Oral Argument re Motion for Summary Judgment 207 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
307 Motion for Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
308 Notice of Filing of Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition for Writ of Mandamus) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
309 Unopposed Motion to File Excess Pages for Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
310 ORDER: Granting Motion to File Excess Pages 309 . Ordered on 7/10/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
311 Response in Opposition to Motion to Amend/Correct Schedule for Oral Argument re Motion for Summary Judgment 207 305 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
312 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents 254 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
313 ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents 254 Defendants Response is due by 7/24/2018. Ordered on 7/12/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
314 Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction regarding 273 Exhibits,. The PDF attached to this entry at filing was incorrect. The document was missing a case caption cover page. A corrected PDF has been uploaded and has replaced the incorrect attachment. The Notice of Electronic Filing will be regenerated to all parties. (cw) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
315 Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
316 ORDER: Denying Motion 226 ; Granting Motion to Amend/Correct 305 .The Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 226 is DENIED at this time. Defendant's Motion to Amend Schedule 305 is GRANTED. Oral Argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard simultaneously with argument on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 195 . Oral Argument is set for 7/18/2018 at 02:00PM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Ordered on 7/13/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
317 Response in Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus 307 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
319 Joint Status Report (CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY). Filed by All Defendants. (Piropato, Marissa) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
320 Exhibits to July 17, 2018 re Joint Status Report 319 . (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
321 Notice of Application to the Supreme Court for Stay Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Application to Supreme Court for Stay) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
322 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Filed by John Davidson. (Blackwell, Michelle) (Entered: 07/17/2018)

07/17/2018
07/17/2018 07/18/2018
07/20/2018 07/24/2018 07/31/2018
07/31/2018
08/01/2018 08/03/2018 08/03/2018 08/13/2018 08/15/2018

323 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Plaintiffs' counsel may disclose the identity of the individuals identified in the government's letter 320 to the extent reasonably necessary to permit them to prepare for expert depositions. The information contained in the government's letter otherwise remains subject to the parties' protective order 221 , and plaintiffs shall not disclose the identities of those individuals to the media or other third parties except to the extent authorized by this order. A further Status Conference is set for 8/16/2018 at 11:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Frank Singer, Marissa Piropato, Clare Boronow present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. (ck) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
324 ORDER: Denying Motion for Stay Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus 307 . Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
325 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing Held before Judge Ann L. Aiken regarding Motion for Summary Judgment 207 and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 . The Court hears argument as stated on the record. The Court takes the matter under advisement. Formal Written Opinion to follow. Julia Olson, Andrea Rodgers, Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Marissa Piropato, Frank Singer, Clare Boronow present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. (ck) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
326 Notice of Filing of Defendants' Letter to Supreme Court Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' Letter to Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
327 Response to Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents 254 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
328 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 7/17/2018 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 8/7/2018. Redaction Request due 8/21/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/31/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
329 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 7/18/2018 before Judge Ann Aiken, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 8/7/2018. Redaction Request due 8/21/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/31/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2018. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
330 Notice of Order of United States Supreme Court Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
331 Reply to Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents 254 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
332 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 331 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
333 Notice of Appearance of Erika Norman appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants. (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
334 Supplemental Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 331 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018
08/24/2018
08/24/2018 08/24/2018 08/24/2018

335 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Telephonic Status Conference is set for 8/27/2018 at 01:30PM in Eugene by telephone before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The parties shall call in to the conference. Conference call information will be provided by the Court in a separate entry. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
336 Joint Status Report . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
337 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Plaintiffs may serve rebuttal expert reports on 9/19/2018. Defendants are allowed until 10/26/2018 to serve a rebuttal expert report of James Gustave Speth. The parties are directed to raise the issue regarding the trial memo deadline to Judge Ann Aiken. A further Status Conference is set for 9/21/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Clare Boronow, Marissa Piropato, Sean Duffy, Frank Singer, Erika Norman present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. (ck) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
338 Supplement NOTICE OF DISPUTED FACTS RAISED BY DEFENDANTS EXPERT REPORTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 255 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
339 Exhibits 8 re Supplement, 338 . (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
340 Second Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
341 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Second Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 340 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101 Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113, # 114 Exhibit 114, # 115 Exhibit 115, # 116 Exhibit 116, # 117 Exhibit 117, # 118 Exhibit 118, # 119 Exhibit 119, # 120 Exhibit 120, # 121 Exhibit 121, # 122 Exhibit 122, # 123 Exhibit 123, # 124 Exhibit 124, # 125 Exhibit 125, # 126 Exhibit 126, # 127 Exhibit 127, # 128 Exhibit 128, # 129 Exhibit 129, # 130 Exhibit 130, # 131 Exhibit 131, # 132 Exhibit 132, # 133 Exhibit 133, # 134 Exhibit 134, # 135 Exhibit 135, # 136 Exhibit 136, # 137 Exhibit 137, # 138 Exhibit 138, # 139 Exhibit 139, # 140 Exhibit 140, # 141 Exhibit 141, # 142 Exhibit 142, # 143 Exhibit 143, # 144 Exhibit 144, # 145 Exhibit 145, # 146 Exhibit 146, # 147 Exhibit 147, # 148 Exhibit 148, # 149 Exhibit 149, # 150 Exhibit 150, # 151

Exhibit 151, # 152 Exhibit 152, # 153 Exhibit 153, # 154 Exhibit 154, # 155 Exhibit 155, # 156 Exhibit 156, # 157 Exhibit 157, # 158 Exhibit 158, # 159 Exhibit 159, # 160 Exhibit 160, # 161 Exhibit 161, # 162 Exhibit 162, # 163 Exhibit 163, # 164 Exhibit 164, # 165 Exhibit 165, # 166 Exhibit 166, # 167 Exhibit 167, # 168 Exhibit 168, # 169 Exhibit 169, # 170 Exhibit 170, # 171 Exhibit 171, # 172 Exhibit 172, # 173 Exhibit 173, # 174 Exhibit 174, # 175 Exhibit 175, # 176 Exhibit 176, # 177 Exhibit 177, # 178 Exhibit 178, # 179 Exhibit 179, # 180 Exhibit 180, # 181 Exhibit 181, # 182 Exhibit 182, # 183 Exhibit 183, # 184 Exhibit 184, # 185 Exhibit 185, # 186 Exhibit 186, # 187 Exhibit 187, # 188 Exhibit 188, # 189 Exhibit 189, # 190 Exhibit 190, # 191 Exhibit 191, # 192 Exhibit 192, # 193 Exhibit 193, # 194 Exhibit 194, # 195 Exhibit 195, # 196 Exhibit 196, # 197 Exhibit 197, # 198 Exhibit 198, # 199 Exhibit 199, # 200 Exhibit 200, # 201 Exhibit 201, # 202 Exhibit 202, # 203 Exhibit 203, # 204 Exhibit 204, # 205 Exhibit 205, # 206 Exhibit 206, # 207 Exhibit 207, # 208 Exhibit 208, # 209 Exhibit 209, # 210 Exhibit 210, # 211 Exhibit 211, # 212 Exhibit 212, # 213 Exhibit 213, # 214 Exhibit 214, # 215 Exhibit 215, # 216 Exhibit 216, # 217 Exhibit 217, # 218 Exhibit 218, # 219 Exhibit 219, # 220 Exhibit 220, # 221 Exhibit 221, # 222 Exhibit 222, # 223 Exhibit 223, # 224 Exhibit 224, # 225 Exhibit 225, # 226 Exhibit 226, # 227 Exhibit 227, # 228 Exhibit 228, # 229 Exhibit 229, # 230 Exhibit 230, # 231 Exhibit 231, # 232 Exhibit 232, # 233 Exhibit 233, # 234 Exhibit 234, # 235 Exhibit 235, # 236 Exhibit 236, # 237 Exhibit 237, # 238 Exhibit 238, # 239 Exhibit 239, # 240 Exhibit 240, # 241 Exhibit 241, # 242 Exhibit 242, # 243 Exhibit 243, # 244 Exhibit 244, # 245 Exhibit 245, # 246 Exhibit 246, # 247 Exhibit 247, # 248 Exhibit 248, # 249 Exhibit 249, # 250 Exhibit 250, # 251 Exhibit 251, # 252 Exhibit 252, # 253 Exhibit 253, # 254 Exhibit 254, # 255 Exhibit 255, # 256 Exhibit 256, # 257 Exhibit 257, # 258 Exhibit 258, # 259 Exhibit 259, # 260 Exhibit 260, # 261 Exhibit 261, # 262 Exhibit 262, # 263 Exhibit 263, # 264 Exhibit 264, # 265 Exhibit 265, # 266 Exhibit 266, # 267 Exhibit 267, # 268 Exhibit 268, # 269 Exhibit 269, # 270 Exhibit 270, # 271 Exhibit 271, # 272 Exhibit 272, # 273 Exhibit 273, # 274 Exhibit 274, # 275 Exhibit 275, # 276 Exhibit 276, # 277 Exhibit 277, # 278 Exhibit 278, # 279 Exhibit 279, # 280 Exhibit 280, # 281 Exhibit 281, # 282 Exhibit 282, # 283 Exhibit 283, # 284 Exhibit 284, # 285 Exhibit 285, # 286 Exhibit 286, # 287 Exhibit 287, # 288 Exhibit 288, # 289 Exhibit 289, # 290 Exhibit 290, # 291 Exhibit 291, # 292 Exhibit 292, # 293 Exhibit 293, # 294 Exhibit 294, # 295 Exhibit 295, # 296 Exhibit 296, # 297 Exhibit 297, # 298 Exhibit 298, # 299 Exhibit 299, # 300 Exhibit 300, # 301 Exhibit 301, # 302 Exhibit 302, # 303 Exhibit 303, # 304 Exhibit 304, # 305 Exhibit 305, # 306 Exhibit 306, # 307 Exhibit 307, # 308 Exhibit 308, # 309 Exhibit 309, # 310 Exhibit 310, # 311 Exhibit 311, # 312 Exhibit 312, # 313 Exhibit 313, # 314 Exhibit 314, # 315 Exhibit 315, # 316 Exhibit 316, # 317 Exhibit 317, # 318 Exhibit 318, # 319 Exhibit 319, # 320 Exhibit 320, # 321 Exhibit 321, # 322 Exhibit 322, # 323 Exhibit 323, # 324 Exhibit 324, # 325 Exhibit 325, # 326 Exhibit 326, # 327 Exhibit 327, # 328 Exhibit 328, # 329 Exhibit 329, # 330 Exhibit 330, # 331 Exhibit 331, # 332 Exhibit 332, # 333 Exhibit 333, # 334 Exhibit 334, # 335 Exhibit 335, # 336 Exhibit 336, # 337 Exhibit 337, # 338 Exhibit 338, # 339 Exhibit 339, # 340 Exhibit 340, # 341 Exhibit 341, # 342 Exhibit 342, # 343 Exhibit 343, # 344 Exhibit 344, # 345 Exhibit 345, # 346 Exhibit 346, # 347 Exhibit 347, # 348 Exhibit 348, # 349 Exhibit 349, # 350 Exhibit 350, # 351 Exhibit 351, # 352 Exhibit 352, # 353 Exhibit 353, # 354 Exhibit 354, # 355 Exhibit 355, # 356 Exhibit 356, # 357 Exhibit 357, # 358 Exhibit 358, # 359 Exhibit 359, # 360 Exhibit 360, # 361 Exhibit 361, # 362 Exhibit 362, # 363 Exhibit 363, # 364 Exhibit 364, # 365 Exhibit 365, # 366 Exhibit 366, # 367 Exhibit 367, # 368 Exhibit 368, # 369 Exhibit 369, # 370 Exhibit 370, # 371 Exhibit 371, # 372 Exhibit 372, # 373 Exhibit 373, # 374 Exhibit 374, # 375 Exhibit 375, # 376 Exhibit 376, # 377 Exhibit 377, # 378 Exhibit 378, # 379 Exhibit 379, # 380 Exhibit 380, # 381 Exhibit 381, # 382 Exhibit 382, # 383 Exhibit 383, # 384 Exhibit 384, # 385 Exhibit 385, # 386 Exhibit 386, # 387 Exhibit 387, # 388 Exhibit 388, # 389 Exhibit 389, # 390 Exhibit 390, # 391 Exhibit 391, # 392 Exhibit 392, # 393 Exhibit 393, # 394 Exhibit 394, # 395 Exhibit 395, # 396 Exhibit 396, # 397 Exhibit 397, # 398 Exhibit 398, # 399 Exhibit 399, # 400 Exhibit 400, # 401 Exhibit 401, # 402 Exhibit 402, # 403 Exhibit 403, # 404 Exhibit 404, # 405 Exhibit 405, # 406 Exhibit 406, # 407 Exhibit 407, # 408 Exhibit 408, # 409 Exhibit 409, # 410 Exhibit 410, # 411 Exhibit 411, # 412 Exhibit 412, # 413 Exhibit 413, # 414 Exhibit 414, # 415 Exhibit 415, # 416 Exhibit 416, # 417 Exhibit 417, # 418 Exhibit 418, # 419 Exhibit 419, # 420 Exhibit 420, # 421 Exhibit 421, # 422 Exhibit 422, # 423 Exhibit 423, # 424 Exhibit 424, # 425 Exhibit 425, # 426 Exhibit 426, # 427 Exhibit 427, # 428 Exhibit

08/27/2018
08/28/2018 09/05/2018

428, # 429 Exhibit 429, # 430 Exhibit 430, # 431 Exhibit 431, # 432 Exhibit 432, # 433 Exhibit 433, # 434 Exhibit 434, # 435 Exhibit 435, # 436 Exhibit 436, # 437 Exhibit 437, # 438 Exhibit 438, # 439 Exhibit 439, # 440 Exhibit 440, # 441 Exhibit 441, # 442 Exhibit 442, # 443 Exhibit 443, # 444 Exhibit 444, # 445 Exhibit 445, # 446 Exhibit 446, # 447 Exhibit 447, # 448 Exhibit 448, # 449 Exhibit 449, # 450 Exhibit 450, # 451 Exhibit 451, # 452 Exhibit 452, # 453 Exhibit 453, # 454 Exhibit 454, # 455 Exhibit 455, # 456 Exhibit 456, # 457 Exhibit 457, # 458 Exhibit 458, # 459 Exhibit 459, # 460 Exhibit 460, # 461 Exhibit 461, # 462 Exhibit 462, # 463 Exhibit 463, # 464 Exhibit 464, # 465 Exhibit 465, # 466 Exhibit 466, # 467 Exhibit 467, # 468 Exhibit 468, # 469 Exhibit 469, # 470 Exhibit 470, # 471 Exhibit 471, # 472 Exhibit 472, # 473 Exhibit 473, # 474 Exhibit 474, # 475 Exhibit 475, # 476 Exhibit 476, # 477 Exhibit 477, # 478 Exhibit 478, # 479 Exhibit 479, # 480 Exhibit 480, # 481 Exhibit 481, # 482 Exhibit 482, # 483 Exhibit 483, # 484 Exhibit 484, # 485 Exhibit 485, # 486 Exhibit 486, # 487 Exhibit 487, # 488 Exhibit 488, # 489 Exhibit 489, # 490 Exhibit 490, # 491 Exhibit 491, # 492 Exhibit 492, # 493 Exhibit 493, # 494 Exhibit 494, # 495 Exhibit 495, # 496 Exhibit 496, # 497 Exhibit 497, # 498 Exhibit 498, # 499 Exhibit 499, # 500 Exhibit 500, # 501 Exhibit 501, # 502 Exhibit 502, # 503 Exhibit 503, # 504 Exhibit 504, # 505 Exhibit 505, # 506 Exhibit 506, # 507 Exhibit 507, # 508 Exhibit 508, # 509 Exhibit 509, # 510 Exhibit 510, # 511 Exhibit 511, # 512 Exhibit 512, # 513 Exhibit 513, # 514 Exhibit 514, # 515 Exhibit 515, # 516 Exhibit 516, # 517 Exhibit 517, # 518 Exhibit 518, # 519 Exhibit 519, # 520 Exhibit 520, # 521 Exhibit 521, # 522 Exhibit 522, # 523 Exhibit 523, # 524 Exhibit 524, # 525 Exhibit 525, # 526 Exhibit 526, # 527 Exhibit 527, # 528 Exhibit 528, # 529 Exhibit 529, # 530 Exhibit 530, # 531 Exhibit 531, # 532 Exhibit 532, # 533 Exhibit 533, # 534 Exhibit 534, # 535 Exhibit 535, # 536 Exhibit 536, # 537 Exhibit 537, # 538 Exhibit 538, # 539 Exhibit 539, # 540 Exhibit 540, # 541 Exhibit 541, # 542 Exhibit 542, # 543 Exhibit 543, # 544 Exhibit 544, # 545 Exhibit 545, # 546 Exhibit 546, # 547 Exhibit 547, # 548 Exhibit 548, # 549 Exhibit 549, # 550 Exhibit 550, # 551 Exhibit 551, # 552 Exhibit 552, # 553 Exhibit 553, # 554 Exhibit 554, # 555 Exhibit 555, # 556 Exhibit 556, # 557 Exhibit 557, # 558 Exhibit 558, # 559 Exhibit 559, # 560 Exhibit 560, # 561 Exhibit 561, # 562 Exhibit 562, # 563 Exhibit 563, # 564 Exhibit 564, # 565 Exhibit 565, # 566 Exhibit 566, # 567 Exhibit 567, # 568 Exhibit 568, # 569 Exhibit 569, # 570 Exhibit 570, # 571 Exhibit 571, # 572 Exhibit 572, # 573 Exhibit 573, # 574 Exhibit 574, # 575 Exhibit 575, # 576 Exhibit 576, # 577 Exhibit 577, # 578 Exhibit 578, # 579 Exhibit 579, # 580 Exhibit 580, # 581 Exhibit 581, # 582 Exhibit 582, # 583 Exhibit 583, # 584 Exhibit 584, # 585 Exhibit 585, # 586 Exhibit 586, # 587 Exhibit 587, # 588 Exhibit 588, # 589 Exhibit 589, # 590 Exhibit 590, # 591 Exhibit 591, # 592 Exhibit 592, # 593 Exhibit 593, # 594 Exhibit 594, # 595 Exhibit 595, # 596 Exhibit 596, # 597 Exhibit 597, # 598 Exhibit 598, # 599 Exhibit 599, # 600 Exhibit 600, # 601 Exhibit 601, # 602 Exhibit 602, # 603 Exhibit 603, # 604 Exhibit 604, # 605 Exhibit 605, # 606 Exhibit 606, # 607 Exhibit 607, # 608 Exhibit 608) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
343 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The parties are to exchange exhibit lists by 10/1/2018. The parties are ordered to submit witness lists (including a time estimate for each witness and a brief description of their testimony), exhibit lists, trial memoranda (including an estimate on the total length of the trial), objections to exhibits, and motions in limine no later than 10/15/2018. The Court will send the parties further instructions regarding the submission of electronic versions of their exhibits. The parties are further ordered to confer regarding exhibits and witnesses and be prepared to discuss related objections and stipulations at the pretrial conference. Pretrial Conference is set for 10/23/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory, Andrea Rodgers present as counsel for plaintiffs. Clare Boronow, Erika Norman, Frank Singer, Sean Duffy, Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Kristi Anderson. (ck) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
342 Administrative Record Lodged with the Clerk's Office. One Thumb Drive labeled exh 609 Lodged by Plaintiffs (Related to Declaration 341 ). Lodged administrative records are maintained in the Clerk's Office but are not filed or made a part of the electronic record in CM/ECF. (kf) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
344 Sur−Response Plaintiffs Notice of Disputed Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 207 . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean)

09/05/2018 09/07/2018 09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/11/2018 09/14/2018 09/14/2018 09/20/2018 09/21/2018 09/26/2018 09/26/2018 09/28/2018
09/28/2018

(Entered: 09/05/2018)
345 Notice re Motion for Summary Judgment 207 , Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 of Supplemental Authority Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 207 , Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 .) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
346 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Second Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents 340 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
347 Notice of Attorney Substitution:Attorney Sean Malone is substituted as counsel of record in place of Attorney Charles M. Tebbutt Filed by Global Catholic Climate Movement and Leadership Council of Women Religious. (Malone, Sean) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
348 Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Second Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents 340 346 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
349 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Extension to Respond to Plaintiffs Second Motion in Limine To Take Judicial Notice of Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 348 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
350 Reply to Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Second Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents 340 346 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
351 Supplemental Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Federal Government Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 331 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
352 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Court Trial is set for 10/29/2018 − 11/2/2018 at 09:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Court Trial is set for 11/5/2018 − 11/9/2018 at 09:00AM in Eugene Courtroom 1 before Judge Ann L. Aiken. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
353 MINUTES of Proceedings: Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. The current status of the case is discussed as stated on the record. Julia Olson, Philip Gregory (by phone), Andrea Rodgers (by phone) present as counsel for plaintiffs. Sean Duffy, Marissa Piropato, Frank Singer (by phone) present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Sara Wilson. (ck) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
354 Motion to Amend/Correct Pretrial Schedule. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
355 Declaration of Sean C. Duffy in Support of Motion to Amend Pretrial Deadlines to Exchange Exhibit Lists, Submit Exhibit Lists, and to File Objections to Exhibits. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to Amend/Correct 354 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
356 ORDER: Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 346 is GRANTED. The Government's Response to plaintiffs' Second Motion in limine 340 shall be due no later than 10/4/2018. Defendants Motion to Amend/Correct Pretrial Schedule 354 is GRANTED. The parties shall exchange trial exhibit lists no later than 10/12/18. Further, the parties shall submit to the Court their exhibit lists as well as objections to exhibits no later than October 19, 2018. Ordered on 9/28/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
357 Response to Second Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents 340 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/03/2018
10/04/2018 10/05/2018 10/05/2018 10/09/2018 10/11/2018
10/11/2018 10/12/2018 10/12/2018 10/12/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018
10/15/2018

358 Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Status Conference is set for 10/4/2018 at 10:00AM in Eugene by telephone before Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Parties who wish to participate in the status conference are ordered to call into the Court's conference line at least 5 minutes prior to the scheduled hearing. Call−in information will be sent by separate order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
359 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference Held. Julia Olson; Andrea Rodgers; Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiffs. Clare Boronow; Erika Norman; Frank Singer; Sean Duffy; Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Jan Duiven. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin presiding. (plb) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
360 Notice of Case Reassignment: This case has been reassigned from Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin to Judge Ann L. Aiken. (plb) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
361 Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial Pending Supreme Court Review. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
362 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken regarding Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial Pending Supreme Court Review 361 . In order to give expedited consideration to defedants' Motion for Stay 361 , plaintiffs' response shall be due no later than 10/11/2018. Motion is taken under advisement as of 10/11/2018. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
363 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 10/4/2018 before Judge Thomas M. Coffin, Court Reporter Jan Duiven, telephone number 541−485−0111. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 10/18/2018. Redaction Request due 11/1/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/9/2019. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
364 Response in Opposition to Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial Pending Supreme Court Review 361 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
365 Notice of Filing Petition for Writ of Mandamus Requesting a Stay of District Court Proceedings Pending Supreme Court Review Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
366 Reply to Second Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents 340 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
367 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' reply in Support of Second Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 366 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
368 OPINION AND ORDER: Granting in Part Denying in Part Motion in Limine 254 . See formal Opinion and Order. Signed on 10/15/2018 by U.S District Judge Ann Aiken. (rdr) Modified on 10/15/2018 by changing Order to Opinion and Order (ck). (Entered: 10/15/2018)
369 OPINION AND ORDER: Federal defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 195 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Federal defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 207 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Federal defendants' requests to certify this opinion and order for interlocutory appeal are DENIED. See formal Opinion and Order. Signed on 10/15/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) Modified on 10/15/2018 by changing Order to Opinion and Order (ck) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
370 Order for Administrative Correction of the Record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) regarding Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Order on motion for summary judgment 369 and Order on motion in limine 368 . A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. The Clerk is directed to make the following

10/15/2018 10/15/2018
10/15/2018 10/15/2018
10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018
10/15/2018 10/15/2018

administrative corrections to the record and, if necessary, regenerate the Notice of Electronic Filing to all parties: Change Order to Opinion and Order in the docket text. (ck) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
371 Motion in limine to Exclude Certain Testimony of Six Experts; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Filed by All Defendants. (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
372 Motion in limine to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Report and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Akilah Jefferson; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
373 Witness List . Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
374 ORDER: Federal defendants Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial 361 is DENIED. The Court has previously considered similar arguments to those raised in this motion. The Court finds that the government has not shown a likelihood success on the merits or irreparable injury that would justify a stay at this time. Nken v. Holder 556 U.S. 418, 433−34 (2009). Ordered on 10/15/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
375 Request for Judicial Notice of Congressional Hearing Reports. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Congressional Hearing Reports, # 2 Exhibit Declaration) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
376 Motion for Leave to Manually File Congressional Hearing Reports for which Defendants Seek Judicial Notice. Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
377 Notice of Manual Filing of Congressional Hearing Reports for which Defendants Seek Judicial Notice Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
378 Trial Memorandum . Filed by All Defendants. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
379 Motion in limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Professor Catherine Smith. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Expert Report of Catherine Smith, # 2 Exhibit Excerpts from Deposition of Catherine Smith) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
380 Third Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
381 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Third Motion in Limine Seeking Judicial Notice. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 380 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59, # 60 Exhibit 60, # 61 Exhibit 61, # 62 Exhibit 62, # 63 Exhibit 63, # 64 Exhibit 64, # 65 Exhibit 65, # 66 Exhibit 66, # 67 Exhibit 67, # 68 Exhibit 68, # 69 Exhibit 69, # 70 Exhibit 70, # 71 Exhibit 71, # 72 Exhibit 72, # 73 Exhibit 73, # 74 Exhibit 74, # 75 Exhibit 75, # 76 Exhibit 76, # 77 Exhibit 77, # 78 Exhibit 78, # 79 Exhibit 79, # 80 Exhibit 80, # 81 Exhibit 81, # 82 Exhibit 82, # 83 Exhibit 83, # 84 Exhibit 84, # 85 Exhibit 85, # 86 Exhibit 86, # 87 Exhibit 87, # 88 Exhibit 88, # 89 Exhibit 89, # 90 Exhibit 90, # 91 Exhibit 91, # 92 Exhibit 92, # 93 Exhibit 93, # 94 Exhibit 94, # 95 Exhibit 95, # 96 Exhibit 96, # 97 Exhibit 97, # 98 Exhibit 98, # 99 Exhibit 99, # 100 Exhibit 100, # 101

Exhibit 101, # 102 Exhibit 102, # 103 Exhibit 103, # 104 Exhibit 104, # 105 Exhibit 105, # 106 Exhibit 106, # 107 Exhibit 107, # 108 Exhibit 108, # 109 Exhibit 109, # 110 Exhibit 110, # 111 Exhibit 111, # 112 Exhibit 112, # 113 Exhibit 113, # 114 Exhibit 114, # 115 Exhibit 115, # 116 Exhibit 116, # 117 Exhibit 117, # 118 Exhibit 118, # 119 Exhibit 119, # 120 Exhibit 120, # 121 Exhibit 121, # 122 Exhibit 122, # 123 Exhibit 123, # 124 Exhibit 124, # 125 Exhibit 125, # 126 Exhibit 126, # 127 Exhibit 127, # 128 Exhibit 128, # 129 Exhibit 129, # 130 Exhibit 130, # 131 Exhibit 131, # 132 Exhibit 132, # 133 Exhibit 133, # 134 Exhibit 134, # 135 Exhibit 135, # 136 Exhibit 136, # 137 Exhibit 137, # 138 Exhibit 138, # 139 Exhibit 139, # 140 Exhibit 140, # 141 Exhibit 141, # 142 Exhibit 142, # 143 Exhibit 143, # 144 Exhibit 144, # 145 Exhibit 145, # 146 Exhibit 146, # 147 Exhibit 147, # 148 Exhibit 148, # 149 Exhibit 149, # 150 Exhibit 150, # 151 Exhibit 151, # 152 Exhibit 152, # 153 Exhibit 153, # 154 Exhibit 154, # 155 Exhibit 155, # 156 Exhibit 156, # 157 Exhibit 157, # 158 Exhibit 158, # 159 Exhibit 159, # 160 Exhibit 160, # 161 Exhibit 161, # 162 Exhibit 162, # 163 Exhibit 163, # 164 Exhibit 164, # 165 Exhibit 165, # 166 Exhibit 166, # 167 Exhibit 167, # 168 Exhibit 168, # 169 Exhibit 169, # 170 Exhibit 170, # 171 Exhibit 171, # 172 Exhibit 172, # 173 Exhibit 173, # 174 Exhibit 174, # 175 Exhibit 175, # 176 Exhibit 176, # 177 Exhibit 177, # 178 Exhibit 178, # 179 Exhibit 179, # 180 Exhibit 180, # 181 Exhibit 181, # 182 Exhibit 182, # 183 Exhibit 183, # 184 Exhibit 184, # 185 Exhibit 185, # 186 Exhibit 186, # 187 Exhibit 187, # 188 Exhibit 188, # 189 Exhibit 189, # 190 Exhibit 190, # 191 Exhibit 191, # 192 Exhibit 192, # 193 Exhibit 193, # 194 Exhibit 194, # 195 Exhibit 195, # 196 Exhibit 196, # 197 Exhibit 197, # 198 Exhibit 198, # 199 Exhibit 199, # 200 Exhibit 200, # 201 Exhibit 201, # 202 Exhibit 202, # 203 Exhibit 203, # 204 Exhibit 204, # 205 Exhibit 205, # 206 Exhibit 206, # 207 Exhibit 207, # 208 Exhibit 208, # 209 Exhibit 209, # 210 Exhibit 210, # 211 Exhibit 211, # 212 Exhibit 212, # 213 Exhibit 213, # 214 Exhibit 214, # 215 Exhibit 215, # 216 Exhibit 216, # 217 Exhibit 217, # 218 Exhibit 218, # 219 Exhibit 219, # 220 Exhibit 220, # 221 Exhibit 221, # 222 Exhibit 222, # 223 Exhibit 223, # 224 Exhibit 224, # 225 Exhibit 225, # 226 Exhibit 226, # 227 Exhibit 227, # 228 Exhibit 228, # 229 Exhibit 229, # 230 Exhibit 230, # 231 Exhibit 231, # 232 Exhibit 232, # 233 Exhibit 233, # 234 Exhibit 234, # 235 Exhibit 235, # 236 Exhibit 236, # 237 Exhibit 237, # 238 Exhibit 238, # 239 Exhibit 239, # 240 Exhibit 240, # 241 Exhibit 241, # 242 Exhibit 242, # 243 Exhibit 243, # 244 Exhibit 244, # 245 Exhibit 245, # 246 Exhibit 246, # 247 Exhibit 247, # 248 Exhibit 248, # 249 Exhibit 249, # 250 Exhibit 250, # 251 Exhibit 251, # 252 Exhibit 252, # 253 Exhibit 253, # 254 Exhibit 254, # 255 Exhibit 255, # 256 Exhibit 256, # 257 Exhibit 257, # 258 Exhibit 258, # 259 Exhibit 259, # 260 Exhibit 260, # 261 Exhibit 261, # 262 Exhibit 262, # 263 Exhibit 263, # 264 Exhibit 264, # 265 Exhibit 265, # 266 Exhibit 266, # 267 Exhibit 267, # 268 Exhibit 268, # 269 Exhibit 269, # 270 Exhibit 270, # 271 Exhibit 271, # 272 Exhibit 272, # 273 Exhibit 273, # 274 Exhibit 274, # 275 Exhibit 275, # 276 Exhibit 276, # 277 Exhibit 277, # 278 Exhibit 278, # 279 Exhibit 279, # 280 Exhibit 280, # 281 Exhibit 281, # 282 Exhibit 282, # 283 Exhibit 283, # 284 Exhibit 284, # 285 Exhibit 285, # 286 Exhibit 286, # 287 Exhibit 287, # 288 Exhibit 288, # 289 Exhibit 289, # 290 Exhibit 290, # 291 Exhibit 291, # 292 Exhibit 292, # 293 Exhibit 293, # 294 Exhibit 294, # 295 Exhibit 295, # 296 Exhibit 296, # 297 Exhibit 297, # 298 Exhibit 298, # 299 Exhibit 299, # 300 Exhibit 300, # 301 Exhibit 301, # 302 Exhibit 302, # 303 Exhibit 303, # 304 Exhibit 304, # 305 Exhibit 305, # 306 Exhibit 306, # 307 Exhibit 307, # 308 Exhibit 308, # 309 Exhibit 309, # 310 Exhibit 310, # 311 Exhibit 311, # 312 Exhibit 312, # 313 Exhibit 313, # 314 Exhibit 314, # 315 Exhibit 315, # 316 Exhibit 316, # 317 Exhibit 317, # 318 Exhibit 318, # 319 Exhibit 319, # 320 Exhibit 320, # 321 Exhibit 321, # 322 Exhibit 322, # 323 Exhibit 323, # 324 Exhibit 324, # 325 Exhibit 325, # 326 Exhibit 326, # 327 Exhibit 327, # 328 Exhibit 328, # 329 Exhibit 329, # 330 Exhibit 330, # 331 Exhibit 331, # 332 Exhibit 332, # 333 Exhibit 333, # 334 Exhibit 334, # 335 Exhibit 335, # 336 Exhibit 336, # 337 Exhibit 337, # 338 Exhibit 338, # 339 Exhibit 339, # 340 Exhibit 340, # 341 Exhibit 341, # 342 Exhibit 342, # 343 Exhibit 343, # 344 Exhibit 344, # 345 Exhibit 345, # 346 Exhibit 346, # 347 Exhibit 347, # 348 Exhibit 348, # 349 Exhibit 349, # 350 Exhibit 350, # 351 Exhibit 351, # 352 Exhibit 352, # 353 Exhibit 353, # 354 Exhibit 354, # 355 Exhibit 355, # 356 Exhibit 356, # 357 Exhibit 357, # 358 Exhibit 358, # 359 Exhibit 359, # 360 Exhibit 360, # 361 Exhibit 361, # 362 Exhibit 362, # 363 Exhibit 363, # 364 Exhibit 364, # 365 Exhibit 365, # 366 Exhibit 366, # 367 Exhibit 367, # 368 Exhibit 368, # 369 Exhibit 369, # 370 Exhibit 370, # 371 Exhibit 371, # 372 Exhibit 372, # 373 Exhibit 373, # 374 Exhibit 374, # 375 Exhibit 375, # 376 Exhibit 376, # 377 Exhibit 377, # 378 Exhibit

10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 10/16/2018 10/16/2018
10/17/2018 10/17/2018 10/17/2018 10/18/2018 10/18/2018 10/18/2018
10/18/2018 10/18/2018

378, # 379 Exhibit 379, # 380 Exhibit 380, # 381 Exhibit 381, # 382 Exhibit 382, # 383 Exhibit 383, # 384 Exhibit 384, # 385 Exhibit 385, # 386 Exhibit 386, # 387 Exhibit 387, # 388 Exhibit 388, # 389 Exhibit 389, # 390 Exhibit 390, # 391 Exhibit 391, # 392 Exhibit 392, # 393 Exhibit 393, # 394 Exhibit 394, # 395 Exhibit 395, # 396 Exhibit 396, # 397 Exhibit 397, # 398 Exhibit 398, # 399 Exhibit 399, # 400 Exhibit 400, # 401 Exhibit 401, # 402 Exhibit 402, # 403 Exhibit 403, # 404 Exhibit 404, # 405 Exhibit 405, # 406 Exhibit 406, # 407 Exhibit 407, # 408 Exhibit 408, # 409 Exhibit 409, # 410 Exhibit 410, # 411 Exhibit 411, # 412 Exhibit 412, # 413 Exhibit 413, # 414 Exhibit 414, # 415 Exhibit 415, # 416 Exhibit 416, # 417 Exhibit 417, # 418 Exhibit 418, # 419 Exhibit 419, # 420 Exhibit 420, # 421 Exhibit 421, # 422 Exhibit 422, # 423 Exhibit 423, # 424 Exhibit 424, # 425 Exhibit 425, # 426 Exhibit 426, # 427 Exhibit 427, # 428 Exhibit 428, # 429 Exhibit 429, # 430 Exhibit 430, # 431 Exhibit 431, # 432 Exhibit 432, # 433 Exhibit 433, # 434 Exhibit 434, # 435 Exhibit 435, # 436 Exhibit 436, # 437 Exhibit 437, # 438 Exhibit 438, # 439 Exhibit 439, # 440 Exhibit 440, # 441 Exhibit 441, # 442 Exhibit 442, # 443 Exhibit 443, # 444 Exhibit 444, # 445 Exhibit 445, # 446 Exhibit 446, # 447 Exhibit 447, # 448 Exhibit 448, # 449 Exhibit 449, # 450 Exhibit 450, # 451 Exhibit 451, # 452 Exhibit 452, # 453 Exhibit 453, # 454 Exhibit 454, # 455 Exhibit 455) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
382 Witness List . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
383 Proposed Pretrial Order by All Plaintiffs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
384 Trial Brief . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
385 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Manually File Congressional Hearing Reports for which Defendants Seek Judicial Notice. 376 . Ordered on 10/16/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rdr) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
386 Exhibit. This filing includes a conventionally filed thumb drive labeled Congressional Hearings. This conventional filing is maintained in the Clerk's Office but cannot be made a part of the court's electronic record in CM/ECF. Filed by Defendants. (bd) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
387 Amended Witness List . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
388 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories. Oral Argument requested.Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
389 Declaration of Philip L. Gregory in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 388 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 10/17/2018)
390 Notice of Filing of Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
391 Notice of Filing of Application to the Supreme Court for a Stay Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
392 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 8/27/2018 before Judge Ann Aiken, Court Reporter Kristi Anderson, telephone number 541−431−4112. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 10/25/2018. Redaction Request due 11/8/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/19/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2019. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
393 Notice re Proposed Pretrial Order − Individual 383 Notice of Errata Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Proposed Pretrial Order − Individual 383 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
394 Corrected Proposed Pretrial Order by All Plaintiffs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/18/2018)

10/18/2018 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 10/19/2018
10/19/2018 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 10/22/2018 10/24/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018
11/02/2018 11/02/2018

395 Motion to Strike Proposed Pretrial Order − Individual 394 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 10/18/2018)
396 Exhibit List . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
397 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit List, or, in the Alternative, Objections to Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit List. Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
398 Notice re Motion to Strike 397 Defendants' Notice of Filing Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 397 .) (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
399 Order from the United States Supreme Court, USCA # 18A410: UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, IT IS ORDERED that discovery and trial in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in case No. 6:15−cv−01517, are stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Wednesday, October 24, 2018, by 3 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court. Signed on October 19th, 2018, by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.. (eo) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
400 Objection to Trial Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit List. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
401 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Exhibit List. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Objection to Trial Exhibit 400 .) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
402 Exhibit List . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
403 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Pursuant to the Order from the United States Supreme Court 399 , the Pretrial Conference set for 10/23/2018 at 10:00AM is hereby VACATED. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
404 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's Order 399 staying this case, all trial dates and associated deadlines are hereby VACATED. This Court will schedule a status and scheduling conference when the stay is lifted. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
405 Request for Immediate Status Conference. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Order by the United States Supreme Court in Case No. 18A410) (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
406 Response to Request for Judicial Notice of Congressional Hearing Reports 375 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
407 Response in Opposition to Motion in limine to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Report and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Akilah Jefferson; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 372 . (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
408 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine to Strike the Rebuttal Report and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Akilah Jefferson. (DOCUMENT RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO PROTECTIVE ORDER) Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion, 407 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
409 Response in Opposition to Motion in limine to Exclude Certain Testimony of Six Experts; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 371 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
410 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony of Six Experts. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 409 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)

11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/02/2018 11/05/2018 11/05/2018 11/05/2018 11/05/2018 11/06/2018 11/06/2018 11/07/2018 11/07/2018 11/08/2018
11/09/2018

411 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike Proposed Pretrial Order − Individual 394 395 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
412 Declaration of Philip L. Gregory IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 411 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
413 Response in Opposition to Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit List, or, in the Alternative, Objections to Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit List 397 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
414 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit List. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 413 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
415 Motion for Reconsideration of Order on motion in limine 368 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
416 ORDER from the United States Supreme Court, USCA # 18A410: The application for stay, presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated. (eo) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
417 Scheduling Order by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Telephonic Status Conference is set for 11/8/2018 at 03:30PM in Eugene by telephone before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The parties shall call in to the conference. Conference call information will be provided by the Court in a separate entry. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
418 Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Requests to Certify Order for Interlocutory Review. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
419 Motion for Stay of Litigation. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
420 Notice of Filing Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
421 Response in Opposition to Motion in limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Professor Catherine Smith 379 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
422 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Opinion Testimony of Professor Catherine Smith. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 421 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
423 Supplemental Objection to Trial Exhibit . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
424 Declaration of Andrea K. Rodgers in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Objections to Defendants' Exhibits. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Objection to Trial Exhibit 423 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
425 MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Ann L. Aiken. The current status of the case was discussed as stated on the record. Plaintiffs will file their responses to the Motion for Reconsideration 418 and Motion for Stay of Litigation 419 by 11/9/2018. Julia Olson, Andrea Rodgers, Philip Gregory present as counsel for plaintiffs. Clare Boronow, Erika Norman, Frank Singer, Sean Duffy, Marissa Piropato present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Sara Wilson. (ck) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
426 Notice re Motion to Strike 397 of Errata Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 397 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Motion to Strike) (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/09/2018
11/09/2018 11/09/2018 11/09/2018 11/13/2018 11/14/2018 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 11/19/2018 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 11/20/2018

427 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Hearing held on 11/8/2018 before Judge Ann Aiken, Court Reporter Sara Fahey Wilson, telephone number 541−485−0111. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 11/16/2018. Redaction Request due 11/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/10/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/7/2019. (Anderson, Kristi) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
428 Response in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Requests to Certify Order for Interlocutory Review 418 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
429 Response in Opposition to Motion for Stay of Litigation 419 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
430 Declaration of Julia A. Olson . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 429 .) (Gregory, Philip) (Entered: 11/09/2018)
431 Response to Third Motion in limine Seeking Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Documents 380 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
432 Reply to Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Requests to Certify Order for Interlocutory Review 418 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 11/14/2018)
433 Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories 388 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Erika Norman w/ Exhibits) (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
434 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion in limine to Exclude Certain Testimony of Six Experts; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 371 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
435 Reply to Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit List, or, in the Alternative, Objections to Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit List 397 . Filed by All Defendants. (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
436 Reply to Motion in limine to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Report and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Akilah Jefferson; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 372 . Filed by All Defendants. (Norman, Erika) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
437 Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Order on motion in limine 368 415 . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
438 Reply to Motion to Strike Proposed Pretrial Order − Individual 394 395 . Filed by All Defendants. (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
439 Notice OF FILING ANSWER OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27−3 Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
440 Motion TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES FROM PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS. Filed by All Defendants. (Piropato, Marissa) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
441 Notice OF FILING BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, No. 18−505 Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
442 Reply to Motion in limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Professor Catherine Smith 379 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cited excerpts of deposition transcript) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

11/21/2018 11/21/2018
11/21/2018 12/05/2018 12/05/2018 12/11/2018 12/17/2018 12/18/2018
12/27/2018 01/07/2019 01/08/2019

443 Notice re Response in Opposition to Motion 429 of Supplemental Authority Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 429 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
444 ORDER: At this time, the Court finds sufficient cause to revisit the question of interlocutory appeal as to its previous orders, and upon reconsideration, the Court finds that each of the factors outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) have been met regarding those orders. This Court exercises its discretion and immediately certifies this case for interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, this case is STAYED pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed on 11/21/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Notice of Electronic Filing of this Order has been generated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ck) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
445 ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's Order 444 certifying this case for interlocutory appeal, consideration of pending motions in this case is STAYED. Further, federal defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 418 and Motion for Stay 419 are DENIED as moot. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
446 Motion for Reconsideration of November 21, 2018 Court Ordered Stay of Proceedings of Order,, 444 . Oral Argument requested.Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 12/05/2018)
447 Declaration of Julia A. Olson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of November 21, 2018 Court Ordered Stay of Proceedings. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Reconsideration 446 .) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 12/05/2018)
448 Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae by Movant David Andrew Christenson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Document − Amicus Brief) (kf) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
449 Response in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of November 21, 2018 Court Ordered Stay of Proceedings of Order,, 444 446 . Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Boronow, Clare) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
450 ORDER: Mr. Christenson's Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 448 is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to return any further submissions from Mr. Christenson without entering those materials into the record in this case. Signed on 12/18/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. A copy of this Order was mailed to David Andrew Christenson. (ck) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
451 Reply to Motion for Reconsideration of November 21, 2018 Court Ordered Stay of Proceedings of Order,, 444 446 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2) (Olson, Julia) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
452 Notice of Ninth Circuit Order Granting in Part Expedited Briefing Schedule for Interlocutory Appeal Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Rodgers, Andrea) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
453 ORDER: This Court previously certified "this case" for interlocutory appeal. Juliana v. United States, 2018 WL 6303774 at *3 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2018) On December 26, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order granting Federal Defendants' petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), holding that this Court properly exercised its discretion in certifying this case for interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs have requested clarification regarding the status of the proceedings before this Court. District courts have discretion to enter a stay of an action, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case. Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983.) Given the nature of the present appeal, the Court finds that staying the case would promote economy of time and effort for itself and for litigants, as well as avoiding duplicative or inconsistent rulings with those from reviewing courts. Thus, the Court reaffirms that these proceedings are STAYED pending the final disposition of the appeal before the Ninth Circuit at Case Number 18−36082. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration 446 is DENIED. Any further motions should be directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The parties shall notify this Court upon the issuance of a final order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) Modified Ninth Circuit case number on 1/9/2019 (ck). (Entered: 01/08/2019)

01/09/2019
01/10/2019 08/05/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019
01/17/2020

454 Order for Administrative Correction of the Record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) regarding Order on motion for reconsideration, ECF no. 453. A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. The Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and, if necessary, regenerate the Notice of Electronic Filing to all parties: Correct the Ninth Circuit case number from 18−3602 to 18−36082. (ck) (Entered: 01/09/2019)
455 Notice Defendants' Transcripts Notice Filed by All Defendants. (Duffy, Sean) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
456 The petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed on 7/29/2019. Supreme Court number 18−505. (plb) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
457 Motion to Intervene and Consolidate as Plaintiff−Intervenor by Dr. Christian Robert Komor, pro se. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits) (kf) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
458 ORDER: This case is currently stayed pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 444 Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene and Consolidate 457 is DENIED, without prejudice. Ordered on 9/17/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Notice of this order was mailed to movant, Christian Komor. (rdr) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
459 USCA Opinion. The plaintiffs motion for an injunction pending appeal, Dkt. 21, is denied. Their motions for judicial notice, Dkts. 134, 149, are granted. USCA case 18−36082. (kf) (Entered: 01/21/2020)

 
 Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 96

JULIA OLSON (OR Bar 062230) JuliaAOlson@gmail.com WILD EARTH ADVOCATES 1216 Lincoln St. Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (415) 786-4825
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT jcotchett@cpmlegal.com PHILIP L. GREGORY (applicant pro hac vice) pgregory@cpmlegal.com PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577
DANIEL M. GALPERN (OR Bar 061950) dan.galpern@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL M. GALPERN 1641 Oak Street Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 968-7164
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; ALEXANDER LOZNAK; JACOB LEBEL; ZEALAND B., through his Guardian Kimberly Pash-Bell; AVERY M., through her Guardian Holly McRae; SAHARA V., through her Guardian Toña Aguilar; KIRAN ISAAC

Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Constitutional Rights and Public Trust Action (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

1

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 96

OOMMEN; TIA MARIE HATTON; ISAAC V., through his Guardian Pamela Vergun; MIKO V., through her Guardian Pamela Vergun; HAZEL V., through her Guardian Margo Van Ummersen; SOPHIE K., through her Guardian Dr. James Hansen; JAIME B., through her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai; JOURNEY Z., through his Guardian Erika Schneider; VICTORIA B., through her Guardian Daisy Calderon; NATHANIEL B., through his Guardian Sharon Baring; AJI P., through his Guardian Helaina Piper; LEVI D., through his Guardian Leigh-Ann Draheim; JAYDEN F., through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin; NICHOLAS V., through his Guardian Marie Venner; EARTH GUARDIANS, a nonprofit organization; and FUTURE GENERATIONS, through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; CHRISTY GOLDFUSS, in her official capacity as Director of Council on Environmental Quality; SHAUN DONOVAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and Budget; DR. JOHN HOLDREN, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DR. ERNEST MONIZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PENNY PRITZKER, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ASHTON CARTER, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; The

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

2

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 96

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JOHN KERRY, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; The UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; GINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as Administrator of the EPA;
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION 1. For over fifty years, the United States of America1 has known that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their wellbeing and survival. Defendants also knew the harmful impacts of their actions would significantly endanger Plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia. Despite this knowledge, Defendants continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels. Specifically, Department of Energy has approved the export of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. This export terminal will be the largest projected source of CO2 emissions in Oregon, and will significantly increase the harm that Defendants’ actions are causing to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ have long-standing knowledge of the cumulative danger that their aggregate actions are causing Plaintiffs. The Jordan Cove project enhances the cumulative danger caused by Defendants affirmative aggregate actions. 2. In a 1965 White House Report on “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” for example, the President’s Science Advisory Committee stated: “The land, water, air and living things of the United States are a heritage of the whole nation. They need to be protected for the

1 Throughout this Complaint, the terms “United States” or “Federal Government” refer to

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

3

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 96
benefit of all Americans, both now and in the future. The continued strength and welfare of our nation depend on the quantity and quality of our resources and on the quality of the environment in which our people live.”
3. The Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1991 prepared plans to significantly reduce our nation’s CO2 emissions, stop global warming, and stabilize the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations. Both the EPA’s 1990 Plan, “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate,” and the OTA’s 1991 Plan, “Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,” were prepared at the request of, and submitted to, Congress. Despite the imminent dangers identified in both the EPA’s 1990 Plan and the OTA 1991 Plan, Defendants never implemented either plan.
4. Since 1990, Defendants have known that CO2 levels in the atmosphere must be stabilized at or below 350 parts per million (“ppm”) in order to protect our nation’s climate system and that a swift transition away from fossil fuels was necessary. Twenty-five years later, today’s best science confirms that 350 ppm is the maximum safe level of atmospheric CO2 required to restore a stable climate system.
5. Defendants have for decades ignored their own plans for stopping the dangerous destabilization of our nation’s climate system. Defendants have known of the unusually dangerous risks of harm to human life, liberty, and property that would be caused by continued fossil fuel use and increased CO2 emissions. Instead, Defendants have willfully ignored this impending harm and exerted sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources to increase the production and combustion of fossil fuels, by and through their aggregate actions and omissions, deliberately allowing CO2 emissions to escalate to levels

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

4

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 5 of 96

unprecedented in human history, resulting in a dangerous destabilizing climate system for our country and these Plaintiffs.
6. The 1965 Report and the 1990 and 1991 Plans are only examples of the extensive knowledge Defendants have had about the dangers they caused to present and future generations, including Plaintiffs. Since 1965, numerous studies and reports have informed Defendants of the significant harms that would be caused if Defendants did not reduce reliance on carbon-intense energy from fossil fuels and rapidly transition to carbon-free energy. These studies and reports concluded that continued fossil fuel dependency would drive the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to dangerously destabilize the climate system.
7. Yet, rather than implement a rational course of effective action to phase out carbon pollution, Defendants have continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction, development, consumption and exportation – activities producing enormous quantities of CO2 emissions that have substantially caused the rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Through its policies and practices, the Federal Government is more responsible than any other individual, entity, or country for exposing Plaintiffs to the present dangerous atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact, the United States is responsible for 25.5% of global historic cumulative CO2 emissions.
8. The present level of CO2 and its warming, both realized and latent, are already in the zone of danger. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the peril they knowingly created. As a result, Defendants have infringed on Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. Defendants’ acts also discriminate against these young citizens, who will disproportionately experience the destabilized climate system in our country.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

5

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 6 of 96
9. By and through natural gas imports and exports, the Federal Government and the Department of Energy are further enhancing the dangerous climate situation, without due process and in violation of Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection. As noted above, the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, is the sole LNG export terminal in the Northwest and Oregon’s largest projected source of carbon dioxide emissions. The Department of Energy’s approval of LNG exports from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal heightens the danger to Plaintiffs that Defendants’ actions in the aggregate have created. The result is an unconstitutional violation of Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights.
10. Plaintiffs are especially vulnerable to the dangerous situation that Defendants have substantially caused. This Court is Plaintiffs’ last resort to ensure their reasonable safety, and that of our Posterity, from the harm perpetrated by Defendants. There is an extremely limited amount of time to preserve a habitable climate system for our country; otherwise, the warming of our nation will become locked in or rendered increasingly severe. Recent scientific studies conclude that our country is now in a period of “carbon overshoot,” with early consequences that are already threatening and that will, in the short term, rise to unbearable unless Defendants take immediate action to rapidly abate fossil fuel emissions and restore energy balance at a lower atmospheric CO2 concentration.
11. The current policies, plans, and practices of the Federal Government will not achieve the necessary fossil fuel emission reductions within this century. To the contrary, Defendants’ policies, plans, and practices allow and promote fossil fuel exploitation and consumption, press our climate system further toward irretrievable impacts. A key recent instance is the government’s approval of LNG exports from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal. If

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

6

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 7 of 96

Defendants further delay rapid, systematic annual emissions reductions, they will ensure a far less hospitable climate system, with far-reaching damage to our nation and Plaintiffs alike.
12. This Court should order Defendants to swiftly phase-down CO2 emissions aimed at atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are no more than 350 ppm by 2100, develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system. Plaintiffs come before this Court to secure their fundamental rights under the Constitution, before it is too late.
JURISDICTION and VENUE 13. This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. It is authorized by Article III, Section 2, which extends the federal judicial power to all cases arising in equity under the Constitution. “The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip. op. at 10 (2015). That grant of equitable jurisdiction requires Article III courts to apply the underlying principles of the Constitution to new circumstances unforeseen by the framers, such as the irreversible destruction of the natural heritage of our whole nation. An actual controversy has arisen and exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants because Defendants have placed Plaintiffs in a dangerous situation, continue to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and have abrogated their duty of care to ensure Plaintiffs’ reasonable safety, among other violations of law. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the harms herein, which are of a continuing nature and which, if left unresolved, will be irreversible. 14. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (creation of a remedy), and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (further relief) as this action arises under the laws of the United States.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

7

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 8 of 96

15. Venue lies in this judicial district by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). The majority of Youth Plaintiffs (as hereinafter defined) reside in this judicial district, some Defendants have offices in this judicial district, and the events, omissions, and harms giving rise to the claims herein arise in substantial part in this judicial district. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2, divisional venue lies in the Eugene Division because the largest number of Youth Plaintiffs reside in this division of the judicial district, and events, omissions, and harms giving rise to the claims herein arise in substantial part in this division of the judicial district.
PLAINTIFFS 16. Plaintiff Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana is a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Kelsey is 19 years old and was born and raised in Oregon, the state where she hopes to work, grow food, recreate, have a family, and raise children. During the fall of 2014, Kelsey walked 1,600 miles from Nebraska to Washington D.C. in the Great March for Climate Action to raise awareness about the climate crisis. Kelsey is harmed by Defendants’ actions and inactions regarding carbon pollution and the resulting climate destabilization and ocean acidification. Specifically, Defendants’ actions have caused damage to and continue to threaten the resources on which she relies for her survival and wellbeing. Kelsey depends on the freshwaters of Oregon for drinking, hygiene, and recreation. She drinks the freshwater that flows from the McKenzie River and drinks from springs in the Oregon Cascades on hiking, canoeing, and backpacking trips. Kelsey also depends upon the marine and estuarine waters of Oregon as a food source and a place of recreation and vacationing. Kelsey spends time along the Oregon coast in places like Yachats and Florence and enjoys playing on the beach, tidepooling, and observing unique marine animals. An important part of Kelsey’s diet includes food that comes from the marine waters and freshwater rivers, including salmon, cod, tuna, clams, mussels, and

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

8

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 9 of 96

crab. Kelsey also depends upon food grown in Oregon both by small farmers in the Willamette Valley and by her family in their garden.
17. The current and projected drought and lack of snow caused by Defendants are already harming all of the places Kelsey enjoys visiting, as well as her drinking water, and her food sources—including wild salmon. During the summer of 2015, record-setting heat and low water levels killed salmon in Oregon’s rivers. In the coming decades, Kelsey will suffer even greater harm from the impacts of ocean acidification and rising sea levels on the marine life she eats for sustenance, and on the beaches, tidepools, and other places she visits along the Oregon coast.
18. In addition to coastal recreation, Kelsey enjoys snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snow camping. Warmer winters and declining snowpack make it harder for her to enjoy these winter activities. Kelsey also enjoys rafting, swimming in rivers, snorkeling on rivers, canoeing on lakes, hiking, rock-climbing, and backpacking in the warmer seasons. Increasing summer temperatures, and the resulting algal blooms in the lakes Kelsey visits harm her ability to enjoy these activities and prevent her from drinking the water. Intense wildfires, which also threaten Kelsey’s ability to enjoy summer activities. Kelsey has had to abandon camping trips because of nearby wildfires.
19. Defendants have caused psychological and emotional harm to Kelsey as a result of her fear of a changing climate, her knowledge of the impacts that will occur in her lifetime, and her knowledge that Defendants are continuing to cause harms that threaten her life and wellbeing. As a result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, Kelsey believes that she will not be able to continue to do all of the things described in this Complaint for her life, health, and enjoyment, nor will she one day be able to share those experiences with her children.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

9

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 10 of 96
20. Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., by and through his guardian and mother Tamara Roske-Martinez, is a 15-year-old citizen of the U.S. who lives in Boulder, Colorado. For nine years, Xiuhtezcatl has advocated for reductions in CO2 emissions before local, state, federal, and international governmental bodies, including three speeches before the United Nations, and service on the Presidential Youth Council to advise the President of the United States. As the youth director for his organization Earth Guardians, Xiuhtezcatl uses music, dance, art, videos, speeches, testimony, and youth organizing to urge his governments to stop taking actions that promote fossil fuel exploitation and result in dangerous climate change.
21. Of Aztec descent, Xiuhtezcatl engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth. Xiuhtezcatl has suffered harm to his spiritual and cultural practices from Defendants’ actions. Climate change also harms Xiuhtezcatl’s personal safety, property, and recreational interests through the resulting increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, drought, declining snowpack, pine-beetle infested forests, and extreme flooding near his home in Colorado. Xiuhtezcatl’s home, including the forests that he relies upon for his spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, will continue to die and burn as climate change worsens. Water will become increasingly scarce, adversely impacting every aspect of his life.
22. Xiuhtezcatl is also harmed by the adverse impacts to his air and water quality, and his health that result from the exploitation of fossil fuels in Colorado. Under authorizations by the Department of Energy, natural gas extracted through fracking in Colorado will be transported by pipeline to Oregon, liquefied at the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, and then shipped overseas for combustion. The LNG exports from Coos Bay, Oregon will harm

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

10

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 11 of 96
Xiuhtezcatl because the export of natural gas enhances demand for natural gas extraction in Colorado and increases the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
23. Plaintiff Alexander Loznak is a citizen of the U.S. and lives in the unincorporated area of Kellogg, Oregon. He is 18 years old and graduated from Roseburg High School in June 2015. Alex is experiencing harm caused by Defendants. For example, Alex is gravely concerned about how his life and his family’s farm will continue to be affected by climate change.
24. Alex lives on his family’s 570-acre farm, the Maupin Century Farm, located along the Umpqua River. His great, great, great, great grandmother, Martha Poindexter Maupin, founded the farm in 1868 (she was one of the first women in Oregon to own a ranch) after arriving in the area by way of the Oregon Trail. The Maupin Century Farm is Alex’s intellectual and spiritual base and a foundational piece of his life and heritage, and his identity and wellbeing depend on its preservation and protection. However, the drought conditions, unusually hot temperatures, and climate-induced migration of forest species are harming and will increasingly harm Alex’s use and enjoyment of the Maupin Century Farm.
25. Alex’s ability to fish on local rivers is harmed by drought and hot temperatures. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline, which would connect to the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal at Coos Bay, would be located only about 30 miles from the Maupin Century Farm, in a forest where Alex recreates. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline would cross bodies of water at 400 different locations in Oregon, including two places on the South Umpqua River where Alex recreates. Alex has walked along the pipeline route and has seen the old growth trees that will be logged and the special rivers that will be impacted in order to deliver natural gas to

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

11

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 12 of 96

what would be the largest, most-polluting facility and power plant in Oregon, solely built to liquefy natural gas for export and ultimate combustion.
26. The Maupin Century Farm is also an important source of revenue and food for Alex and his family. On the Farm, Alex and his family grow plum trees and hazelnut trees, raise chickens and grass-fed cows, and have a large garden growing many of the fruits and vegetables that his family consumes. The record-setting heat waves and drought in Oregon adversely impact both Alex’s life and the Farm, especially their hazelnut orchard. The heat waves and drought harm Alex’s ability to work outside on the Farm during the summer months.
27. The Maupin Century Farm is home to many different species of wildlife, including deer, bears, mountain lions, and birds, which Alex enjoys seeing. Alex and his family hunt deer, elk, and wild turkeys to provide food. Each of these species of wildlife is adversely impacted by climate change caused by Defendants. Other food sources for Alex, including crab and seafood, are negatively impacted by ocean acidification, warming, and sea level rise caused by Defendants.
28. The health and bodily integrity of his family and their Farm, which they rely on for food and as a source of income—as well as for their personal wellbeing—increasingly are harmed by climate change caused by Defendants. The Maupin Century Farm has been passed from generation to generation in Alex’s family, and in many ways Alex’s future depends on that family farm. He would like to reside at, raise children on, and retire to the Maupin Century Farm, but he is concerned about how it will be further damaged by climate change caused by Defendants. Wildfires, more common and more destructive due to warmer summers and drought conditions, are increasingly common in Southern Oregon. The area where Alex lives is frequently smoky due to nearby wildfires during the warmer months. Additionally, Alex is

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

12

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 13 of 96

allergic to pollen and suffers worse in unseasonably warm years. He also suffers from asthma, which is worse in the increasingly smoky summer months. Alex’s allergies and asthma will worsen as climate change caused by Defendants worsens.
29. For recreation, Alex enjoys activities in the snow in Oregon and also hiking in Northern Washington and Glacier National Park, where he has seen the glaciers receding due to climate change caused by Defendants. Alex plans to return to Montana, and he also plans to travel to Alaska, and his recreational and aesthetic interests are harmed as the glaciers continue to disappear before he can visit them.
30. Alex has taken individual action to try to protect the climate system by driving an efficient hybrid car, by starting a Climate Change Club at Roseburg High School with the goal of installing solar panels on the school’s roof, by starting the League of Umpqua Climate Youth (“LUCY”), and by lobbying his state legislators to pass comprehensive climate legislation.
31. Plaintiff Jacob Lebel is an 18-year-old citizen of the U.S. residing in Roseburg, Oregon. In 2000, Jacob and his family emigrated to Oregon from Quebec, Canada, attracted by the state’s pristine landscape and temperate weather. Since then, Jacob’s family has established Rose Hill Farms, a diverse, organically managed farm, as well as a thriving local medical practice at White Oak Medical Clinic. Jacob grew up working on Rose Hill Farms, where he currently spends most of his time. Jacob intends to continue his use and enjoyment of Rose Hill Farms for these purposes and for his vocational career in the future. Jacob derives educational, inspirational, spiritual, and other benefits from his work at the Farm. Jacob is harmed and will continue to be harmed by Defendants’ actions described herein and the climate change impacts to the Farm, including the deterioration of the Farm environment, rising temperatures, and a dwindling water supply.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

13

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 14 of 96

32. In the summer, Rose Hill Farms depends on home-dug ponds to irrigate a large garden and three greenhouses, as well as several orchards of more than four-hundred fruit and nut trees. The recent long, dry summers, droughts, and heat waves reduced, and are currently reducing, the supply of water in the ponds, just as the water needs of the crops and trees have increased. As climate impacts continue to grow in severity, so will this water shortage. Furthermore, experts predict that large destructive wildfires, aggravated by record-low snowpacks and consistently drier and hotter conditions, will become increasingly common in Oregon. A wildfire would destroy the fourteen years of work that have gone into making the Rose Hill Farms. In addition to the farm structures, orchards, greenhouses, and pastures at risk from a fire, approximately 70 percent of the 350 acres of land owned by Jacob’s family is mixed conifer forest which they manage sustainably and which represents an enormous investment. Already, Jacob and his family are required to invest resources to install an irrigation system in order to contend with the increasing drought conditions as a result of climate destabilization caused by Defendants.
33. Throughout Jacob’s life, wilderness and healthy natural environments have been an essential part of his spiritual and emotional wellbeing. Jacob frequently and regularly recreates in the natural areas of Oregon, through hiking, exploring, snowboarding, and rafting. Native ecosystems and animal species have always been the main source of inspiration for Jacob’s writing, music, and poetry. Jacob also spends significant time fishing, gathering mussels, and crabbing as a source of both enjoyment and food for himself and his family. Jacob intends to continue all of these activities in the future. In 2014-2015, Jacob experienced drastic snow retreat on Crater Lake National Park and Mount Hood, as well as the nearby South Umpqua River drying up in some spots, adversely affecting his use and enjoyment of these areas. Low river

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

14

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 15 of 96

flows and warm water temperatures all have contributed and contribute to losses of fish in the salmon runs in the rivers near Roseburg, on which Jacob relies for recreation and food. Rising sea levels caused by Defendants threaten the natural areas of the Oregon coast used and enjoyed by Jacob. Ocean acidification caused by Defendants has already begun to adversely impact shellfish along the coast, and is projected to take its toll on crabs, mussels, and all shelled seafood. Jacob is adversely affected by these changes caused by Defendants’ actions as described herein.
34. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline, which would connect to the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal at Coos Bay, would run directly behind the Rose Gill Farms. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline would adversely affect Jacob’s aesthetic, inspirational, and spiritual enjoyment of the property. This pipeline also carries risks of dangerous leaks or explosions, which could trigger a wildfire in the hot summer months. The associated hundredfoot clearcut would affect the landscape integrity and biodiversity of Jacob’s immediate surroundings, all of which adversely impact Jacob.
35. Plaintiff Zealand B., by and through his guardian and mother Kimberly PashBell, is an 11-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Zealand has worked to increase community awareness about climate change caused by Defendants and has advocated before local and state governmental bodies for science-based government action on climate change. Zealand and his family minimize their impact on the environment and reduce their carbon footprint by biking, gardening, participating in community-supported agriculture, buying locally-made products, and picking up litter in the places where they recreate. Zealand has experienced and will continue to experience harm from climate change caused by Defendants if immediate action is not taken to secure a stable climate system.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

15

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 16 of 96

36. Zealand loves living in Oregon and hopes to stay in Oregon in the future. He enjoys skiing, biking, rock climbing, rafting, and camping in Oregon. Oregon’s rivers are especially important to Zealand. While rafting along the rivers in Oregon, Zealand enjoys the solitude of the wilderness and the experience of seeing plants and animals in their natural habitat. Rafting trips with his family have been canceled or shortened due to the increased temperatures, drought, and reduced water levels. Zealand and his family twice experienced large forest fires while rafting on Oregon rivers.
37. The record-setting heat during the summer of 2015 adversely impacts Zealand and his enjoyment of outdoor activities by making bike-riding, playing soccer, and playing basketball difficult. Zealand suffers from allergies, which have increased in severity over the past few years, and caused him to decrease the amount of time that he spends outside in the spring and early summer. Heat waves and an increase in pollen counts will worsen with further climate change caused by Defendants and harm Zealand’s recreational and health interests.
38. Warmer winters and decreased snowpack levels in Oregon have harmed, and will continue to harm, Zealand and his family. Zealand’s mother usually works during the winter at the Willamette Pass ski resort, but that seasonal job was not available during the winter of 20142015 due to the lack of snow, resulting in lost income. The lack of snow also meant Zealand was unable to ski. Decreased snowpack levels in the future will also harm the availability of drinking water for Zealand, his family, and his community, as Eugene’s only water source, the McKenzie River, is fed by melting snowpack.
39. Zealand and his family spend substantial time at the Oregon Coast. He enjoys playing in the dunes, camping, surfing, boogie boarding, and taking pictures of the ocean and surrounding areas. The impacts from warmer water temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

16

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 17 of 96
acidification caused by Defendants will negatively impact Zealand’s future ability to enjoy the same areas on the coast that he now loves and to eat the same seafood, which is an important part of his diet.
40. Plaintiff Avery M., by and through her guardian and mother Holly McRae, is a 10-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Avery has worked to increase awareness in her community about impacts of climate change caused by Defendants and advocated for CO2 reductions before her representatives at both the municipal and state levels. Avery and her family limit their carbon footprint as much as possible by recycling, biking, eating less meat and growing some of their own food, repairing, reusing, and buying second-hand goods, decreasing energy use at home, and minimizing their vehicle and air travel.
41. The impacts from climate change caused by Defendants are harming and will continue to harm Avery and her enjoyment of and interaction with nature and wildlife. Avery’s favorite activity is swimming in natural bodies of water. Avery and her family enjoy boating, hiking, backpacking, camping, and watching salmon spawn throughout Oregon. In 2015, Avery was not been able to participate in these recreational activities as frequently as past years due to warmer temperatures, drought, low water levels, forest fires, and algal blooms. The 2015 summer heat has caused Avery to avoid outdoor activities to prevent becoming overheated. Avery also suffers from allergies, which will worsen with increased pollen count and a changing climate caused by Defendants. Avery enjoys taking vacations to Yellowstone with her family and has seen burned, beetle-killed forests on these trips. The increase of hungry bears in the area due to the decline in white bark pine trees forced her family to postpone Avery’s first big backpacking trip in the area.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

17

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 18 of 96

42. Climate change caused by Defendants has reduced snowpack levels in Oregon, negatively impacting Avery’s enjoyment of winter activities and the future availability of drinking water for her and her family. Every winter, Avery takes a trip with her family to Clear Lake, where she enjoys snowshoeing and sledding. These winter activities were not possible from 2013-2015 due to lack of snow.
43. Avery enjoys eating seafood and going to the Oregon coast, where she wades in the water and explores tide pools. At the coast, Avery has noticed coastal erosion and her recreational experience is harmed by seeing dead wildlife from the coastal changes. Warmer water temperatures, sea level rise, and ocean acidification caused by Defendants will worsen and negatively impact Avery’s enjoyment of the Oregon coast and the food she eats.
44. Plaintiff Sahara V., by and through her guardian and mother Toña Aguilar, is an 11-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Sahara is experiencing harm as a result of Defendants’ aggregate actions and omissions in causing climate change. Sahara has been involved in both local and state initiatives to raise awareness about climate change and advocate for science-based CO2 emission reductions. In order to reduce her impact on the environment, Sahara and her family bike, garden, recycle, and practice vegetarianism. Sahara spends time with her family recreating in Oregon’s rivers, lakes, beaches, sand dunes, and forests. She enjoys swimming, biking, camping, and mushroom hunting. Sahara frequently visits her grandparents’ home on the Mohawk River and has witnessed the water levels decrease dramatically.
45. Climate impacts caused by Defendants, such as increased temperatures and drought conditions, infringe upon Sahara’s enjoyment and use of freshwater resources and will continue to do so in the future if immediate action is not taken to reduce CO2 emissions. Sahara

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

18

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 19 of 96
and her family take frequent trips to the Oregon coast to visit her grandparents, who own property in Yachats. On the Oregon coast, Sahara enjoys climbing rocks and sand dunes, swimming, and tidepooling to see marine life. Sahara’s enjoyment of these activities is being increasingly harmed in the future by sea level rise, greater erosion, enhanced ocean acidification, and increased water temperatures.
46. Sahara has asthma, and the increased frequency of forest fires in Oregon, due to hotter and drier conditions, has triggered severe asthma attacks for Sahara. The smoke inhibits her ability to breath, causes her throat to close up, and necessitates the use of her inhaler. As a result of Defendants’ actions in causing climate change, Sahara has become more susceptible to grass allergies, further aggravating her asthma. These health effects will worsen as climate change becomes more severe. Warmer winters and the lack of snow in Oregon have prevented Sahara’s enjoyment of winter activities and will negatively impact her water supply in the future. Sahara wants to stay in Oregon, yet she fears her children and grandchildren will be unable to experience and enjoy Oregon’s natural resources and wildlife.
47. Plaintiff Kiran Isaac Oommen is an 18-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Kiran enjoys camping, hiking, kayaking, biking, and swimming in Oregon. In recent years, decreased water levels and rising temperatures have limited his enjoyment of both these activities and the special places in Oregon he visits. Local Oregon produce and seafood are staples in Kiran’s diet. Ocean acidification and the warmer water temperatures and lower water levels in rivers and streams have negatively impacted his ability to enjoy eating shellfish and salmon. Kiran enjoys cross-country skiing in the winter, but was not able to ski in 2015 due to the lack of snow in Oregon. Kiran enjoys visiting the Oregon coast to

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

19

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 20 of 96

walk along the beach, swim, and go tidepooling. Impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, will negatively impact Kiran’s future ability to enjoy the Oregon coast.
48. Due to drastic seasonal variations, Kiran has endured increasingly severe grass and tree pollen allergies, making it difficult for him to enjoy outdoor activities. Kiran used to be able to regularly visit his friend’s family farm in southern Oregon but the increased prevalence of forest fires due to dry conditions and high temperatures has impacted Kiran’s ability to visit this farm, as the intensity of the smoke and ash have shortened his trips and inhibited his ability to breathe.
49. Kiran has family he visits in Olympia, Washington and near Miami, Florida, both areas scientists predict will be gravely impacted by sea level rise. When Kiran visited Florida in the past, he enjoyed seeing wildlife and experiencing the beauty of the Florida Keys, which is a place he plans to visit again. Kiran would like to continue visiting his family in these coastal areas in the future, but the increasing severity of climate impacts, unless promptly abated, will prevent him from doing so – as large portions of these areas will be inundated by the rising seas.
50. Plaintiff Tia Marie Hatton is a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Bend, Oregon. She is 18 years old and will enter the University of Oregon in September 2015. For the past two years Tia has experienced pronounced climate change impacts in Bend and surrounding areas. Tia is an avid Nordic skier, and has skied competitively since middle school. During 20132015, her ability to ski was limited by the record low snowfall in the Bend area. Tia regularly skis at Virginia Meissner Sno-Park and Willamette Pass Resort. These areas were closed this past winter because of record low snowfall. In 2015, ski teams from across Oregon, including Tia’s team, had to move their state competition to higher elevations at Mt. Bachelor where trails were limited and not well groomed. In the future, unless the severe impacts to our nation’s

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

20

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 21 of 96

climate system are immediately abated, she will not be able to ski at all, even at higher elevations.
51. For the 2015 summer, Oregon’s Governor issued a drought declaration for Deschutes County, where Tia lives. Tia spends most of her time recreating outdoors, not only skiing, but cross-country running, rock climbing, hiking, camping, and kayaking. Warmer summer temperatures and forest fires in Deschutes National Forest south of Bend are preventing Tia from participating in these activities as often as she would like and once could. For the past several years there have been fires every summer in the forests surrounding Bend, and residents have had to evacuate. Tia is psychologically impacted by these events, as it is hard for her to watch the destruction of the wilderness she loves and its ecosystems. Tia and her family vacation around Oregon and have experienced coastal erosion in Seaside, Florence, and Newport. Tia has also experiences the climate impacts similar to those in the Bend area when she visits the Steens Mountains for running camp.
52. Tia works hard to protect the environment and create awareness about the impacts of climate change caused by Defendants. In high school she was a member of her school’s Green Club, and spent time planning Earth Day activities to raise awareness and educate the student body. Tia tries to limit her transportation via cars and is participating in the Bend Energy Challenge, a nationwide energy-saving competition, to help her family save energy and make their home healthier.
53. Plaintiff Isaac V., by and through his guardian and mother, Pamela Vergun, is a thirteen-year-old U.S. citizen and a resident of Beaverton, Oregon. Isaac is involved in climate activism and he founded Plant for the Planet Academy in Oregon, along with his mom and sister. Isaac started a petition asking the city of Beaverton to adopt a resolution to lower the city’s

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

21

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 22 of 96

carbon emissions. At home, his family installed solar panels on their roof and they drive an electric vehicle.
54. Isaac and his family are experiencing the adverse impacts of climate change caused by Defendants. 2015 has been the hottest summer Isaac remembers, with temperatures at 100 degrees Fahrenheit in his hometown. The groundwater level in his backyard has dropped significantly, causing trees to die. Isaac enjoys recreating along the Spring Water Creek Trail near Portland, Oregon and is harmed by the drought conditions, which have eliminated a substantial portion of the flow in Johnson Creek. In parts of southern and eastern Oregon, wildfires are tearing through forests where Isaac enjoys recreating, threatening the ecosystems he relies upon for his personal enjoyment.
55. In winter, Isaac recreates in the Oregon snow and thereby derives emotional, spiritual, and physical benefits. He intends to continue his use and enjoyment of the snow. The record-low snowfall across the state, caused by Defendants’ actions and the climate change resulting from those actions, harms Isaac by reducing his opportunity to recreate in the snow.
56. Since he was very young, Isaac has had asthma. Isaac’s asthma is worsening and will continue to worsen as air quality becomes more polluted from increased pollen counts and smoke from wildfires. Isaac enjoys athletic activities including hiking, soccer, and basketball. He intends to continue these activities in the future. Increasing temperatures caused by Defendants’ actions will worsen his asthma, affect his athletic performance, and make him less likely to play sports.
57. Plaintiff Miko V., by and through her guardian and mother, Pamela Vergun, is a 14-year-old citizen of the United States and a resident of Beaverton, Oregon. Miko is a climate activist. Along with her Mother and brother, Miko started the first Plant for the Planet Academy

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

22

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 23 of 96

in Oregon to help plant 150 trees per person in the United States to combat deforestation. She is spreading awareness to other young people and working to educate adults about the climate crisis. At home, her family has solar panels on their roof and they use an electric hybrid vehicle to reduce their emissions when they drive. Miko is committed to living a low-carbon lifestyle.
58. Miko was born in the Marshall Islands, and her low-lying home island is threatened by sea level rise. She fears she will never be able to travel back to the Marshall Islands as she intends to because the islands will likely be underwater in the future. In the last couple of years, Miko has experienced record-breaking heat waves in Beaverton and Portland, Oregon. Miko recently visited Timothy Lake, 60 miles southeast of Beaverton, to swim and fish, but the water levels were lower than usual, negatively impacting her use and enjoyment of the area.
59. Seafood is an important part of Miko’s diet. Ocean acidification and warming ocean, coastal, and river waters are negatively affecting the health of fish and sea life on which Miko depends.
60. Plaintiff Hazel V., by and through her guardian and mother Margo Van Ummersen, is an 11-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Hazel has advocated in her community to raise awareness about climate change caused by Defendants and before her city leaders to ask for science-based reductions of CO2 emissions. Hazel and her family reduce their carbon footprint by gardening, recycling, buying local products, biking, and walking.
61. Hazel enjoys swimming, canoeing, kayaking, camping, and hiking in Oregon. In recent years, she has been unable to fully enjoy these activities and special places she visits due to the increased temperatures, low water levels, and abnormal seasonal variations caused by the

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

23

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 24 of 96

acts and omissions of Defendants. Hazel frequently visits the Oregon coast, where she enjoys bodysurfing, playing on the beach, tidepooling, harvesting seaweed, and hunting mushrooms. Increased surface and ocean temperatures, sea level rise, and ocean acidification caused by the acts of Defendants threaten Hazel’s future ability to enjoy these activities, which are important aspects of her childhood. Salmon and seafood are important parts of Hazel’s diet that will continue to be threatened due to increased water temperatures, drought, and ocean acidification caused by the acts of Defendants.
62. During the winter, Hazel enjoys skiing and sledding. However, due to declining snowpack and warmer winters, she has been unable to ski or sled. Decreased snowfall in the Cascades will have long-term adverse impacts on the water level in the McKenzie River, which provides drinking water to Hazel’s hometown of Eugene. In June 2015, extreme heat caused by the acts of Defendants adversely impacted Hazel’s health on a trip she took to Washington, D.C. During that trip, she suffered from two episodes of heat exhaustion.
63. Plaintiff Sophie K., by and through her guardian and grandfather, Dr. James Hansen, is a 16-year-old citizen of the U.S., and a resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Through stories from her grandfather, Dr. James Hansen, Sophie has become passionate about climate science and feels a sense of urgency and responsibility to compel government action on climate change. Extreme weather events, including Hurricane Sandy, caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house; and Sophie has even been forced to prepare for tornado warnings, which are very unusual for the area where she lives. Intense summer heat now diminishes Sophie’s ability to participate in and enjoy outdoor activities, including track and tennis. Sophie would like to have the ability to one day live in coastal cities like New York or Los Angeles, but rising sea levels may inundate

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

24

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 25 of 96

these coastal areas within Sophie’s lifetime unless Defendants cease their actions that otherwise will soon ensure these catastrophic impacts. Sophie is distressed knowing the inundation of these, and other coastal hubs of our nation’s economy and commerce, will have profoundly negative economic impacts on our nation and on her own life as she gets older, looks for work to support herself, and begins her professional career.
64. Climate change substantially caused by the acts of Defendants is harming, and will continue to harm, the ability of Sophie and her family to grow food in her garden as the population of bees and other pollinators decline. In 2015, Sophie’s health was adversely impacted for the first time by pollen allergies, a condition exacerbated by global and regional warming. Extreme weather events, intense heat, and rising seas have had, and will increasingly have, a negative impact on Sophie. Sophie is deeply concerned about the future because she knows that climate change will not only harm her, but will also harm the entire fabric of human civilization and all living things on Earth that she cherishes and relies on for her life, liberties, and property.
65. Plaintiff Jaime B., by and through her guardian and mother Jamescita Peshlakai, is a 14-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Flagstaff, Arizona. Jaime is a member of the Navajo Nation. Jaime was born into the Bitter Water Clan, with maternal grandfathers of the Red House Clan and paternal grandfathers of the Towering House Clan. Jaime and her family are experiencing harm from climate change caused by the acts of Defendants and will experience even more severe climate impacts in the future. Since she was four years old, Jaime has been working to protect the earth. Beginning in elementary school, Jaime has written letters to President Obama about her concerns for the environment, asking him to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ensure that oil spills do not continue to happen.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

25

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 26 of 96

66. Jaime grew up in Cameron, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation Reservation. In 2011, Jaime and her Mother had to move from Cameron to Flagstaff because of water scarcity. Jaime and her extended family on the Reservation remember times when there was enough water on the Reservation for agriculture and farm animals, but now the springs they once depended on year-round are drying up. Jaime and her Mother were not able to sustain living on the Reservation because of the costs of hauling water into Cameron for themselves and their animals. Jaime is worried that her extended family, all of whom live on the Reservation, will also be displaced from their land, which will erode her culture and way of life. Participating in sacred Navajo ceremonies on the Reservation is an important part of Jaime’s life, and climate impacts caused by the acts of Defendants are starting to harm the ability for Jamie and her tribe to participate in their traditional ceremonies.
67. Jaime now lives on property her Mother owns in the Kaibab National Forest. The forest is Jaime’s favorite place to spend time. Jaime finds peace being outside in the forest surrounding her home, and she walks for 1-2 hours in the forest after school every day. Jaime’s ability to spend time in the forest is going to be limited due to increasing climate change caused by the acts of Defendants. Large parts of the Kaibab National Forest have been destroyed due to pine beetle infestations and forest fires. In 2014, Jaime and her Mother were evacuated from their home for two days because of the Oak Creek Canyon fire north of their property. Winds brought smoke and ash into their neighborhood. Jaime is worried that the area surrounding their home is becoming unsafe due to an increase in drought conditions and forest fires caused by the acts of Defendants. Jaime and her Mother have seen climate change impact the vegetables they grow for food on their property in Flagstaff. Jaime’s severe allergies have become increasingly worse over the last several years. She takes over-the-counter medication to combat her

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

26

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 27 of 96

symptoms. With record-setting temperatures and a drought that has lasted several years, Jaime fears for her future and for the future of her family, their history, their traditions, and their way of life.
68. Plaintiff Journey Z., by and through his guardian and mother Erika Schneider, is a 15-year-old citizen of the U.S. Journey is a Native American born in South Dakota and a federally enrolled member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. In 2009, Journey and his family moved to the island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Journey attends a Hawaiian cultural immersion school, has adopted the Hawaiian culture as his own, and speaks the native Hawaiian language. Journey has deep cultural and spiritual connections with the Earth and all life. These connections depend on a stable climate system for survival, providing Journey with a fundamental sense of responsibility to protect the Earth for his generation and for future generations. Journey is a youth leader on the Rising Youth for a Sustainable Earth (“RYSE”) Youth Council and a youth ambassador for the Center for Native American Youth. Journey has advocated directly to President Obama’s administration and other federal government officials to secure government action to stabilize the climate system and protect his fundamental rights.
69. Journey participates in many culturally important activities, such as working in the taro fields, organic farming, playing Tahitian drum, fire dancing, and performing Halau Hula O Leilani. He also enjoys swimming, snorkeling, fishing, canoeing, stand-up paddle boarding, and walking and biking along the beach. His participation in and enjoyment of these activities has been and will continue to be negatively impacted by the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification caused by Defendants.
70. Journey’s food security and his enjoyment of the biological diversity of the coral reefs are and will continue to be adversely impacted by ocean acidification and the climate

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

27

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 28 of 96

change impacts of sea-level rise, increased sea surface temperature, alteration in ocean circulation, and increased storm intensity, all caused by the acts of Defendants. These problems are all deleterious to coral reefs in Hawai‘i and their associated ecosystems and fisheries. Journey’s health, personal safety, cultural practices, and recreational interests are adversely impacted by the climate impacts of rising sea levels and intense storms that increase coastal flooding and erosion in Hawai‘i, damaging coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, and agriculture, on which Journey relies. Watching beaches erode away and disappear has emotionally harmed Journey. Journey performs Halau Hula O Leilani at the hotels along the beaches and will not be able to do so in the future with continued sea level rise. The rock wall at Journey’s favorite swimming beach eroded and fell into the ocean, and additional erosion will make it unsafe for Journey to swim there in the future. Decreased rainfall on Kaua‘i and the resulting lower river water levels, combined with saltwater inundation from sea level rise, have caused serious water quality problems, high bacteria levels, and increased shark activities that threaten Journey’s health and safety, preventing his use and enjoyment of rivers he frequently enjoyed. Declining freshwater availability also threatens Journey’s future access to drinking water and ability to stay on the island. Drought conditions on part of Kaua’i and saltwater inundation negatively impact the soil and the agricultural productivity of the farms and taro patches where Journey works. While total rainfall has decreased, rain intensity has increased. In 2012, this increased rain intensity threatened Journey’s personal safety when he and his family were displaced by widespread flooding and evacuated to a Red Cross shelter.
71. Plaintiff Victoria B., by and through her guardian and mother Daisy Calderon, is a 16-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of White Plains, New York. In September 2015, Victoria will be a junior in high school at Notre Dame School of Manhattan in New York

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

28

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 29 of 96

City. Since 2013, Victoria has been active in the climate movement, educating people about climate change and working to mitigate it. Victoria was a fellow with the Alliance for Climate Education and continues to advocate for education and action on climate change in New York.
72. Victoria has become emotionally distressed by the increase in superstorms in the Northeast. Victoria was harmed by Hurricane Sandy when she and her family lost power to their home, her school shut down, and her forms of public transportation were not operating. Victoria is also harmed by the increasing sweltering summer temperatures, which limit the time she spends outdoors in New York. In recent years, her pollen allergies have become worse, making it even more difficult to enjoy being outside. Victoria lives on low-lying land, which is threatened by rising sea levels and more frequent storm surges.
73. Plaintiff Nathaniel B., by and through his guardian and mother Sharon Baring, is a 15-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska. Nathaniel and his family are already witnessing the impacts of climate change and he is psychologically harmed knowing of the inevitable and increasingly severe climate impacts he will experience in the future.
74. Nathaniel is an avid Nordic skier who also enjoys downhill skiing. Nathaniel has been harmed by the reduced snowfall during the past few winters. Snow that typically comes in August is coming as late as November. In 2014-2015, Anchorage received its lowest seasonal snowfall to date. Nathaniel is experiencing more ice storms in Fairbanks Last year the city declared a state of disaster after a severe ice storm created widespread power outages. Nathaniel and his family suffered without power for nearly a week in temperatures of 18 degrees Fahrenheit.
75. This summer, Alaska experienced over 300 wildfires across the state, all occurring at once. Wildfires have become a common occurrence every summer in Alaska.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

29

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 30 of 96

During the summer of 2015, Fairbanks was surrounded by numerous wildfires and air quality rivaled that of some of the world’s smoggiest cities. As an asthma and allergy sufferer, the hot dry wildfire season makes it hard for Nathaniel to breathe outside and participate in crosscountry running, one of his favorite sports. Nathaniel is distraught knowing that changing temperatures caused by Defendants will affect his way of life and the animals and ecosystems that surround him and on which he relies for recreation and food. His family raises chickens on their property and they hunt for moose and grouse for food. These animals are harmed by the extreme climate changes happening in Alaska caused by Defendants. Nathaniel has also noticed a sharp decline of salmon, especially king salmon, which is important for his diet. This summer Alaska had a very small king salmon run on the Yukon River. Nathaniel and his family take fishing trips and he has experienced firsthand the decline in salmon runs. Nathaniel enjoys visiting Alaska’s glaciers and intends to continue to do so. However, the glaciers Nathaniel visits are significantly receding, including the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, which has retreated over 1.5 miles.
76. Nathaniel is working hard to take actions to reverse and mitigate the effects of climate change through his membership in Alaska Youth for Environmental Action and his work with Citizens Climate Lobby and his church. At home, Nathaniel and his family try to ride bikes as much as possible. Nathaniel participates in the “dime a gallon” program at church, where members contribute a certain pre-arranged amount for every gallon of gas they use for transportation, which is then used to install insulation in their buildings, and other greening projects, such as solar panels.
77. Plaintiff Aji P., by and through his guardian and mother Helaina Piper, is a 15year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of West Seattle, Washington. Aji is experiencing the

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

30

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 31 of 96

impacts of climate change caused by Defendants, and has been harmed by the increasing severity of such impacts. In 2014, the State of Washington had the worst wildfire in the state’s recorded history, the Carlton Complex fire. Aji and his family were impacted by that wildfire while on a trip through the Cascade Mountains when they were forced to breathe the smoke in the air. During the summer of 2015, Aji has struggled to participate in his regular summer outdoor activities because of temperatures climbing above 90 degrees Fahrenheit for extended periods, which is highly unusual for temperate Seattle.
78. Aji has also experienced the negative effects of climate change on Puget Sound and the freshwater systems and fish. The decreasing water quality in Puget Sound is causing dead zones to occur and ocean acidification is killing fish and shellfish. Aji recreates in these areas and enjoys seeing marine life. The impacts to shellfish and the diminishing numbers of starfish harm Aji’s recreational and aesthetic interests. Aji has also been unable to touch or eat shellfish in Puget Sound due to toxicity levels. Aji is distraught by seeing the ecosystems surrounding his home harmed by climate change and ocean acidification caused by Defendants.
79. The impacts of climate change in other places in the western United States are also affecting Aji. On a trip to Montana with his grandparents, Aji experienced dead forests killed by pine bark beetles. Although Aji’s mother is from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and they have family there, Aji and his family will not move back to New Mexico because of water shortage issues and the declining aquifer.
80. Aji advocates for actions to reverse and mitigate the effects of climate change caused by Defendants. He is a member of Plant for the Planet Leadership Corps, in which he plants trees, helps restore local forests, and speaks to the public about climate change impacts. He is also a member of Rising Youth for a Sustainable Earth. Aji is a vegetarian and he and his

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

31

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 32 of 96

family try to limit the time they spend driving as much as possible, opting to walk, bike, or take public transportation.
81. Plaintiff Levi D., by and through his guardian and mother Leigh-Ann Draheim, is a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Indialantic, Florida. Levi is 8-years-old and he is experiencing the impacts of climate change and working to take action and spread awareness about protecting the climate system.
82. Levi lives with his Mother and maternal grandparents in Indialantic, which is situated on a barrier island that separates the Indian River Lagoon from the Atlantic Ocean. The barrier island consists of primarily unconsolidated sand that sits on top of porous limestone bedrock. During the summer of 2015, Levi experienced a lack of rainfall that the island usually receives in the afternoons. Temperatures have been abnormally hot, making it harder than normal for Levi and his family to grow vegetables and herbs.
83. The beaches on the island are Levi’s backyard. During the summer months he spends time at the beach five days a week. In the last couple of years, Levi has noticed a Sargassum seaweed invasion, with seaweed covering the beaches along the island. Levi is having a hard time enjoying beach activities because the rotting seaweed smells like sulfur. Levi has also seen climate impacts affect ecosystems at the beach, and has specifically experienced fewer sea turtles in the area. Levi can no longer swim in the Indian River Lagoon because of increasing flesh-eating bacteria and dead fish. Levi and his family are able to smell the dead fish in their community. He is also now limited by where he can swim in the Atlantic Ocean, due to an increase in flesh-eating bacteria.
84. Levi and his family regularly visit the City of Satellite Beach. In 2009, Satellite Beach, an 8-minute drive from Levi’s house, authorized a project to assess rising sea levels and

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

32

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 33 of 96
work to mitigate impacts. In July 2010, the Sea Level Rise Subcommittee of Satellite Beach provided the results of the study: the City needs to plan for sea level rise. The island’s real estate prices are declining, and Levi’s family knows the property they own will decrease in value, and could eventually be lost completely, due to sea level rise caused by climate change and melting ice.
85. In the last two years, Levi’s severe allergies have made it harder for him to spend time outdoors. Experiencing nature and wilderness in healthy conditions is important for Levi’s emotional wellbeing, and his fears for the future of the beaches and springs in Florida and the wildlife that inhabit them are causing adverse psychological impacts to Levi. Levi works hard to keep the environment healthy on the coast by cleaning up the beaches and maintaining the dunes; at church by teaching his friends about how they can help the environment; and at home by conserving water by taking short timed showers, eating a vegetarian diet, and recycling.
86. Plaintiff Jayden F., by and through her mother and guardian Cherri Foytlin, is a 12-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Rayne, Louisiana. In 2005, Jayden moved to Louisiana Since then, she has lived through three hurricanes and many more tropical storms. Jayden has suffered harm and will continue to suffer harm to her and her family’s personal safety, bodily integrity, property, economic stability, food security, and recreational interests from rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of hurricanes with ensuing storm surges, flooding, and high winds, all associated with or exacerbated by climate change caused by Defendants. Jayden is also directly harmed by Defendants’ support and promotion of fossil fuel development in Louisiana, which adversely impacts her air and water quality and health and exacerbates the climate impacts she has experienced and will experience in the region.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

33

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 34 of 96
87. Impacts from climate change and fossil fuel development threaten Jayden’s life, liberty, and property. With warmer ocean water temperatures, hurricanes are becoming more frequent and more destructive. Rising sea level means higher storm surges, even from relatively minor storms, which increase coastal flooding, storm damage, and land loss where she lives. Defendants’ approval of the dredging of canals through marshes for oil and gas exploration and pipelines has compounded the problem by its destruction of natural storm barriers, increased erosion, and intense saltwater intrusion, resulting in additional land loss. In 2008, during Hurricane Gustav, Jayden’s family lost power and water for a week.
88. The air and water pollution from the development of fossil fuels in southern Louisiana also threaten the health of Jayden and her family. Jayden and her family used to enjoy visiting the beach frequently, swimming in the Gulf of Mexico, crabbing, and eating seafood, but she has avoided these activities since the BP oil spill because residual oil is continually dispersed across the Gulf when the increasing number of storms or hurricanes come ashore due to climate change, making such normally enjoyable activities dangerous. Jayden enjoys traveling and visiting family friends all along the Gulf Coast in every state from Texas to Florida and plans to do so in the future, but the coastal impacts from climate change caused by Defendants, including increased coastal flooding, storm damage, and land loss, will impair her ability to do so in the future.
89. Plaintiff Nicholas V., by and through his legal guardian and mother, Marie Venner, is a 14-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Lakewood, Colorado. Nick sees climate change caused by Defendants as a threat to human civilization and has given numerous presentations educating people about the science of climate change. As a Catholic, he is drawn to

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

34

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 35 of 96

the intersection between his church and environmental stewardship, and was inspired by Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical, On Care for Our Common Home.
90. Pine beetles and wildfires, forcing Nick to stop visiting some of his favorite places, have destroyed forests in Colorado, where Nick used to go hiking, fishing, and camping. Nick enjoys fishing, especially in Boulder Creek, but due to wildfires and variable water flows from droughts and floods, he has not been able to go fishing for the past three years. Nick and his family grow fruit trees, have a garden, and buy food from local farmers. Hail, rainstorms, drought, and pests have ruined their garden several years over the last decade. The unusual weather has affected Nick’s consumption of the locally grown produce available through community-supported agriculture. Rising summer temperatures make it harder for Nick to enjoy outdoor activities, including hiking, biking, and tennis. Warmer winters mean Nick gets to ski less; moreover, when he does go skiing, his favorite parts of the mountain frequently are closed.
91. Plaintiff Earth Guardians is a tribe of young activists, artists and musicians from across the globe stepping up as leaders and growing a resilient movement with youth, at the forefront, who are empowered to create a sustainable world for themselves and future generations. Earth Guardians has crews and youth members across the United States and globally, including in Eugene, Oregon. Earth Guardians’ Rising Youth for a Sustainable Earth is a diverse council of young climate leaders who are taking action and empowering youth around the world to do the same. The Generation RYSE Youth Council is made up of 16 youth leaders from around the nation, ages 10-21, who conduct trainings and sustainability initiatives in their own communities, working to protect their climate system. Members of Earth Guardians and RYSE are youth beneficiaries of the federal public trust and are harmed by the substantial impairment and alienation of their public trust resources. Their fundamental rights are infringed

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

35

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 36 of 96

by Defendants ongoing actions to allow fossil fuel exploitation, which endangers their lives, liberties and property.	  
92. Plaintiff Future Generations, by and through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen, retain no rights of suffrage, though they will be the majority of tomorrow. They have the legal right to inherit well-stewarded public trust resources and to legal protection of their fundamental rights. The lives, liberties, and property rights of future generations are imminently threatened by the actions of Defendants challenged herein, which actions will have impacts that may not be reversed for millennia.
93. Dr. James Hansen is the former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is presently an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs a program in Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions. Dr. Hansen trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa, receiving a bachelor’s degree with highest distinction in physics and mathematics, master’s degree in astronomy, and Ph.D. in physics in 1967. In his early research Dr. Hansen used telescopic observations of Venus to extract detailed information on the physical properties of the cloud and haze particles that veil Venus. Since the mid-1970s, Dr. Hansen has focused on studies and computer simulations of the Earth’s climate, for the purpose of understanding the human impact on global climate. His testimony on climate change to Congress in the 1980s helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue.
94. In recent years, Dr. Hansen has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed. Dr. Hansen has also outlined steps that are needed to stabilize climate. Dr. Hansen’s most recent work clearly establishes that danger and those steps,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

36

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 37 of 96

and it is summarized in Dr. Hansen’s declaration, which Plaintiffs attach hereto as Exhibit A. Dr. Hansen has long advocated for government actions to protect the climate system for present and future generations.
95. Dr. Hansen is an elected member of the United States National Academy of Sciences (1995) and a recipient of the Heinz Award for the Environment (2001), the Leo Szilard Award for Use of Physics for the Benefit of Society (2007), the American Association for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility (2007), the Sophie Prize (2010), and the Blue Planet Prize (2010).
96. Youth Plaintiffs2 represent the youngest living generation, beneficiaries of the public trust. Youth Plaintiffs have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in protecting the atmosphere, other vital natural resources, their quality of life, their property interests, and their liberties. They also have an interest in ensuring that the climate system remains stable enough to secure their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, rights that depend on a livable future. A livable future includes the opportunity to drink clean water, to grow food, to be free from direct and imminent property damage caused by extreme weather events, to benefit from the use of property, and to enjoy the abundant and rich biodiversity of our nation. Youth Plaintiffs are suffering both immediate and threatened injuries as a result of actions and omissions by Defendants alleged herein and will continue to suffer life-threatening and irreversible injuries without the relief sought. Youth Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm to their health, personal safety, bodily integrity, cultural and spiritual practices, economic stability, food security, property, and recreational interests from the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification caused by Defendants. Youth Plaintiffs have also been denied the

2 The term “Youth Plaintiffs” refers to each of the individually named Plaintiffs.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

37

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 38 of 96
procedural right to participate in decision-making regarding the Department of Energy’s approval of LNG exports from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. Youth Plaintiffs, and all of them, have suffered procedural harm as a result of this denial.
97. Without immediate action by Defendants to significantly reduce fossil fuel production, consumption, and CO2 emissions, Plaintiffs will suffer increasingly severe consequences. These consequences will put the nation in a constant state of emergency. By 2100, these Youth Plaintiffs (many of whom should still be alive), and future generations, will live with a climate system that is no longer conducive to their survival and without the institutions comprising human civilization that safeguarded their predecessors.
DEFENDANTS 98. Defendant the United States of America (“United States”) is the sovereign trustee of national natural resources, including air, water, sea, shores of the sea, and wildlife. In its sovereign capacity, the United States has assumed control of our nation’s air space and atmosphere. In its sovereign capacity, the United States controls federal public lands, waters, and other natural resources, including fossil fuel reserves. In its sovereign capacity, the United States controls articles of interstate and international commerce, including extraction, development, and conditions for the utilization of fossil fuels and their byproducts. As a result of both its exercise over articles of interstate and international commerce, as well as its failure to exercise control over these articles, the United States has caused dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 pollution and a dangerous climate system, has substantially impaired national public trust resources, and has failed in its duty of care to protect both Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights and their interests in these essential trust resources.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

38

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 39 of 96

99. Defendant Barack Obama, the President of the United States, in his official capacity, is vested with the executive power of the United States and must faithfully execute the office and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Through his office, the President continues to promote fossil fuel exploitation, which causes unsafe levels of atmospheric CO2, dangerously interferes with a stable climate system, and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The President has not used his Office to reduce the nation’s fossil fuel production, consumption and emissions by amounts that would prevent the further enhancement of the dangerous climate situation by Defendants.
100. Defendant the Office of the President of the United States includes the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”).
a. CEQ’s mission is to promote the well-being of our country for both current and future generations, which includes curbing the carbon pollution that is causing climate change.
b. OMB serves as the implementation and enforcement arm of all Presidential policy, including budget development and execution, coordination and review of all significant federal regulations, and issuance of executive orders. OMB promotes the government’s affirmative aggregate acts in the areas of fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion by coordination and review of Federal regulations by executive agencies and review and assessment of information collection requests.
c. OSTP leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets, and to work with state and local governments,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

39

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 40 of 96

the scientific community, private sectors, and other nations toward this end. Pursuant to authority granted by Congress under National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, President Bush’s 2001 Executive Order 13226, and President Obama’s 2010 Executive Order 13539, OSTP has been involved in the President’s strategy for addressing climate change. Despite its charge to ensure that the policies of the Executive are informed by sound science, OSTP has permitted additional fossil fuel projects, including extraction, processing, transportation, combustion, and exportation of coal, oil, and gas from conventional and unconventional reserves. 101. The Presidential policies promoted by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP have been contrary to sound science. These policies have led to the current dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2, dangerous interference with a stable climate system, and violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Specifically, the President’s strategy both continues to allow dangerous levels of carbon pollution and, at best, promise very modest future limitations and no near-term CO2 phase out, as is required to preserve a habitable climate system. 102. Defendant Christy Goldfuss is the current Director of CEQ, and in her official capacity is responsible for all actions of CEQ. 103. Defendant Shaun Donovan is the current Director of OMB, and in his official capacity is responsible for all actions of OMB. 104. Defendant Dr. John Holdren is the current Director of OSTP, and in his official capacity is responsible for all actions of OSTP. 105. Defendant the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) is a federal agency whose mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

40

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 41 of 96
States through clean, reliable, and affordable energy; to protect the environment; and to encourage innovations in science and technology that improve the quality of life. DOE’s mission statement is to “ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing . . . environmental . . . challenges through transformative science.” DOE through the Office of Fossil Energy issues short-term and long-term authorizations for the import and export of natural gas pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, 15 U.S.C. § 717, as amended by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, § 201, 106 Stat. 2776, 2866. DOE permits domestic energy production and interstate commerce of fossil fuels pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. § 7112. DOE through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, regulates the minimum number of light duty alternative fuel vehicles required in certain federal fleets pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. DOE, through the Building Technology Office, also sets energy efficiency standards, which dictate energy consumption rates for appliances and equipment pursuant to authority granted by Congress under The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6201, as amended.
a. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), an agency of DOE, regulates the transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce; regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce; reviews proposals for natural gas terminals, pipelines, and storage facilities; ensures the safe operation and reliability of proposed and operating LNG terminals; and monitors and investigates energy markets.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

41

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 42 of 96

106. DOE has knowingly failed to perform its duty to transition our nation away from the use of fossil fuel energy. DOE’s actions and omissions have substantially contributed to unsafe levels of atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous climate system.
107. DOE, through the Office of Fossil Energy, issued DOE/FE Order No. 3041, granting long-term multi-contract authorization to export liquefied natural gas by vessel from Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”) Terminal in Coos Bay. 	  
108. Defendant Dr. Ernest Moniz is the current Secretary of Energy and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOE.	  
109. Defendant the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) manages onefifth of our nation’s land, including forests and grazing lands, thirty-five thousand miles of coastline, and 1.76 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. DOI’s mission is to protect America’s natural resources and heritage, honor cultures and tribal communities, and supply the energy to power the future of our country. DOI claims to be taking the lead in protecting our nation’s resources from climate impacts and in managing federal public lands to mitigate climate change.
110. DOI, through the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), leases minerals and manages oil and gas development activities on over 570 million acres of federal lands, as well as on private lands where the federal government retained mineral rights, pursuant to the authority granted by Congress in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. § 182, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1719(a). BLM and other federal agencies manage most of the land suitable for oil and gas development in the U.S.
111. DOI, through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), leases the Outer Continental Shelf, the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

42

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 43 of 96

extent of the jurisdiction of the States and the seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction, for oil and gas development pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a), as amended. As of January 2015, BOEM was administering more than 6,000 active oil and gas leases covering nearly 33 million Outer Continental Shelf acres. Pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594, 760, DOI repealed the 160-acre cap on coal leases, allowed the advanced payment of royalties from coal mines, and provided incentives to companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
112. Through its action in permitting the extraction of coal, coal-bed methane, oil, oilshale and natural gas, and oil, coal and electric infrastructure and transmission facilities, and logging, livestock grazing, and off-road vehicle use on public land, the DOI is substantially contributing to dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous climate system in our nation.
113. Defendant Sally Jewell is the current Secretary of Interior and, in her official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOI.
114. Defendant the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is a federal agency overseeing this nation’s aviation, road, highway, railway, truck, and marine transportation infrastructure. DOT’s regulations of emissions related to that infrastructure play a vital role in the Federal Government’s response to climate change.
a. DOT, through the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, oversees and regulates the spending programs that finance construction and maintenance of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, pursuant to authority

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

43

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 44 of 96

granted by Congress under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. § 305, as amended. b. DOT, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, sets fuel economy standards for U.S. vehicle manufacturers, pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94–163, § 301, 89 Stat. 902, 903, 905, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 49 U.S.C. § 32902. 115. With the power to regulate the means of transportation throughout our country, DOT has the responsibility to ensure that all modes of transportation use only clean energy and eliminate dangerous carbon pollution. Further, DOT permits the transport of fossil fuels via truck and rail. DOT’s stated mission is to “[enhance] the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.” DOT acknowledges the severity of the threats of climate change, yet continues to facilitate the severity of climate change impacts by contributing approximately 27% of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2013. 116. Defendant Anthony Foxx is the current Secretary of Transportation and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOT. 117. Defendant the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) is a federal agency whose vision statement expresses the agency’s goal to preserve and conserve our nation’s natural resources. USDA’s mission statement states that it will use the best available science as it carries out its responsibilities in caring for natural resources. USDA has authority over our nation’s food and agriculture, as well as many natural resources, including national forests, which serve the vital role of absorbing CO2 from our atmosphere—commonly referred to as “carbon sequestering.”

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

44

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 45 of 96

a. USDA, through the U.S. Forest Service, authorizes 25% of U.S. coal production. b. The U.S. Forest Service, along with BLM, coordinates and authorizes the leasing
of federal public lands for the extraction of oil and gas pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by both the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands. The U.S. Forest Service, in conjunction with BLM, issues leases and mining permits for coal mining development and oversees coal mining on federal public lands pursuant to authority granted by Congress, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 1273. c. USDA’s Forest Service Minerals & Geology Management division manages and oversees aspects of the development and production of energy and mineral resources, including authorizing ancillary projects such as roads and pipelines that are part of the energy and minerals development projects of USDA. d. USDA has substantially contributed to and continues to substantially contribute to a dangerous climate system by permitting large-scale logging in national forests, by supporting polluting farming and agricultural practices, and by authorizing fossil fuel extraction and use under its jurisdiction. USDA has not protected the nation’s National Forest System as a carbon sink. 118. Defendant Thomas J. Vilsack is the current Secretary of Agriculture and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of the USDA. 119. Defendant the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) is a federal agency that is supposed to promote sustainable development. Commerce has authority

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

45

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 46 of 96
over the monitoring equipment for greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, giving it direct oversight of our nation’s industries and emissions pursuant to authority granted by Congress under Title 15 of the United States Code.
a. Commerce, through National Institute of Standards and Technology, oversees research in energy efficiency opportunities for homes and companies nationwide.
b. Commerce, through the International Trade Administration’s Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, promotes fossil fuel export opportunities, including identifying for the fossil fuel industry oil and gas markets where export activities can make the biggest impact, pursuant to authority granted by Congress, under the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979.
c. Commerce, through the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), authorizes and administers the rules governing crude oil exports pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 754.2. BIS issues permits to export crude oil to all destinations, including Canada.
d. Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is charged with overseeing the preservation and protection of the oceans and the atmosphere pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.
e. Commerce has abrogated its duty to preserve and protect the atmosphere and other natural resources under its jurisdiction and has not prevented the waste of the public trust in the atmosphere and oceans.
120. Defendant Penny Pritzker is the current Secretary of Commerce and, in her official capacity, is responsible for all actions of Commerce.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

46

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 47 of 96
121. Defendant the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) is a federal agency charged with ensuring the security of this nation. DOD considers climate change a threat multiplier for its potential to exacerbate many challenges, including infectious disease, regional instability, mass migrations, and terrorism. Climate change has impacted and will continue to impact all military installations, as well as the DOD’s supply chains, equipment, vehicles, and weapon systems.
a. DOD is our nation’s largest employer and is responsible for significant carbon pollution from both its vehicle fleet, and its 500 bases of military infrastructure, including 300,000 buildings totaling 2.2 billion square feet.
b. For all exports of coal, oil, and gas by ship, the DOD’s Army Corps of Engineers authorizes the marine export facilities, pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers & Harbors Act. The Army Corps of Engineers also maintains international navigation channels, including the navigation channel at Coos Bay, pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Rivers & Harbors Act.
122. Defendant Ashton Carter is the current Secretary of Defense and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOD.
123. Defendant the United States Department of State (“State Department”) is a federal agency whose stated mission is to “shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.” The State Department plays a lead role in Defendants’ response to climate change. The State Department prepared the 2014 U.S. Climate Action Report, which

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

47

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 48 of 96

states that the Federal Government is “committed to continuing enhanced action . . . to lead the global effort to achieve a low-emission, climate resilient future.”
a. The State Department leads international efforts on climate change on behalf of the Office of the President.
b. The State Department, through the Office of the Special Envoy for Climate Change is the Administration’s chief climate negotiator. In 2009, Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern stated: “The costs of inaction—or inadequate actions—are unacceptable. But along with this challenge comes a great opportunity. By transforming to a low-carbon economy, we can stimulate global economic growth and put ourselves on a path of sustainable development for the 21st century.”
c. The Secretary of State receives all applications for Presidential Permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance, at the borders of the United States, of facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, or other fuels to or from a foreign country, and is required to issue a Presidential Permit if such exportation would serve the national interest, under Executive Order 13337, and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 301.
124. Defendant John Kerry is the current Secretary of State and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of the State Department.
125. Defendant the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) permits and regulates the activities, industries, and sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

48

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 49 of 96

and Recovery Act. The stated mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment and ensure that the Federal Government’s actions to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available science. EPA sets CO2 standards for power plants, which account for our nation’s largest source of CO2 emissions at 37% of U.S. annual emissions. EPA has authorized, and continues to authorize, levels of carbon pollution, and activities that cause carbon pollution, which have dangerously disrupted and failed to preserve a habitable climate system for Plaintiffs.
a. EPA, through the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and the Office of Science and Technology, exempts oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (thereby easing regulatory burdens to oil and gas development), pursuant to authority granted by Congress, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
126. EPA abrogated its duty to implement its 1990 Plan, entitled “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate” to reduce CO2 emissions (a pollutant under its jurisdiction) in line with the best available science, and continues to allow CO2 emissions in excess of what is necessary for climate stability.
127. The Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015 is another example of EPA’s failure even to seek future CO2 emissions reductions at anything near the rate required to preserve a habitable climate system. The Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015 only affects emissions in the power sector. EPA states that, under the Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S. will be reduced by approximately 32% from 2005 levels. The annualized emissions reduction rate is thus approximately 1.25 percent per year, a reduction rate less that a fifth or that minimally required to preserve a habitable climate system.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

49

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 50 of 96
Moreover, nearly half of the EPA-asserted emission reduction was already realized in the 20052014 period, namely before the Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015 was finalized. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015 will allow fossil fuel-fired power units to continue to operate and will encourage increased investment in, utilization, and reliance on natural gas (whose principle constituent, methane, is a highly potential greenhouse gas). The Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015 does nothing to halt or otherwise diminish fossil fuel extraction, production, and exportation in the United States. The Plan moreover, does not even return U.S. emissions to 1990 levels. The Clean Power Plan of August 3, 2015, accordingly, is not an adequate or appropriate response to the climate crisis. In particular, it continues to allow CO2 emissions far in excess of what is minimally required to secure a stable climate system. By allowing emissions to continue at dangerous levels, EPA is jeopardizing the climate system on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend.
128. Defendant Gina McCarthy is the current Administrator of EPA and, in her official capacity, is responsible for all actions of EPA.
129. Defendants have regulated, authorized, and controlled the production, consumption, transportation, and combustion of fossil fuels across the U.S. through a complex network of regulations, programs, plans, and actions. Defendants retain authority to limit or to deny the production, consumption, transportation, and combustion of fossil fuels. The vastness of our nation’s fossil fuel enterprise renders it infeasible for Plaintiffs to challenge every instance of Defendants’ violations and, even if feasible, challenging each of Defendants’ actions would overwhelm the court. Nonetheless, Defendants’ liability arises in part from their aggregate actions. Those actions have substantially caused the present climate crisis. They form the

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

50

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 51 of 96

predicate for Plaintiffs’ allegations that current and new fossil fuel projects, to the extent they will further raise atmospheric CO2 levels, infringe upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
130. President Barack Obama, Director Christy Goldfuss, Director Shaun Donovan, Director Dr. John Holdren, Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary Sally Jewell, Secretary Anthony Foxx, Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary Penny Pritzker, Secretary Ashton Carter, Secretary John Kerry, and Administrator Gina McCarthy, through their respective offices, departments, and agencies, CEQ, OMB, OSTP, DOE, DOI, DOT, USDA, Commerce, DOD, State Department, and EPA, are primarily responsible for authorizing, permitting, and incentivizing fossil fuel production, consumption, transportation, and combustion, causing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase to at least 400 ppm and, thus, substantial harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants have failed to preserve a habitable climate system for present and future generations, and instead have created dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The affirmative aggregate acts and omissions of Defendants, jointly and severally, have violated and continue to violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property; Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal protection; Plaintiffs’ unenumerated inherent and inalienable natural rights; and Plaintiffs’ rights as beneficiaries of the federal public trust.
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Federal Government Has Known for Decades that CO2 Pollution Was Causing
Catastrophic Climate Change and that Massive Emission Reductions and a Nationwide Transition Away from Fossil Fuels Was Needed to Protect Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. 131. As early as 1899, scientists understood that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere cause heat retention on Earth and that a doubling or tripling of the CO2 content in 1899 would elevate Earth’s surface temperature by 46-48 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists also understood that

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

51

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 52 of 96

CO2 was the determinative factor for global heating. By the turn of the 20th Century, it was widely accepted in the scientific community that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could cause global climate change.
132. By 1965, the Executive Branch reported that anthropogenic pollutants, including CO2, impair our nation’s economy and its quality of life. In the 1965 Report of President Lyndon Johnson’s Scientific Advisors, “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” the White House confirmed that anthropogenic pollutants, including CO2, threaten “the health, longevity, livelihood, recreation, cleanliness and happiness of citizens who have no direct stake in their production, but cannot escape their influence.”
133. For fifty years, the Executive Branch has known that “pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air” through “the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.” The Executive Branch predicted that CO2 “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable th[r]ough local or even national efforts, could occur.” The Executive Branch warned that “carbon dioxide [gases] are accumulating in such large quantities that they may eventually produce marked climatic change.”
134. Fifty years ago, the Executive Branch described the marked climatic changes from CO2 pollution as including the melting of the Antarctic icecap, rising sea levels, warming oceans, acidifying waters, and additional releasing of CO2 and methane due to these events. It recommended reducing the heating of the Earth because of the extraordinary economic and human importance of our climate system.
135. Fifty years ago, the White House recommended that a tax system be implemented to tax polluters, including air pollution, “in proportion to their contribution to pollution” to incentivize pollution reduction.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

52

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 53 of 96

136. In 1969, Patrick Moynihan, then-Adviser to President Nixon, wrote a letter to White House counsel John Ehrlichman stating that CO2 pollution resulting from burning fossil fuels was a problem perhaps on the scale of “apocalyptic change,” threatening the loss of cities like Miami and Washington D.C. from sea level rise. The 1969 Moynihan Letter urged the Federal Government to immediately address this threat.
137. In 1978, Congress passed the National Climate Program Act “to establish a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications.” 15 U.S.C. § 2901(3).
138. On June 23, 1988, Plaintiff-Guardian Dr. James Hansen, then Director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies and a leading climate scientist in the Federal Government, testified before Congress that carbon pollution in the atmosphere was causing global warming and that impacts were already being observed.
139. Around the time of Dr. Hansen’s testimony, Congress directed its own offices and EPA to separately prepare reports on how to stabilize the global climate system and transition our country away from the use of fossil fuels.
140. In response, in December 1990, EPA submitted a report to Congress on “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate.” The EPA’s 1990 Report concluded: “responses to the greenhouse problem that are undertaken now will be felt for decades in the future, and lack of action now will similarly bequeath climate change to future generations.”
141. The EPA’s 1990 Report called for a 50% reduction in total U.S. CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2025. EPA explained that such reductions were the only pathway to achieve Congress’ goal of stopping global warming and stabilizing the climate system. The EPA’s 1990 Report also called for stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 350 ppm, the

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

53

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 54 of 96

current level of that time, a response to the congressional objective that total global warming not exceed 1.5° C above the preindustrial level. In its 1990 Report, EPA confirmed the Executive Branch’s findings from 1965 that CO2 was a “dangerous” pollutant.
142. In 1991, promptly following EPA’s 1990 Report, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (“OTA”) delivered to Congress its own report, “Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases.” Finding the United States was the single largest contributor to carbon pollution, the OTA’s 1991 Report developed “an energy conservation, energy-supply, and forest-management package that can achieve a 20- to 35-percent emissions reduction”	   through a mix of regulatory and market-based federal policies, in order to prevent global warming and climate change. OTA reported that, if its “package” was implemented, the Federal Government could lower CO2 emissions 35% from 1987 levels by 2015 and possibly save the Federal Government $20 billion per year. OTA determined that the 35% necessary reduction in CO2 emissions was only the beginning and further efforts in the 21st century would be required to stabilize our nation’s climate system.
143. The OTA’s 1991 Report stated that major reductions of CO2 would require significant new initiatives by the Federal Government and must be sustained over decades, even before all the scientific certainties are resolved: “[I]t is clear that the decision to limit emissions cannot await the time when the full impacts are evident. The lag time between emission of the gases and their full impact is on the order of decades to centuries; so too is the time needed to reverse any effects.” The OTA’s 1991 Report informed Congress that the level of emission reductions needed would require the country to wean itself from fossil fuels. OTA also urged that, while global warming was a problem on a global scale, U.S. leadership was critical to solving the problem and would seriously impact what happened around the globe.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

54

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 55 of 96

144. Concluding that actions would be required across the federal government, both the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report concluded that an essential component of reducing CO2 emissions was implementing a rising carbon tax.
145. On October 15, 1992, following receipt of the EPA and OTA Reports, the Senate ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”). The UNFCCC was executed to “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind.” The UNFCCC evidences an “overwhelming weight” of support for protection of the atmosphere under the norms and principles of intergenerational equity. UNFCCC, Art. 3. The minimal objective of the UNFCCC is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” UNFCCC, Art. 2.
146. The recommendations in the EPA’s 1990 Report (“Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate”) and the OTA’s 1991 Report (“Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases”) were never implemented. U.S. fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion all continued to accelerate at dangerous speeds for decades.
147. On December 7, 2009, nearly 17 years after the United States ratified the UNFCCC, the then-Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, issued EPA’s formal endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. The finding stated that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including, in particular, CO2, threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations. EPA issued its endangerment determination only

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

55

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 56 of 96

after being compelled to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
148. On January 2, 2011, EPA commenced partial regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.
149. More than two decades have passed since the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report were issued to Congress. Little has been accomplished in the way of phasing out emissions even though, as DOE admits in its strategic plan, “our responsibility to future generations is to eliminate most of our carbon emissions and transition to a sustainable energy future.”
150. During the last decade, Defendants have repeatedly stated that allowing “business as usual” CO2 emissions will imperil future generations with dangerous and unacceptable economic, social, and environmental risks. As Defendants have acknowledged, the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions, placing our nation on an increasingly costly, insecure, and environmentally dangerous path. B. In Spite of Knowing of the Severe Dangers Posed by Carbon Pollution, Defendants
Created and Enhanced the Dangers through Fossil Fuel Extraction, Production, Consumption, Transportation, and Exportation. 1. Despite the Known Danger, Defendants Caused Climate Instability and
Allowed U.S. Fossil Fuel Extraction, Production, Consumption, Transportation, and Exportation and Associated Emissions, to Dangerously Increase. 151. Between 1751 and 2014, the United States has been responsible for emitting 25.5% of the world’s cumulative CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from within its borders. Those emissions do not account for the embedded emissions in imported goods and materials that are consumed in the United States. Defendants enabled and permitted those cumulative emissions.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

56

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 57 of 96

152. In the last fifty years, total U.S. production and consumption of fossil fuels drastically increased.
153. Acting with deliberate indifference, Defendants have not implemented, or complied with, the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuels, stop global warming, and protect the climate system for future generations. Had Defendants followed the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report, CO2 emissions today would be reduced by 35% from 1987 levels. Instead, since 1991, Defendants have knowingly allowed at least an additional 130,466 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
154. Accordingly, instead of pursuing their own plans to slash emissions and reduce the risk of dangerous climate change, Defendants knowingly acted to exacerbate that risk and impose harm on the nation and on Plaintiffs.
155. Fossil fuel production in the U.S. climbed to 65.244 Quadrillion Btu in 2014, up substantially from such consumption in 1965.

Year 1965
1991
2014

U.S. Primary Energy Production by Source (Quadrillion Btu)

Coal 13.055

Natural Gas 15.775

Petroleum 16.521

Fossil Fuels 45.351

21.636

18.229

15.701

55.566

20.287

26.516

18.441

65.244

156. Fossil fuel energy consumption in the U.S. climbed to 80.366 Quadrillion Btu in 2014, up substantially from such consumption in 1965.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

57

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 58 of 96

Year 1965
1991
2014

U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source (Quadrillion Btu)

Coal 11.581

Natural Gas 15.769

Petroleum 23.246

Fossil Fuels 50.596

18.992

20.033

32.846

71.871

17.991

27.592

34.783

80.366

157. Fossil fuel emissions from energy consumption in the U.S. climbed to 5.4 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2014, up substantially from such emissions in 1965.

Year 1965 1991 2014

U.S. CO2 Emissions From Energy Consumption by Source (Million Metric Tons of CO2)

Coal 1,075

Natural Gas 828

Petroleum 1,483

Total Fossil Fuels 3,386

1,807

1,047

2,005

4,859

1,713

1,441

2,249

5,404

158. In 2011, fossil fuel combustion in the U.S. accounted for 94% of CO2 emissions. 159. The above emissions figures are from U.S. Government sources and, regrettably, underreport the amount of emissions that Defendants’ actions have substantially caused. EPA uses a sector-based emission inventory, upon which the other Defendants also rely. A sectorbased emission inventory accounts only for in-boundary emissions, and not those attributed to embedded emissions – emissions that account for the consumption of goods imported to the U.S. Defendants have not provided a national consumption-based inventory for CO2 emissions, which would include all embedded CO2 emissions for goods produced outside of the U.S. and consumed within the U.S.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

58

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 59 of 96
160. In 2012, the U.S. was the largest producer of natural gas, producing a total that year of 24,058 billion cubic feet. Also in 2012, the U.S. was second in “Total Primary Coal Production,” with 1,016,458 thousand short tons; second in “Total Primary Energy Production,” producing 79.212 Quadrillion Btu; and second in “Total Primary Energy Consumption,” consuming 95.058 Quadrillion Btu.
161. In 2014, according to the United States Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), the U.S. was the largest producer of total petroleum and other liquids with 13,973 thousand barrels produced per day.
162. The U.S. is by far the dominant producer of both shale gas and tight oil in the world. Also, the U.S. is one of four countries in the world that is producing commercial volumes of either natural gas from shale formations (shale gas) or crude oil from tight formations (tight oil).
163. The aggregate actions by Defendants in allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and emissions to increase in the U.S. since 1965 ignored science driven considerations of climate system protection. These aggregate actions were taken with deliberate indifference to the need for a national carbon budget or a national plan that includes an analysis of the cumulative impacts of Defendants’ actions upon the climate system and with respect to the fundamental rights of the present and future generations.
2. Defendants Have Allowed Excessive Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Public Lands.
164. In 2013, 25% of all fossil fuels extracted in the U.S. originated on federal public lands.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

59

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 60 of 96

165. In 2014, Defendant United States, through the President, DOI through BLM, DOD through Army Corps of Engineers, and EPA, authorized and oversaw the sale of 421 million tons of coal from federally-leased lands.
166. Since January 1990, DOI through BLM has leased 107 coal tracts, and associated coal production and revenues have grown. In 2015, the BLM reported that approximately 40% of all coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands. The United States has more coal deposits available than any other fossil fuel resource within its borders and, as of 2015, has 28% of the world’s coal reserves.
167. In 1985, there were 18,849 recorded federal producing oil and gas leases issued by DOI through BLM. By 2014 there were 23,657 recorded federal producing oil and gas leases issued by DOI through BLM.
168. As of June 2014, DOI’s BLM has authorized approximately 47,000 oil and gas leases on public lands, and approximately 95,000 oil and gas wells, with an additional 3,000 wells drilled annually by the oil and gas industry. The BLM oversees approximately 700 million subsurface acres of mineral estate. There are currently 36 million acres of federal land under lease for potential fossil fuel development in 33 states, pursuant to DOI’s BLM authorization.
169. From 2009-2011, the President and DOI through BLM processed more applications for permits to drill oil and gas, despite receiving far fewer applications, than the prior administration from 2006-2008.
170. Since 1985, DOI through BLM has issued between 1,486 to 6,617 permits annually to drill on federal lands. BLM has approved approximately 99% of all received applications for permits to drill, without taking into consideration that such permits would endanger Plaintiffs or increase Plaintiffs’ susceptibility to harm.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

60

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 61 of 96

3. Defendants Subsidize the Fossil Fuel Industry 171. In addition to leasing federal public lands for fossil fuel exploitation, the United States subsidizes, funds, and incentivizes fossil fuel production and consumption. 172. The United States subsidizes the fossil fuel industry by undervaluing royalty rates for federal public leasing, as well as through royalty relief resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of foregone revenue. U.S. royalty rates are consistently less than state royalty rates. For example, Texas’s royalty rate for leasing is double the federal percentage. 173. Through eleven federal fossil fuel production tax provisions, the United States incurs approximately $4.7 billion in annual revenue costs. Through a fossil fuel consumption subsidy, the United States incurs approximately $3.4 billion in annual revenue costs. 174. The United States provides approximately $5.1 billion per year in tax provision subsidies to support fossil-fuel exploration. 175. Two tax code provisions for the benefit of the fossil fuel enterprise were introduced in the early 1900s. These provisions are still in place today, resulting in substantial historic revenue losses. The “intangible drilling costs” provision was introduced in 1916, 26 U.S.C. § 263(c); in 1926 the “percentage depletion allowance” provision was introduced, 26 U.S.C. § 613. 176. According to the International Monetary Fund, the United States also supports the fossil fuel industry through post-tax consumer subsidies, which cover the negative externalities of fossil fuel consumption, in the amount of $502 billion per year. 177. The United States has supported fossil fuel development through overseas public financing, primarily through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, an agency of the Office of the President. For example, through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

61

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 62 of 96
Office of the President provided $14.8 billion in commitments for 78 transactions or projects in the petroleum sector, including 49 transactions in Latin American, 14 in Africa, six in Russia/FSU, five in the Middle East, and four in Asia. In fiscal year 2010, the Export-Import Bank of the United States provided approximately $3 billion in financing for the Papua New Guinea Liquid Natural Gas Project and $18 million for the Sangatta Surface Coal Mine in Indonesia. The Export-Import Bank of the United States also supported numerous coal and gas power plants.
178. The United States supports fossil fuel development by allowing the fossil fuel industry to avoid the true social cost of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Based on EPA’s social cost of carbon estimates, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have the potential to cause trillions of dollars in damages.
4. Defendants Recklessly Allow Interstate and International Transport of Fossil Fuels
179. Despite knowledge of the harm to Plaintiffs caused by the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, Defendants recklessly allow all interstate transport of fossil fuels. Despite knowledge of the harm to Plaintiffs caused by the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, Defendants recklessly authorize and/or permit the exportation and importation of fossil fuels and/or the facilities allowing the exports and imports of fossil fuels.
180. The Office of the President exercises permitting authority over the construction and operation of “pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, [and] petroleum products.” President Obama has failed to dismantle the U.S. fossil fuel edifice, adding an additional 100,000 miles to the 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines within the nation.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

62

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 63 of 96

181. A presidential exemption or federal license is required for all exports of crude oil to all destinations. In 2014, DOE oversaw the importation of 2,677,911 thousand barrels of crude oil, and Commerce through BIS authorized the exportation of 126,152 thousand barrels of crude oil, both increases from 2013.
182. No natural gas can be exported or imported without DOE authorization through FERC. FERC permits all LNG export terminals, including Jordan Cove LNG Terminal. Since 1995, the U.S. has imported 71,730 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas and exported 14,623 Bcf. In 2014, through DOE’s authorization, 51,824 thousand barrels of natural gas were imported and 257,948 thousand barrels of natural gas were exported.
183. Although in 1975 Congress authorized the Office of the President to restrict coal exports under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6212(a), the President has not exercised this authority to impose any significant export restrictions on coal. In fact, since 1990, the United States has promoted expanding coal exports. Coastal facilities through which coal may be exported are subject to federal approvals. In the Pacific Northwest alone, three new marine coal terminal projects are under various stages of federal permitting and review.
184. In 2011, the U.S. exported 107 million short tons of coal. In 2012, U.S. coal exports totaled 125 million short tons, the highest level of coal exports in over twenty years. Most recently, in 2014 the EIA reported that the U.S. imported 11 million short tons of coal and exported 97 million short tons of coal.
5. Defendants Recklessly Allow CO2 Pollution From Combustion of Fossil Fuels 185. Either directly or through the control of the Federal Government, Defendants authorize the combustion of all fossil fuels in the U.S., including coal, oil, and gas. Such

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

63

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 64 of 96
combustion occurs primarily in the energy and refineries sector, the transportation sector, and the manufacturing sector.
186. In 2012, petroleum accounted for 36.5% of the total primary energy consumption in the U.S., the single largest source of energy consumption. All U.S. petroleum refineries are permitted and regulated by EPA.
187. In 2013, fossil fuel combustion from various industrial processes accounted for approximately 15% of total CO2 emissions in the U.S. The EPA regulates these industrial processes.
188. The DOE establishes efficiency standards in buildings and appliances. These standards affect levels of energy consumption and combustion.
189. Since 1975, through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFE”) program, the United States has required manufacturers of vehicles sold in the U.S. to comply with fuel economy standards set by DOT. By controlling the fuel economy standards, Defendants have exercised control over CO2 emissions in the transportation sector.
190. From 1996-2014, through tax breaks, the United States incentivized the purchase, and thus increased demand for, vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds (“SUVs”). SUVs are less fuel-efficient and emit greater quantities of CO2 than lighter-weight vehicles.
191. In 2012, U.S. CO2 equivalent emissions from transportation were 1,837 million metric tons. In 2012, CO2 equivalent emissions from transportation of all vehicles in the U.S., including aviation, passenger cars, SUVs, heavy-duty trucks, freight rail, ships, and boats, were responsible for 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

64

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 65 of 96

C. The Jordan Cove LNG Exports 192. Enacted in 1992, Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act mandates the authorization
of natural gas imports from, or exports to, a nation with which the United States has a free trade agreement, without modification or delay, to any person applying for such authorization. Accordingly, under the Energy Policy Act, such natural gas imports and exports are automatically deemed consistent with the public interest. 15 U.S.C. § 717b(c).
193. Pursuant to Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act, on December 7, 2011, DOE, through the Office of Fossil Energy, issued DOE/FE Order No. 3041, granting long-term multicontract authorization to Jordan Cove Energy to export liquefied natural gas from Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, to free trade agreement nations. The DOE/FE Order authorizes the export of up to 13,140 Bcf of natural gas over 30 years. That quantity of natural gas would result in approximately 716.2 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, more than all of the CO2 emitted in 2012 by our nation’s largest emitter, Texas.
194. Jordan Cove will be operational in the first quarter of 2018, according to the Vice President of the Jordan Cove Energy Project, LLC, seven years after receiving its export authorization from DOE.
195. Pursuant to its authorization, the Jordan Cove LNG L.P. has given notice to DOE that, by the end of 2015, even before it has all final approvals from other agencies, it will enter into “binding long-term liquefaction tolling service agreements” for the full liquefaction capacity of the export terminal.
196. The sources of natural gas for Jordan Cove LNG’s exports authorized by DOE include suppliers operating in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S., western Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, northern Utah, northern Nevada, and northern California.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

65

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 66 of 96

197. In a letter of support for Jordan Cove LNG Terminal exports, Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado wrote to DOE and FERC: “Jordan Cove is of specific interest to Colorado . . . The project terminal is the only LNG facility on the west coast that would directly link Colorado to new energy markets via the Ruby Pipeline which originates in northwest Colorado and carries natural gas from that region to states further west of Colorado.”
198. Jordan Cove LNG will liquefy this natural gas for export at its proposed LNG export terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. Jordan Cove plans to build a new power plant to provide the additional electricity needed to liquefy the natural gas for export. The proposed 420-MW South Dunes Power Plant would be the second-largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon and would be the largest single source of CO2 emissions in Oregon in 2020 if it were built. The Jordan Cove South Dunes Power Plant would emit 51.6 million tons of CO2 over 30 years, or 1.72 million tons of CO2 per year.
199. According to the Energy Information Agency, liquefying natural gas requires the energy equivalent of 10% of the gas being exported.
200. The CO2 emissions resulting from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal exports and the South Dunes Power Plant emissions will harm Youth Plaintiffs who live in and around Oregon, as well as Future Generation Plaintiffs, by further endangering the climate system.
201. Youth Plaintiffs who live in Colorado are also adversely impacted by the opening up of an international market for the export of natural gas being extracted through hydraulic fracturing in the State of Colorado, and in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. generally, and then shipped by pipeline to Oregon for liquefaction and export abroad, ultimately to be burned, thereby causing additional CO2 emissions. The Youth Plaintiffs from Colorado and Oregon are harmed by the fossil fuel exploitation in and running through their states, which will be

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

66

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 67 of 96
connected by the Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline and 3,900 mile gas transmission system crossing the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. E. Current Science on Global Climate Change and Ocean Acidification
202. There is a scientific consensus that climate change endangers humanity and nature. Present climate change is a consequence of anthropogenic GHGs, primarily CO2, derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel emissions have led to an energy imbalance and consequent dangerous disruption of the climate system upon which our nation and Plaintiffs depend.
203. Atmospheric CO2 levels greater than 350 ppm cause this energy imbalance. That energy imbalance is equivalent to exploding more than 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year, throughout our planet.
204. The 2014 National Climate Assessment acknowledged that “[t]he cumulative weight of the scientific evidence . . . confirms that climate change is affecting the American people now, and that choices we make will affect our future and that of future generations.”
205. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act like a blanket over the Earth, trapping energy received from the sun. More GHG emissions in the atmosphere means that more energy is retained on Earth, with less being radiated back into space.
206. A substantial portion of every ton of CO2 emitted by humans persists in the atmosphere for as long as a millennium or more. Therefore, the impacts associated with past and current CO2 emissions will be borne by our children and future generations. Our nation will continue to warm in response to concentrations of CO2 from past emissions, as well as future emissions.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

67

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 68 of 96

207. The current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration caused by human-made climate change has already taken our country into the danger zone.
208. In 2013, the atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. The pre-industrial concentration was 280 ppm. Emissions must be rapidly and systematically reduced to well below the natural rate of draw-down into Earth’s forests, soils, and crust in order to restore energy balance and avoid crossing tipping points that set in motion disastrous impacts to human civilization and nature.
209. March of 2015 was the first month that the monthly global average concentration of CO2 was 400 ppm for an entire month, reaching levels that have not been seen for about three million years. CO2 concentrations have risen more than 120 ppm since pre-industrial times, with half of that rise occurring since 1980.
210. Earth has now warmed about 0.9°C above pre-industrial temperatures. That temperature is equivalent to the maximum temperatures of the Holocene era, the period of climate stability over the last 10,000 years that enabled human civilization to develop. Warming is expected to hit 1°C in 2015-16.
211. Civilization and the water sources, crops, foods, wildlife, marine life, and coastlines on which people depend have developed within a very narrow set of climatic conditions. It will be nearly impossible for Plaintiff to adapt to all of the current climate change impacts in the quick time-frame in which they will occur. The survival and well-being of Plaintiffs is significantly threatened by climate destabilization.
212. Cessation of Defendants’ actions in permitting, authorizing, or otherwise subsidizing new fossil fuel projects, along with cessation of government actions that limit carbon sequestration in soils and forests, could reduce the earth’s energy imbalance, the severity of our

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

68

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 69 of 96
disruption of the climate system, and the severity and pace of ocean acidification, within the lifetimes of Youth Plaintiffs. F. Impacts of Climate Change Across the Nation
213. Climate change already damaging human and natural systems, causing loss of life and pressing species to extinction. Unless arrested by government action informed by science, climate change will impose increasingly severe impacts on our nation and others, potentially to the point of collapse.
214. Recent scientific reports, for example, warn of the disintegration of both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the East Antarctic ice sheet, causing multi-meter sea-level rise. Such will devastate coastal regions, including much of the eastern seaboard. Millions of Americans and trillions of dollars in property damage will result. The risk of this devastation approaches certainty, unless fossil fuel emissions are rapidly phased out. The recent studies more fully that prior studies account for the potential for non-linear ice sheet melting, which could raise the sea level by 10 feet (or more) by mid-century.
215. If carbon pollution is not quickly abated, there is near scientific certainty that humanity will suffer sea level rise of several meters, submerging much of the eastern seaboard of the U.S., including Florida, as well as other low lying areas of Europe, the Far-East, and the Indian sub-continent.
216. Well-documented and observable impacts from the changes in Earth’s climate system highlight that the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration has already taken our nation into a danger zone. Increased CO2 emissions are already resulting not only in the warming of land surfaces, but also in the warming of oceans, increasing atmospheric moisture levels,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

69

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 70 of 96

rising global sea levels, and changing rainfall and atmospheric air circulation patterns that affect water and heat distribution.
217. One key observable change is the rapid increase in recorded surface temperatures. As a result of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activities, our nation has been warming as scientists predicted as early as 1965. The increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have raised global surface temperature by approximately 0.9° Celsius. In the last thirty years, Earth has been warming at a rate three times faster than that over the previous one hundred years. 2014 was the hottest on record, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”).
218. As expected, our country’s sea levels have also risen from glacial and ice cap melting, as well as from the thermal expansion of the ocean itself. Based on measurements taken from 1993 to 2010, sea levels have been rising at an average rate of 3.2 millimeters per year. Though sea levels rose about 170.18 millimeters over the last century, within the last decade, the rate of sea-level rise has nearly doubled. Rising seas have caused and will cause flooding in coastal and low-lying areas. The combination of rising sea levels and more severe storms creates conditions conducive to severe storm surges during high tides. In coastal communities this can overwhelm levees and sea walls, as witnessed during Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, and other major storms.
219. Today, rising sea levels are submerging low-lying lands, eroding beaches, converting wetlands to open water, exacerbating coastal flooding, and increasing the salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers. Between 1996 and 2011, twenty square miles of land were inundated by rising sea levels along the Atlantic coast. Coastal states, such as Maryland and Louisiana, are experiencing wetland loss due to rising sea levels. Scientists have predicted that

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

70

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 71 of 96

wetlands in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. cannot withstand a seven-millimeter per year rise in sea levels.
220. Similarly, climate change is already causing, and will continue to result in, more frequent, extreme, and costly weather events, such as floods and hurricanes. The annual number of major tropical storms and hurricanes has increased over the past 100 years in North America, coinciding with increasing temperatures in the Atlantic sea surface. Across the U.S., nine of the top ten years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990.
221. Changes in our country’s water cycle as a result of climate change also increase the potential for, and severity of, droughts. Even in arid regions, increased precipitation is likely to cause flash flooding, and will be followed by drought. These changes are already occurring. Droughts in parts of the Midwestern, Southeastern, and Southwestern U.S. have increased in frequency and severity within the last fifty years, coinciding with rising temperatures. Most of the recent heat waves can be attributed to human-caused climate disruption.
222. In higher altitude and latitude regions, including in mountainous areas, more precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow. With early snow melt occurring because of climate change, the reduction in snowpack can aggravate water supply problems. The snow cover extent of North America in June 2015 was 0.75 million square miles, the second lowest ever recorded behind June 2012, with 0.68 million square miles. The average area of North America covered by snow decreased by about 3,500 square miles per year between 1972 and 2013.
223. Arctic sea ice is declining precipitously and is expected to disappear completely in the coming decades. In 2013, Arctic sea ice extent for September was 700,000 square miles less than the 1981-2010 average for the same period. In 2014, the Arctic sea ice extent for

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

71

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 72 of 96

September was 463,000 square miles below average. In 2015, the maximum extent of the Arctic sea ice was the lowest in the satellite record. With less sea ice, less solar radiation is reflected back to space. Thus, the melting of ice is a positive feedback loop that amplifies warming.
224. Similarly, there has been an increase in permafrost temperatures and melting in Alaska. Substantial methane releases from thawing permafrost have already been observed in Alaska. Because much of the Alaskan permafrost overlays old peat bogs, the melting of the permafrost will release methane that will further increase global warming to even more dangerous levels. CO2 and methane released from thawing permafrost could contribute as much as 0.4°F to 0.6°F of warming by 2100.
225. Mountain glaciers are receding nationwide because of warming temperatures. In 2010, Glacier National Park in Montana had only twenty-five glaciers larger than twenty-five acres, as opposed to 150 such glaciers in 1850. In the Brooks Range of northern Alaska, all of the glaciers are in retreat and in southeastern Alaska, 98% are in retreat.
226. The melting of mountain glaciers is particularly serious in areas that rely on snow melt for irrigation and drinking water supply. In effect, a large snow pack or glacier acts as a supplemental reservoir or water tower, holding a great deal of water in the form of ice and snow through the winter and spring and releasing it in the summer when rainfall is lower or absent. The water systems of the western U.S., particularly in California and Oregon, heavily rely on this natural water storage. Yet as temperatures warm, not only will these areas lose this supplemental form of water storage, but severe flooding is also likely to increase as rainfall accelerates the melting of glaciers and snow packs.
227. Changes in water supply and water quality will also impact agriculture in the U.S. Increased heat and associated issues such as pests, crop diseases, and weather extremes, will all

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

72

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 73 of 96
impact crop and livestock production and quality. For example, anthropogenic climate change in the U.S. has produced warmer summers, enabling the mountain pine beetle to produce two generations of beetles in a single summer season, where it had previously only been able to produce one. In Alaska, the spruce beetle is maturing in one year when it had previously taken two years. The expansion of the forest beetle population has killed millions of hectares of trees across the U.S. and resulted in millions of dollars lost from decreased tourism revenues.
228. Agriculture is extremely susceptible to climate change, threatening food security. Higher temperatures generally reduce yields of desirable crops while promoting pest and weed proliferation. Climate change is predicted to decrease crop yields, increase crop prices, decrease nationwide calorie availability, and increase malnutrition.
229. Increased wildfires, shifting precipitation patterns, higher temperatures, and drought conditions also threaten forest industries and private property. In the U.S., 72,000 wildfires have been recorded, on average, each year since 1983. Nine of the ten years with the largest acreage burned have occurred in the fourteen years since 2000.
230. Increased CO2 emissions are having a severe negative impact on the health of our oceans. The oceans absorb approximately 25-30% of global CO2 emissions, resulting in a 30% increase in surface ocean acidity.
231. Ocean acidification has been rising at a geologically unprecedented rate. Currently, acidity is rising at least 100 times faster than at any other period during the last 100,000 years, threatening marine life, including human food sources. Organisms at risk include: corals, oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, abalone, crabs, geoducks, barnacles, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea stars, sea cucumbers, many common single-celled organisms and protists that act as

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

73

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 74 of 96

prey, and various forms of seaweed. The loss of some of these species can cause entire food webs to collapse.
232. By 2100, the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150% more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans have not experienced for more than 20 million years. In recent years, ocean acidification has already contributed to oyster reproductive failures impacting the Pacific Northwest’s shellfish industry, including oyster harvests in Coos Bay, Oregon. In addition, warmer water in regional estuaries, such as Puget Sound, may contribute to a higher incidence of harmful blooms of algae linked to paralytic shellfish poisoning and may result in adverse economic impacts from beach closures affecting recreational harvesting of shellfish, such as razor clams.
233. The rise in ocean acidity places coral reefs at considerable risk. Given that coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and economically important ecosystems, the impact of their loss cannot be overstated. Coral reefs provide shelter to a quarter of all marine species.
234. For major U.S. coral reefs, projections show extensive bleaching and dramatic loss of shallow coral cover occurring by 2050, and near complete loss by 2100. In Hawai‘i, coral cover is projected to decline from 38% (current coral cover) to approximately 5% by 2050, with further declines thereafter. In Florida and Puerto Rico, where present-day temperatures are already close to bleaching thresholds, coral is projected to disappear even faster. Given the severity of these impacts, it is inevitable that these effects would be felt across our country, and by future generations.
235. Climate change and ocean acidification are threatening the survival and wellbeing of plants, fish, wildlife, and biodiversity. As many as one in six species are threatened with

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

74

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 75 of 96
extinction due to climate change. Many more species that do not face extinction will face changes in abundance, distributions, and species interactions that cause adverse impacts for ecosystems and humans.
236. Salmon have historically been associated with human society and been a major contributor to the economy. Due to physical changes to freshwater ecosystems resulting from climate change, salmon populations have declined significantly across the country. The optimum water temperature for salmonids is 55° to 64° Fahrenheit; massive fish kills have occurred at or above 71° Fahrenheit. As of 2015, four salmon species in eighteen locations are on NOAA’s Endangered and Threatened Marine Species list; in five locales they are extinct. Scientists from the Salmon 2100 Project, housed in an EPA research laboratory in Oregon, have predicted that, despite current recovery efforts, salmon runs are not likely to sustain themselves through 2100 and other recovery strategies must be adopted to combat climatic shifts.
237. Fossil fuel extraction and combustion, and the resulting climate change, is already contributing to an increase in allergies, asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, heatrelated morbidity and mortality, food-borne diseases, injuries, toxic exposures, mental health and stress disorders, and neurological diseases and disorders. Climate change threatens the basic requirements for maintaining health like clean air, pure water, sufficient food, and adequate shelter. It also increases occurrence of infectious diseases.
238. In the U.S., 8,000 Americans have died from heat-related illnesses over the last three decades. There are now twice as many Lyme disease cases than were reported in 1991. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of requiring hospitalization. Longer

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

75

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 76 of 96
growing seasons allow for ragweed to produce pollen for a longer period, resulting in aggravated and prolonged allergies for millions of Americans.
239. Climate change also harms our national security, adding tension even in stable regions of the world. The DOD acknowledged the severity of climate change and its connections to national security when, in its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, climate change was classified as a “threat multiplier”: “Pentagon leaders have identified three main ways that climate change will affect security; accelerating instability in parts of the world wracked by drought, famine, and climate-related migrations; threatening U.S. military bases in arid Western states or on vulnerable coastlines; and increasing the need for U.S. forces to respond to major humanitarian disasters.”
240. By 2025, 40% of the world’s population will be living in countries experiencing significant water shortages, while sea-level rise could cause displacement of tens, or even hundreds, of millions of people. As a result, the U.S. will experience an additional need to accept immigrant and refugee populations as droughts increase and food production declines in other countries. Increased extreme weather events (such as hurricanes) will also present an increased strain on foreign aid provided by the U.S. and materially increased deployment of our country’s military forces.
241. Our nation is already observing significant impacts from the relatively small amount of warming that has occurred. These impacts constitute harbingers of far more dangerous changes to come. If unabated, continued GHG emissions, especially CO2, will initiate dynamic climate change and effects that spin out of control for Plaintiffs and future generations as the planet’s energy imbalance triggers amplifying feedbacks and the climate system and

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

76

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 77 of 96

biological system pass critical tipping points. Such changes would be irreversible on any time scale relevant to Plaintiffs and threaten their survival. G. Future National Climate Impacts Expected by 2050 and 2100
242. By 2050, Youth Plaintiffs will range in age from 43 to 55. 243. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be at 56 inches, if sea level rise occurs linearly. Based on that global projection, it is predicted that the U.S. will experience a 5665 inch sea level rise on the East Coast, up to a 76-87 inch sea level rise in areas surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, and a 47-65 inch sea level rise along the West Coast. Sea level rise could be even more catastrophic depending upon the rate of disintegration of the Antarctic ice sheets. Sea level rise will result in increased erosion and the loss of land. In Washington and Oregon, more than 140,000 acres of coastal lands lie within 40 inches in elevation of high tide. Among the most vulnerable parts of the coast is the heavily populated south Puget Sound region, which includes Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle, Washington. 244. New scientific evidence demonstrates that a non-linear process could trigger much greater sea level rise in a time frame of only 50 to 200 years. Experts now discern a “doubling time” for ice loss from West Antarctica of only 10 years, which means that the rate of ice loss has doubled in that period. 245. Global temperature increases are projected to increase by 9° Fahrenheit by 2100. In the U.S., the largest temperature increases are expected in the Mountain West and Northern regions consisting of 14° and 12° Fahrenheit, respectively. 246. In an EPA-funded study, “Ensemble Projections of Wildfire Activity and Carbonaceous Aerosol Concentrations Over the Western United States in the Mid-21st Century,” scientists estimated that, by 2050, wildfire activity is expected to double in the Southwest,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

77

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 78 of 96

Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains Forest, and the Eastern Rockies/Great Plains regions. In the western U.S., increases in temperature are projected to cause an increase of 54% in annual mean area burned by the 2050s relative to the present day. Changes in area burned are ecosystem dependent, with the forests of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains experiencing the greatest increases of 78% and 175%, respectively. Increased area burned results in near doubling of wildfire carbonaceous aerosol emissions by midcentury. The increase in wildfires and the associated emissions will have harmful impacts on health. Polar bears are just one of the species listed as endangered due to the impacts of a changing climate on their habitat. If emissions continue to rise at current rates throughout the 21st century, polar bears will likely be extirpated from much of their present-day range, including Alaska’s North Slope Borough. Sea ice, which polar bears depend upon to access their prey, is projected to disappear by 2100. Experts project there will be massive species extinction this century.
247. As human-induced warming is projected to raise average temperatures by about 6° to 11° Fahrenheit in this century, heat waves are expected to continue to increase in frequency, severity, and duration. For example, by the end of this century, if Defendants do not dramatically reduce emissions, the number of heat-wave days in Los Angeles is projected to double, and the number of heat-wave days in Chicago to quadruple, resulting in many more deaths.
248. While potential climate change impacts on water resources vary between regions, the western states will be particularly impacted by drought, reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants.
249. Warmer temperatures particularly impact the Pacific Northwest because reduced snowpack and earlier snowmelt alter the timing and amount of water supplies. By 2050,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

78

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 79 of 96
snowmelt is projected to shift three to four weeks earlier than the 20th century average. Since earlier snowmelt will result in warmer and shallower rivers and streams in summer and fall, diseases and parasites that tend to flourish in warmer water threaten to eliminate up to 40% of remaining Northwest salmon populations by 2050.
250. By the 2050s, biologists conservatively expect decreases in salmon populations will lead to 11% to 14% less annual carcass biomass available to bald eagles, our country’s national bird.
251. Defendants, through the Department of Homeland Security, have acknowledged mass human migrations are a potential impact of climate change, and have developed a mass migration plan. Estimates put the number of climate-induced migrants worldwide at 200 million by 2050.
252. Climate change projections estimate an increase in monetary damages associated with inland flooding across most of the contiguous U.S. Approximately 190,000 of our nation’s bridges are vulnerable to increased inland flooding caused by climate change, with adaptation costs estimated at $170 billion for the period from 2010 to 2050. In the Northwest, a region including Washington and parts of Oregon and Idaho, 56% of inland bridges are identified as vulnerable in the second half of the 21st Century.
253. In 2100 alone, adaptation costs associated with the 50-year, 24-hour storm moniker in 50 U.S. cities are estimated to range from $1.1 to $12 billion. Further, climate change is projected to result in $5.0 trillion in damage to coastal properties in the contiguous U.S. through 2100.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

79

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 80 of 96

254. Due to extreme temperature increases and unsuitable working conditions, our nation’s labor force may experience a drastic decline in labor hours and lost wages. In 2100, a projected 1.8 billion labor hours will be lost along with approximately $170 billion in lost wages.
255. By 2050, climate change is expected to add thousands of additional premature deaths per year nationally from combined ozone and particle health effects. Higher surface temperatures, especially in urban areas, promote the formation of ground–level ozone, which has adverse impacts on human health by irritating the respiratory system, reducing lung function, aggravating asthma, and inflaming and damaging cells that line the airways. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of high ozone pollution events by 50% to 100% by 2050.
F. Restoring the Energy Balance and Protecting Against a Dangerous Destabilized Climate System is Possible Based on Best Available Science 256. To protect the climate system for Plaintiffs and to prevent the substantial
impairment and depletion of our nation’s public trust assets, Defendants must act rapidly and effectively to phase out CO2 emissions so as to restore Earth’s energy balance. Absent that, the Federal Government must cease permitting and authorizing fossil fuel projects.
257. Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations must be reduced to below 350 ppm by the end of the century in order to limit the period of CO2 overshoot and stabilize our climate system.
258. To reduce global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm by the end of this century would require a near-term peak in CO2 emissions and a global reduction in CO2 emissions of at least 6% per year, alongside approximately 100 gigatons of carbon drawdown this century from global reforestation and improved agriculture. If emissions had peaked and reductions had begun in 2005, only a 3.5% per year global reduction would have been necessary to reach 350 ppm by 2100. If emission reductions are delayed until 2020, a 15% per year

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

80

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 81 of 96
reduction rate will be required to reach 350 ppm by 2100. If reductions are delayed beyond 2020, it might not be possible to return to 350 ppm until well after 2500.
259. Reducing the global atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm by the end of the century is also necessary in order to protect oceans and marine life. As a result of CO2 emissions, of which approximately 25% are absorbed by the oceans, humans, marine organisms, and ecosystems are already harmed and will increasingly be harmed by ocean acidification. To prevent the further impairment or depletion of the oceans and oceanic resources, it is imperative that Defendants take immediate measures to return atmospheric CO2 concentrations to below 350 ppm by the end of this century.
260. Targets that aim to limit atmospheric CO2 concentrations at or below 450 ppm are insufficient to avoid severe, irreversible damage as a result of ocean acidification and ocean warming. For example, the weight of recent evidence establishes that, at a prolonged 450 ppm level, coral reefs will become extremely rare, if not extinct, and at least half of coral-associated wildlife will become either rare or extinct. As a result, coral reef ecosystems will likely be reduced to crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals remaining.
261. Current actions by Defendants will not yield atmospheric CO2 levels of 350 ppm by the end of the century, are not based on any scientific standard, and are not adequate to prevent and remedy the degradation, diminution, or depletion of our country’s public trust resources.
262. The actions and omissions of Defendants make it extremely difficult for Plaintiffs to protect their vital natural systems and a livable world. Defendants must act immediately to restore energy balance and implement a plan to put the nation on a trajectory that, if adhered to

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

81

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 82 of 96
by other major emitters, will reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentrations to no more than 350 ppm by 2100. 	   H. The Federal Government’s Admissions of its Public Trustee Obligations
263. Defendants are trustees of national public natural resources. The national public natural resources include the air (atmosphere), seas, shores of the sea, water, and wildlife.
264. In 1968, Congress declared that the policy of this country is the Federal Government has an obligation to “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(1).
265. Congress also declared that the Federal Government is among the “trustees for natural resources” and directed Defendants to act as trustees, on behalf of the public beneficiaries, of all natural resources under their management and control. 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (f)(1); see also 33 U.S.C. § 2706 (Oil Pollution Act).
266. Pursuant to Congressional direction, the President designated the following federal agencies to act on behalf of the public as trustees for natural resources: the USDA, Commerce, DOD, DOE, and DOI. In this context, the term natural resources “means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled (referred to as ‘managed or controlled’) by the United States (including the resources of the exclusive economic zone).” 40 C.F.R. § 300.600(a); see 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (f)(2)(A).
267. According to the National Research Council, “fisheries within federal waters are held in public trust for the people of the United States.”

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

82

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 83 of 96
268. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, “the U.S. government holds ocean and coastal resources in the public trust – a special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the continued benefit of all Americans.”
269. According to NOAA, it “has an obligation to conserve, protect, and manage living marine resources in a way that ensures their continuation as functioning components of marine ecosystems, affords economic opportunities, and enhances the quality of life for the American public.” Further, NOAA affirmed that air is a natural resource under the public trust doctrine, and that the Federal Government shares jurisdiction with states over such public trust resources.
270. NOAA admits that one principle of the public trust doctrine is: “The public has fundamental rights and interests in natural resources such as the sea, the shore, and the air.”
271. The DOI admits that the public trust doctrine “now encompasses all natural resources,” and that natural resources include “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the U.S.” The DOI admits that the “Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce (delegated to NOAA), Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and any other Federal Land Managing Agency” are “Federal Trustees.”
272. The Department of State admitted “an obligation to current and future generations to take action” on climate change.
273. The United States has taken the position before federal courts that the Federal Government is a trustee over important national natural resources, including wildlife, and has both rights and obligations under the public trust doctrine.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

83

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 84 of 96
274. By way of example, in a 2010 complaint filed against British Petroleum, the United States alleged: “Natural resources under the trusteeship of the United States and other sovereigns have been injured, destroyed, or lost as a result of discharged oil and associated removal efforts. The discharged oil is harmful to natural resources exposed to the oil, including aquatic organisms, birds, wildlife, vegetation, and habitats.”
275. Since 1965, Defendants have known they each have mandatory duties to abate CO2 pollution from fossil fuels in order to stop global climate change: “The pervasive nature of pollution, its disregard of political boundaries including state lines, the national character of the technical, economic and political problems involved, and the recognized Federal responsibilities for administering vast public lands which can be changed by pollution, for carrying out large enterprises which can produce pollutants, for preserving and improving the nation’s natural resources, all make it mandatory that the Federal Government assume leadership and exert its influence in pollution abatement on a national scale.”
276. Defendants have exerted their influence, control, custodianship, and sovereignty over the polluted atmosphere and the exploitation of fossil fuels, but they have not abated the harm. Because Defendants have put Plaintiffs in danger and increased Plaintiffs’ susceptibility to harm, Defendants are responsible for taking action to protect Plaintiffs. In fact, Defendants have exacerbated the harm to our atmosphere in violation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim for Relief: Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment 277. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

84

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 85 of 96

278. The Constitution recognizes and preserves the fundamental right of citizens to be free from government actions that harm life, liberty, and property. These inherent and inalienable rights reflect the basic societal contract of the Constitution to protect citizens and posterity from government infringement upon basic freedoms and basic (or natural) rights. The rights to life, liberty, and property have evolved and continue to evolve as technological advances pose new threats to these fundamental rights and as new insights reveal discord between the Constitution’s central protections and the conduct of government. As set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution, these rights belong to present generations as well to our “Posterity” (or future generations).
279. Our nation’s climate system, including the atmosphere and oceans, is critical to Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property. Our nation’s climate system has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants. Defendants harmed our nation’s climate system with full appreciation of the results of their acts. Plaintiffs’ substantive Fifth Amendment rights have been infringed because Defendants directly caused atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above 350 ppm, thus dangerously interfering with a stable climate system for our country and Plaintiffs. The present dangerous CO2 levels and emissions, resulting in significant part from the affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of extraction, production, and consumption of fossil fuels, endanger Plaintiffs’ lives, liberties, and property.
280. For the past fifty years, Defendants have known about the danger to Plaintiffs’ safety created by carbon pollution. Acting with full appreciation of the consequences of their acts, Defendants knowingly caused, and continue to cause, dangerous interference with our atmosphere and climate system. Defendants have knowingly endangered Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

85

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 86 of 96

production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion, and by subsidizing and promoting this fossil fuel exploitation. All of these deliberate actions by Defendants have cumulatively resulted in dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2, which deprive Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
281. Plaintiffs are suffering harm by the dangerous aggregate actions and deliberate omissions of Defendants. Further, the dangerous interference by Defendants with a stable climate system is having such irreversible and catastrophic consequences within Plaintiffs’ lifetimes as to shock the conscience. Defendants’ dangerous conduct will have even worse consequences for future generations.
282. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have been and are infringing on Plaintiffs’ right to life by causing dangerous CO2 concentrations in our nation’s atmosphere and dangerous interference with our country’s stable climate system.
283. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have been and are infringing on Plaintiffs’ liberties by placing Plaintiffs in a position of danger with a destabilized climate system and dangerous levels of CO2 in our country’s atmosphere. Defendants’ aggregate acts of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been and are harming Plaintiffs’ dignity, including their capacity to provide for their basic human needs, safely raise families, practice their religious and spiritual beliefs, maintain their bodily integrity, and lead lives with access to clean air, water, shelter, and food.
284. After knowingly creating this dangerous situation for Plaintiffs, Defendants continue to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels, thereby violating Plaintiffs’ substantive Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

86

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 87 of 96
285. After placing Plaintiffs in a position of climate danger, Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the known danger they helped create and enhance. The danger of a destabilized climate system poses unusually serious risks of harm to Plaintiffs’ lives and their bodily integrity and dignity. The risks are so substantial as to shock the conscience. Defendants have had longstanding, actual knowledge of the serious risks of harm and have failed to take obvious steps to address that known, serious risk to which they have exposed Plaintiffs. With deliberate indifference, Defendants have not implemented their own plans for climate stabilization or any other comprehensive policy measures to effectively reduce CO2 emissions to levels that would adequately protect Plaintiffs from the dangerous situation of climate destabilization.
286. By exercising sovereignty over the air space and the federal public domain, by assuming authority and regulatory responsibility over fossil fuels, and by allowing and permitting fossil fuel production, consumption, and its associated CO2 pollution, Defendants have also assumed custodial responsibilities over the climate system within its jurisdiction and influence. In assuming control of our nation’s atmosphere, air space, the federal domain, fossil fuels, and climate system, Defendants have imposed severe limitations on Plaintiffs’ freedom to act on their own behalf to secure a stable climate system and, therefore, have a special relationship with Plaintiffs, and a concomitant duty of care to ensure their reasonable safety. By the affirmative exercise of their power to directly cause dangerous CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and dangerous interference with a stable climate system, Defendants have abrogated their duty of care to protect Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. In their custodial role, Defendants have restrained Plaintiffs’ liberties to care for themselves while failing

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

87

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 88 of 96

to secure their basic needs, including the reasonable safety of a stable climate system in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
287. The deliberate aggregate acts of Defendants have caused dangerous CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and dangerous interference with the climate system, causing present harm and threatening catastrophic irreversible harm, to Plaintiffs’ property. Indeed, Plaintiffs who reside on the coastal U.S. will experience a complete taking of their property interests by virtue of the sea level rise that is an incident of Defendants’ unlawful actions.
288. The United States, through DOE, is depriving Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to be free from the dangerous government acts, which infringe on their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, by requiring and giving approval for the exportation and importation of natural gas resources in the U.S. through section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The extraction, interstate transport, liquefaction, exportation, and ultimate combustion of U.S. natural gas, facilitated by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act, increase carbon pollution and exacerbate already-dangerous climate instability. Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs through DOE’s issuance of the section 201 permit for Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. The Energy Policy Act and DOE’s actions taken pursuant to the Energy Policy Act deprive Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
289. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel extraction, production, transportation, importation and exportation, and consumption, as described in this Complaint, are causing dangerous concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and a dangerous climate system, and irreversible harm to the natural systems critical to Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants cannot and do not operate to

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

88

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 89 of 96
secure a more compelling state interest than Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. Second Claim for Relief:
Violation of Equal Protection Principles Embedded in the Fifth Amendment
290. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above.
291. Defendants have violated the equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment, embedded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
292. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel production and consumption irreversibly discriminate against Plaintiffs’ exercise of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, and abridge central precepts of equality. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel production and consumption have caused and are causing irreversible climate change. As a result, the harm caused by Defendants has denied Plaintiffs the same protection of fundamental rights afforded to prior and present generations of adult citizens. The imposition of this disability on Plaintiffs serves only to disrespect and subordinate them. The principles of the Equal Protection Clause, which are embedded in the Due Process Clause, prohibit the Federal Government’s unjustified infringement of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from Defendants’ aggregate acts that destabilize our nation’s climate system whose protection is fundamental to Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. Because fundamental rights are at stake and are being infringed by the affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants, this Court must apply strict scrutiny for a denial of equal protection of the law.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

89

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 90 of 96
293. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection principles are profoundly connected but set forth distinct principles, which are implicated here. The reason why a stable climate system is inherent in our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property becomes more clear and compelling because of the grave and continuing harm to children that results from discriminatory laws and actions that prevent a stable climate system. The application of these dual principles requires strict scrutiny of Defendants’ discriminatory laws and actions.
294. Plaintiffs are separate suspect classes in need of extraordinary protection from the political process pursuant to the principles of Equal Protection. As evidenced by their affirmative aggregate acts, Defendants have a long history of deliberately discriminating against children and future generations in exerting their sovereign authority over our nation’s air space and federal fossil fuel resources for the economic benefit of present generations of adults. Plaintiffs are an insular minority with no voting rights and little, if any, political power or influence over Defendants and their actions concerning fossil fuels. Plaintiffs have immutable age characteristics that they cannot change.
295. Future generations do not have political power or influence, have immutable characteristics, and are also the insular minority.
296. Plaintiffs have no avenues of redress other than this Court, as Plaintiffs cannot challenge or alter the acts of Defendants concerning fossil fuels to secure Plaintiffs’ right to be free from the dangerous situation caused by the aggregate acts and omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs will disproportionately experience the irreversible and catastrophic impacts of an atmosphere and oceans containing dangerous levels of CO2 and a dangerous destabilized national

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

90

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 91 of 96

climate system. The adults living in our country today will not experience the full scope of catastrophic harms that will be experienced by Plaintiffs.
297. For purposes of the present action, Plaintiffs should be treated as protected classes because the overwhelming majority of harmful effects caused by the acts of Defendants will occur in the future. As Plaintiffs include citizens presently below the voting age and future generations, this Court should determine they must be treated as protected classes, and federal laws and actions that disproportionately discriminate against and endanger them must be invalidated.
298. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants reflect a de facto policy choice to favor influential and entrenched short-term fossil fuel energy interests to the long-term detriment of Plaintiff—precisely the sort of dysfunctional majoritarian outcome that our constitutional democratic system is designed to check. Such a check is especially appropriate here because our country will soon pass the point where Plaintiffs will no longer be able to secure equal protection of the laws and protection against an uninhabitable climate system.
299. The Energy Policy Act’s mandatory authorization for export and import of natural gas discriminates against Plaintiffs by exacerbating already-dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous climate system, the consequences of which will be irreversible and catastrophic in Plaintiffs’ lifetimes. The Energy Policy Act, section 201, creates a disproportionate impact on suspect classes. Historical evidence demonstrates Defendants’ discriminatory and intentional acts against children and future generations in order to foster the short-term economic and energy interests of other classes, including corporations. The Energy Policy Act unconstitutionally deprives minor children and future generations of equal protection of the law because the full impacts of dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels and a dangerous climate system, resulting from the

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

91

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 92 of 96
U.S. government-authorized natural gas exports and imports, will be uniquely experienced by minor children, including Youth Plaintiffs, and for millennia by future generations.
300. Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act violates Plaintiffs’ rights of equal protection under the law.
301. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants unconstitutionally favor the present, temporary economic benefits of certain citizens, especially corporations, over Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. Third Claim for Relief:
The Unenumerated Rights Preserved for the People by the Ninth Amendment 302. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above. 303. Protecting the vital natural systems of our nation for present and future generations is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. Without a stable climate system, neither liberty nor justice exist. Our nation’s obligation to protect vital natural systems for Posterity has been recognized throughout American history, particularly through our country’s conservation legislation. Our nation’s founders intended that the federal government would have both the authority and the responsibility to be a steward of our country’s essential natural resources. This stewardship is clear from the delegation of powers to manage lands and the conveyed authority to address major challenges facing our nation as a whole. Among the implicit liberties protected from government intrusion by the Ninth Amendment is the right to be sustained by our country’s vital natural systems, including our climate system.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

92

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 93 of 96

304. Fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, therefore, is the implied right to a stable climate system and an atmosphere and oceans that are free from dangerous levels of anthropogenic CO2. Plaintiffs hold these inherent, inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights.
305. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have unconstitutionally caused, and continue to materially contribute to, dangerous levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 and a destabilized climate system.
306. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, on Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. Fourth Claim for Relief:
Violation of the Public Trust Doctrine 307. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above. 308. Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of rights under the public trust doctrine, rights that are secured by the Ninth Amendment and embodied in the reserved powers doctrines of the Tenth Amendment and the Vesting, Nobility, and Posterity Clauses of the Constitution. These rights protect the rights of present and future generations to those essential natural resources that are of public concern to the citizens of our nation. These vital natural resources include at least the air (atmosphere), water, seas, the shores of the sea, and wildlife. The overarching public trust resource is our country’s life-sustaining climate system, which encompasses our atmosphere, waters, oceans, and biosphere. Defendants must take affirmative steps to protect those trust resources. 309. As sovereign trustees, Defendants have a duty to refrain from “substantial impairment” of these essential natural resources. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

93

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 94 of 96
the areas of fossil fuel production and consumption have unconstitutionally caused, and continue to cause, substantial impairment to the essential public trust resources. Defendants have failed in their duty of care to safeguard the interests of Plaintiffs as the present and future beneficiaries of the public trust. Such abdication of duty abrogates the ability of succeeding members of the Executive Branch and Congress to provide for the survival and welfare of our citizens and to promote the endurance of our nation.
310. As sovereign trustees, the affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants are unconstitutional and in contravention of their duty to hold the atmosphere and other public trust resources in trust. Instead, Defendants have alienated substantial portions of the atmosphere in favor of the interests of private parties so that these private parties can treat our nation’s atmosphere as a dump for their carbon emissions. Defendants have failed in their duty of care as trustees to manage the atmosphere in the best interests of the present and future beneficiaries of the trust property, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs. Such abdication of duty abrogates the sovereign powers of succeeding members of the Executive Branch and Congress to provide for the survival and welfare of our Nation’s citizens and to promote the endurance of our Nation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
“[W]hen the rights of persons are violated, ‘the Constitution requires redress by the courts,’ notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decisionmaking.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip. op. at 24 (2015) (internal citations omitted). 1. Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by causing dangerous CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and dangerous government interference with a stable climate system;

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

94

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 95 of 96

2. Enjoin Defendants from further violations of the Constitution underlying each claim for relief; 3. Declare the Energy Policy Act, Section 201, unconstitutional on its face; 4. Declare DOE/FE Order No. 3041, granting long-term multi-contract authorization to Jordan Cove Energy, unconstitutional as applied and set it aside; 5. Declare Defendants’ public trust violations and enjoin Defendants from violating the public trust doctrine underlying each claim for relief; 6. Order Defendants to prepare a consumption-based inventory of U.S. CO2 emissions; 7. Order Defendants to prepare and implement a an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and will depend; 8. Retain jurisdiction over this action to monitor and enforce Defendants’ compliance with the national remedial plan and all associated orders of this Court; and 9. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of August, 2015,

s/ Julia A. Olson

	   	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

JULIA OLSON (OR Bar 062230)

JuliaAOlson@gmail.com

WILD EARTH ADVOCATES

1216 Lincoln St.

Eugene, OR 97401

Tel: (415) 786-4825

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

95

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 1 Filed 08/12/15 Page 96 of 96
PHILIP L. GREGORY (applicant pro hac vice) pgregory@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577
DANIEL M. GALPERN (OR Bar 061950) dan.galpern@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL M. GALPERN 1641 Oak Street Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 968-7164
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

96

 
 Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 100

JULIA OLSON (OR Bar 062230) JuliaAOlson@gmail.com WILD EARTH ADVOCATES 1216 Lincoln St. Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (415) 786-4825
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT jcotchett@cpmlegal.com PHILIP L. GREGORY (applicant pro hac vice) pgregory@cpmlegal.com PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577
DANIEL M. GALPERN (OR Bar 061950) dan.galpern@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL M. GALPERN 1641 Oak Street Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 968-7164
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON – EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; ALEXANDER LOZNAK; JACOB LEBEL; ZEALAND B., through his Guardian Kimberly Pash-Bell; AVERY M., through her Guardian Holly McRae; SAHARA V., through her Guardian Toña Aguilar; KIRAN ISAAC OOMMEN; TIA MARIE HATTON; ISAAC V., through his Guardian Pamela Vergun; MIKO V., through her Guardian Pamela Vergun; HAZEL V., through her Guardian Margo Van Ummersen; SOPHIE K., through

Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Constitutional Rights and Public Trust Action (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 100
her Guardian Dr. James Hansen; JAIME B., through her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai; JOURNEY Z., through his Guardian Erika Schneider; VICTORIA B., through her Guardian Daisy Calderon; NATHANIEL B., through his Guardian Sharon Baring; AJI P., through his Guardian Helaina Piper; LEVI D., through his Guardian Leigh-Ann Draheim; JAYDEN F., through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin; NICHOLAS V., through his Guardian Marie Venner; EARTH GUARDIANS, a nonprofit organization; and FUTURE GENERATIONS, through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BARACK OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; The OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; CHRISTY GOLDFUSS, in her official capacity as Director of Council on Environmental Quality; SHAUN DONOVAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and Budget; DR. JOHN HOLDREN, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DR. ERNEST MONIZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PENNY PRITZKER, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ASHTON CARTER, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; The UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; JOHN KERRY, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; The UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; GINA
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 100 MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as Administrator of the EPA;
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 100

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1	  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE................................................................................................... 5	  

PLAINTIFFS................................................................................................................................. 6	  

DEFENDANTS ........................................................................................................................... 36	  

STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................... 51	  

I.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT

CARBON DIOXIDE POLLUTION WAS CAUSING CATASTROPHIC

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT MASSIVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND A

NATION-WIDE TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS WAS NEEDED

TO PROTECT PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS............................ 51

II. I N S PITE OF K NOWING OF THE S EVERE D ANGERS P OSED BY C ARBON POLLUTION, DEFENDANTS CREATED AND ENHANCED THE DANGERS THROUGH FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTION, PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND EXPORTATION ...................................................... 56

A. Despite the Known Danger, Defendants Caused Climate Instability and Allowed U.S. Fossil Fuel Extraction, Production, Consumption, Transportation, and Exportation and Associated Emissions, to Dangerously Increase.............................................................................. 56

B. Defendants Have Allowed Excessive Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Public Lands. ............................................................................. 59

C. Defendants Subsidize the Fossil Fuel Industry .................................... 60

D. Defendants Recklessly Allow Interstate and International Transport of Fossil Fuels .......................................................................................... 62

E. Defendants Recklessly Allow CO2 Pollution From Combustion of Fossil Fuels............................................................................................... 63

III. THE JORDAN COVE LNG EXPORTS ............................................................. 64

IV. C URRENT S CIENCE ON G LOBAL C LIMATE C HANGE AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ................................................................................... 66

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE i RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 100
V. E X IST IN G I M P A C T S O F C L IM A T E C H A N G E A C R O SS T H E N A T IO N ........ 68 VI. FUTURE NATIONAL CLIMATE IMPACTS EXPECTED BY 2050 AND 2100
............................................................................................................................... 76 VII. R ESTORING THE E NERGY B ALANCE AND P ROTECTING A GAINST A
DANGEROUS DESTABILIZED CLIMATE SYSTEM IS POSSIBLE BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ............................................................................ 80 VIII. T HE F EDERAL G OVERNMENT’ S A DMISSIONS OF ITS P UBLIC T RUSTEE OBLIGATIONS .................................................................................................... 81 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 84	   First Claim for Relief:	  	   VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT........ 84	   Second Claim for Relief:	  	   VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES	   EMBEDDED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ....................................................................... 88	   Third Claim for Relief:	  	   THE UNENUMERATED RIGHTS PRESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE NINTH AMENDMENT ........................................................................................................................... 91	   Fourth Claim for Relief:	  	   VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE .......................................................... 92	   PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................ 94	  
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE ii RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 100
INTRODUCTION 1. For over fifty years, the United States of America1 has known that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their wellbeing and survival. Defendants also knew the harmful impacts of their actions would significantly endanger Plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia. Despite this knowledge, Defendants continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels. Specifically, Department of Energy has approved the export of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. This export terminal will be the largest projected source of CO2 emissions in Oregon, and will significantly increase the harm that Defendants’ actions are causing to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ have long-standing knowledge of the cumulative danger that their aggregate actions are causing Plaintiffs. The Jordan Cove project enhances the cumulative danger caused by Defendants affirmative aggregate actions. 2. In a 1965 White House Report on “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” for example, the President’s Science Advisory Committee stated: “The land, water, air and living things of the United States are a heritage of the whole nation. They need to be protected for the benefit of all Americans, both now and in the future. The continued strength and welfare of our nation depend on the quantity and quality of our resources and on the quality of the environment in which our people live.” 3. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in 1990 and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1991 prepared plans to significantly reduce
1 Throughout this Complaint, the terms “United States” or “Federal Government” refer to FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 1 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 100
our nation’s CO2 emissions, stop global warming, and stabilize the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations. Both the EPA’s 1990 Plan, “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate,” and the OTA’s 1991 Plan, “Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases,” were prepared at the request of, and submitted to, Congress. Despite the imminent dangers identified in both the EPA’s 1990 Plan and the OTA 1991 Plan, Defendants never implemented either plan.
4. Since 1990, Defendants have known that CO2 levels in the atmosphere must be stabilized at or below 350 parts per million (“ppm”) in order to protect our nation’s climate system and that a swift transition away from fossil fuels was necessary. Twenty-five years later, today’s best science confirms that 350 ppm is the maximum safe level of atmospheric CO2 required to restore a stable climate system.
5. Defendants have for decades ignored experts they commissioned to evaluate the danger to our Nation, as well as their own plans for stopping the dangerous destabilization of the climate system. Specifically, Defendants have known of the unusually dangerous risks of harm to human life, liberty, and property that would be caused by continued fossil fuel burning. Instead, Defendants have willfully ignored this impending harm. By their exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, they permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, and so, by and through their aggregate actions and omissions, Defendants deliberately allowed atmospheric CO2 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history, resulting in a dangerous destabilizing climate system for our country and these Plaintiffs.
6. The 1965 Report and the 1990 and 1991 Plans are only examples of the extensive knowledge Defendants have had about the dangers they caused to present and future generations,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 2 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 100
including Plaintiffs. Since 1965, numerous other studies and reports also have informed Defendants of the significant harms that would be caused if Defendants did not reduce reliance on carbon-intense energy from fossil fuels and rapidly transition to carbon-free energy. These studies and reports concluded that continued fossil fuel dependency would drive the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to dangerous levels that would destabilize the climate system.
7. Yet, rather than implement a rational course of effective action to phase out carbon pollution, Defendants have continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction, development, consumption and exportation – activities producing enormous quantities of CO2 emissions that have substantially caused or substantially contributed to the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Through its policies and practices, the Federal Government bears a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country for exposing Plaintiffs to the present dangerous atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact, the United States is responsible for more than a quarter of global historic cumulative CO2 emissions.
8. The present level of CO2 and its warming, both realized and latent, are already in the zone of danger. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the peril they knowingly created. As a result, Defendants have infringed on Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. Defendants’ acts also discriminate against these young citizens, who will disproportionately experience the destabilized climate system in our country.
9. By and through natural gas imports and exports, the Federal Government and the Department of Energy are further enhancing the dangerous climate situation, without due process and in violation of Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection. As noted above, the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, is the sole LNG export terminal in the Northwest and Oregon’s
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 3 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 9 of 100
largest projected source of CO2 emissions. The Department of Energy’s approval of LNG exports from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal heightens the danger to Plaintiffs that Defendants’ actions in the aggregate have created. The result is an unconstitutional violation of Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights.
10. Plaintiffs are especially vulnerable to the dangerous situation that Defendants have substantially caused. This Court is Plaintiffs’ last resort to ensure their reasonable safety, and that of our Posterity, from the harm perpetrated by Defendants. There is an extremely limited amount of time to preserve a habitable climate system for our country; otherwise, the warming of our nation will become locked in or rendered increasingly severe. Recent scientific studies conclude that our country is now in a period of “carbon overshoot,” with early consequences that are already threatening and that will, in the short term, rise to unbearable unless Defendants take immediate action to rapidly abate fossil fuel emissions and restore energy balance at a lower atmospheric CO2 concentration.
11. The current policies, plans, and practices of the Federal Government will not achieve even a proportionate share of the fossil fuel emission reductions that must occur within this century. To the contrary, Defendants’ policies, plans, and practices permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel exploitation and consumption, and thus press our climate system further toward irretrievable impacts. A key recent instance is the government’s approval of LNG exports from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal. If Defendants continue to promote such development and further delay rapid, systematic annual emissions reductions, they will ensure a far less hospitable climate system, with far-reaching damage to our nation and Plaintiffs alike.
12. This Court should order Defendants to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 4 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 10 of 100
such other action as necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system. Plaintiffs come before this Court to secure their fundamental rights under the Constitution, before it is too late.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. It is authorized by Article III, Section 2, which extends the federal judicial power to all cases arising in equity under the Constitution. “The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip. op. at 10 (2015). That grant of equitable jurisdiction requires Article III courts to apply the underlying principles of the Constitution to new circumstances unforeseen by the framers, such as the irreversible destruction of the natural heritage of our whole nation. An actual controversy has arisen and exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants because Defendants have placed Plaintiffs in a dangerous situation, continue to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and have abrogated their duty of care to ensure Plaintiffs’ reasonable safety, among other violations of law. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the harms herein, which are of a continuing nature and which, if left unresolved, will be irreversible. 14. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (creation of a remedy), and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (further relief) as this action arises under the laws of the United States. 15. Venue lies in this judicial district by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). The majority of Youth Plaintiffs (as hereinafter defined) reside in this judicial district, some Defendants have offices in this judicial district, and the events, omissions, and harms giving rise to the claims
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 5 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 11 of 100
herein arise in substantial part in this judicial district. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2, divisional venue lies in the Eugene Division because the largest number of Youth Plaintiffs reside in this division of the judicial district, and events, omissions, and harms giving rise to the claims herein arise in substantial part in this division of the judicial district.
PLAINTIFFS 16. Plaintiff Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana is a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Kelsey is 19 years old and was born and raised in Oregon, the state where she hopes to work, grow food, recreate, have a family, and raise children. During the fall of 2014, Kelsey walked 1,600 miles from Nebraska to Washington D.C. in the Great March for Climate Action to raise awareness about the climate crisis. Kelsey is harmed by Defendants’ actions and inactions regarding carbon pollution and the resulting climate destabilization and ocean acidification. Specifically, Defendants’ actions have caused damage to and continue to threaten the resources on which she relies for her survival and wellbeing. Kelsey depends on the freshwaters of Oregon for drinking, hygiene, and recreation. She drinks the freshwater that flows from the McKenzie River and drinks from springs in the Oregon Cascades on hiking, canoeing, and backpacking trips. Kelsey also depends upon the marine and estuarine waters of Oregon as a food source and a place of recreation and vacationing. Kelsey spends time along the Oregon coast in places like Yachats and Florence and enjoys playing on the beach, tidepooling, and observing unique marine animals. An important part of Kelsey’s diet includes food that comes from the marine waters and freshwater rivers, including salmon, cod, tuna, clams, mussels, and crab. Kelsey also depends upon food grown in Oregon both by small farmers in the Willamette Valley and by her family in their garden.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 6 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 12 of 100
17. The current and projected drought and lack of snow caused by Defendants are already harming all of the places Kelsey enjoys visiting, as well as her drinking water, and her food sources—including wild salmon. During the summer of 2015, record-setting heat and low water levels killed salmon in Oregon’s rivers. In the coming decades, Kelsey will suffer even greater harm from the impacts of ocean acidification and rising sea levels on the marine life she eats for sustenance, and on the beaches, tidepools, and other places she visits along the Oregon coast.
18. In addition to coastal recreation, Kelsey enjoys snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snow camping. Warmer winters and declining snowpack make it harder for her to enjoy these winter activities. Kelsey also enjoys rafting, swimming in rivers, snorkeling on rivers, canoeing on lakes, hiking, rock-climbing, and backpacking in the warmer seasons. Increasing summer temperatures, and the resulting algal blooms in the lakes Kelsey visits harm her ability to enjoy these activities and prevent her from drinking the water. Intense wildfires, which also threaten Kelsey’s ability to enjoy summer activities. Kelsey has had to abandon camping trips because of nearby wildfires.
19. Defendants have caused psychological and emotional harm to Kelsey as a result of her fear of a changing climate, her knowledge of the impacts that will occur in her lifetime, and her knowledge that Defendants are continuing to cause harms that threaten her life and wellbeing. As a result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, Kelsey believes that she will not be able to continue to do all of the things described in this Complaint for her life, health, and enjoyment, nor will she one day be able to share those experiences with her children.
20. Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., by and through his guardian and mother Tamara Roske-Martinez, is a 15-year-old citizen of the U.S. who lives in Boulder, Colorado. For
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 7 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 13 of 100
nine years, Xiuhtezcatl has advocated for reductions in CO2 emissions before local, state, federal, and international governmental bodies, including three speeches before the United Nations, and service on the Presidential Youth Council to advise the President of the United States. As the youth director for his organization Earth Guardians, Xiuhtezcatl uses music, dance, art, videos, speeches, testimony, and youth organizing to urge his governments to stop taking actions that promote fossil fuel exploitation and result in dangerous climate change.
21. Of Aztec descent, Xiuhtezcatl engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth. Xiuhtezcatl has suffered harm to his spiritual and cultural practices from Defendants’ actions. Climate change also harms Xiuhtezcatl’s personal safety, property, and recreational interests through the resulting increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, drought, declining snowpack, pine-beetle infested forests, and extreme flooding near his home in Colorado. Xiuhtezcatl’s home, including the forests that he relies upon for his spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, will continue to die and burn as climate change worsens. Water will become increasingly scarce, adversely impacting every aspect of his life.
22. Xiuhtezcatl is also harmed by the adverse impacts to his air and water quality, and his health that result from the exploitation of fossil fuels in Colorado. Under authorizations by the Department of Energy, natural gas extracted through fracking in Colorado will be transported by pipeline to Oregon, liquefied at the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, and then shipped overseas for combustion. The LNG exports from Coos Bay, Oregon will harm Xiuhtezcatl because the export of natural gas enhances demand for natural gas extraction in Colorado and increases the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 8 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 14 of 100
23. Plaintiff Alexander Loznak is a citizen of the U.S. and lives in the unincorporated area of Kellogg, Oregon. He is 18 years old and graduated from Roseburg High School in June 2015. Alex is experiencing harm caused by Defendants. For example, Alex is gravely concerned about how his life and his family’s farm will continue to be affected by climate change.
24. Alex lives on his family’s 570-acre farm, the Martha A. Maupin Century Farm (“Maupin Century Farm”), located along the Umpqua River. His great, great, great, great grandmother, Martha Poindexter Maupin, founded the farm in 1868 (she was one of the first women in Oregon to own a ranch) after arriving in the area by way of the Oregon Trail. The Maupin Century Farm is Alex’s intellectual and spiritual base and a foundational piece of his life and heritage, and his identity and wellbeing depend on its preservation and protection. However, the drought conditions, unusually hot temperatures, and climate-induced migration of forest species are harming and will increasingly harm Alex’s use and enjoyment of the Maupin Century Farm.
25. Alex’s ability to fish on local rivers is harmed by drought and hot temperatures. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline, which would connect to the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal at Coos Bay, would be located only about 30 miles from the Maupin Century Farm, in a forest where Alex recreates. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline would cross bodies of water at 400 different locations in Oregon, including two places on the South Umpqua River where Alex recreates. Alex has walked along the pipeline route and has seen the old growth trees that will be logged and the special rivers that will be impacted in order to deliver natural gas to what would be the largest, most-polluting facility and power plant in Oregon, solely built to liquefy natural gas for export and ultimate combustion.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 9 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 15 of 100
26. The Maupin Century Farm is also an important source of revenue and food for Alex and his family. On the Farm, Alex and his family grow plum trees and hazelnut trees, raise chickens and grass-fed cows, and have a large garden growing many of the fruits and vegetables that his family consumes. The record-setting heat waves and drought in Oregon adversely impact both Alex’s life and the Farm, especially their hazelnut orchard. The heat waves and drought harm Alex’s ability to work outside on the Farm during the summer months.
27. The Maupin Century Farm is home to many different species of wildlife, including deer, bears, mountain lions, and birds, which Alex enjoys seeing. Alex and his family hunt deer, elk, and wild turkeys to provide food. Each of these species of wildlife is adversely impacted by climate change caused by Defendants. Other food sources for Alex, including crab and seafood, are negatively impacted by ocean acidification, warming, and sea level rise caused by Defendants.
28. The health and bodily integrity of his family and their Farm, which they rely on for food and as a source of income—as well as for their personal wellbeing—increasingly are harmed by climate change caused by Defendants. The Maupin Century Farm has been passed from generation to generation in Alex’s family, and in many ways Alex’s future depends on that family farm. He would like to reside at, raise children on, and retire to the Maupin Century Farm, but he is concerned about how it will be further damaged by climate change caused by Defendants. Wildfires, more common and more destructive due to warmer summers and drought conditions, are increasingly common in Southern Oregon. The area where Alex lives is frequently smoky due to nearby wildfires during the warmer months. Additionally, Alex is allergic to pollen and suffers worse in unseasonably warm years. He also suffers from asthma,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 10 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 16 of 100
which is worse in the increasingly smoky summer months. Alex’s allergies and asthma will worsen as climate change caused by Defendants worsens.
29. For recreation, Alex enjoys activities in the snow in Oregon and also hiking in Northern Washington and Glacier National Park, where he has seen the glaciers receding due to climate change caused by Defendants. Alex plans to return to Montana, and he also plans to travel to Alaska, and his recreational and aesthetic interests are harmed as the glaciers continue to disappear before he can visit them.
30. Alex has taken individual action to try to protect the climate system by driving an efficient hybrid car, by starting a Climate Change Club at Roseburg High School with the goal of installing solar panels on the school’s roof, by starting the League of Umpqua Climate Youth (“LUCY”), and by lobbying his state legislators to pass comprehensive climate legislation.
31. Plaintiff Jacob Lebel is an 18-year-old citizen of the U.S. residing in Roseburg, Oregon. In 2000, Jacob and his family immigrated to Oregon from Quebec, Canada, attracted by the state’s pristine landscape and temperate weather. Since then, Jacob’s family has established Rose Hill Farms, a diverse, organically managed farm, as well as a thriving local medical practice at White Oak Medical Clinic. Jacob grew up working on Rose Hill Farms, where he currently spends most of his time. Jacob intends to continue his use and enjoyment of Rose Hill Farms for these purposes and for his vocational career in the future. Jacob derives educational, inspirational, spiritual, and other benefits from his work at the Farm. Jacob is harmed and will continue to be harmed by Defendants’ actions described herein and the climate change impacts to the Farm, including the deterioration of the Farm environment, rising temperatures, and a dwindling water supply.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 11 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 17 of 100
32. In the summer, Rose Hill Farms depends on home-dug ponds to irrigate a large garden and three greenhouses, as well as several orchards of more than four hundred fruit and nut trees. The recent long, dry summers, droughts, and heat waves reduced, and are currently reducing, the supply of water in the ponds, just as the water needs of the crops and trees have increased. As climate impacts continue to grow in severity, so will this water shortage. Furthermore, experts predict that large destructive wildfires, aggravated by record-low snowpacks and consistently drier and hotter conditions, will become increasingly common in Oregon. A wildfire would destroy the fourteen years of work that have gone into making the Rose Hill Farms. In addition to the farm structures, orchards, greenhouses, and pastures at risk from a fire, approximately 70 percent of the 350 acres of land owned by Jacob’s family is mixed conifer forest which they manage sustainably and which represents an enormous investment. Already, Jacob and his family are required to invest resources to install an irrigation system in order to contend with the increasing drought conditions as a result of climate destabilization caused by Defendants.
33. Throughout Jacob’s life, wilderness and healthy natural environments have been essential parts of his spiritual and emotional wellbeing. Jacob frequently and regularly recreates in the natural areas of Oregon, through hiking, exploring, snowboarding, and rafting. Native ecosystems and animal species have always been the main source of inspiration for Jacob’s writing, music, and poetry. Jacob also spends significant time fishing, gathering mussels, and crabbing as a source of both enjoyment and food for himself and his family. Jacob intends to continue all of these activities in the future. In 2014-2015, Jacob experienced drastic snow retreat on Crater Lake National Park and Mount Hood, as well as the nearby South Umpqua River drying up in some spots, adversely affecting his use and enjoyment of these areas. Low
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 12 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 18 of 100
river flows and warm water temperatures all have contributed and contribute to losses of fish in the salmon runs in the rivers near Roseburg, on which Jacob relies for recreation and food. Rising sea levels caused by Defendants threaten the natural areas of the Oregon coast used and enjoyed by Jacob. Ocean acidification caused by Defendants has already begun to adversely impact shellfish along the coast, and is projected to take its toll on crabs, mussels, and all shelled seafood. Jacob is adversely affected by these changes caused by Defendants’ actions as described herein.
34. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline, which would connect to the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal at Coos Bay, would run directly behind the Rose Hill Farms. The Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline would adversely affect Jacob’s aesthetic, inspirational, and spiritual enjoyment of the property. This pipeline also carries risks of dangerous leaks or explosions, which could trigger a wildfire in the hot summer months. The associated hundredfoot clear-cut area would affect the landscape integrity and biodiversity of Jacob’s immediate surroundings, all of which adversely impact Jacob.
35. Plaintiff Zealand B., by and through his guardian and mother Kimberly PashBell, is an 11-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Zealand has worked to increase community awareness about climate change caused by Defendants and has advocated before local and state governmental bodies for science-based government action on climate change. Zealand and his family minimize their impact on the environment and reduce their carbon footprint by biking, gardening, participating in community-supported agriculture, buying locally-made products, and picking up litter in the places where they recreate. Zealand has experienced and will continue to experience harm from climate change caused by Defendants if immediate action is not taken to secure a stable climate system.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 13 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 19 of 100
36. Zealand loves living in Oregon and hopes to stay in Oregon in the future. He enjoys skiing, biking, rock climbing, rafting, and camping in Oregon. Oregon’s rivers are especially important to Zealand. While rafting along the rivers in Oregon, Zealand enjoys the solitude of the wilderness and the experience of seeing plants and animals in their natural habitat. Rafting trips with his family have been canceled or shortened due to the increased temperatures, drought, and reduced water levels. Zealand and his family twice experienced large forest fires while rafting on Oregon rivers.
37. The record-setting heat during the summer of 2015 adversely impacts Zealand and his enjoyment of outdoor activities by making bike-riding, playing soccer, and playing basketball difficult. Zealand suffers from allergies, which have increased in severity over the past few years, and caused him to decrease the amount of time that he spends outside in the spring and early summer. Heat waves and an increase in pollen counts will worsen with further climate change caused by Defendants and harm Zealand’s recreational and health interests.
38. Warmer winters and decreased snowpack levels in Oregon have harmed, and will continue to harm, Zealand and his family. Zealand’s mother usually works during the winter at the Willamette Pass ski resort, but that seasonal job was not available during the winter of 20142015 due to the lack of snow, resulting in lost income. The lack of snow also meant Zealand was unable to ski. Decreased snowpack levels in the future will also harm the availability of drinking water for Zealand, his family, and his community, as Eugene’s only water source, the McKenzie River, is fed by melting snowpack.
39. Zealand and his family spend substantial time at the Oregon Coast. He enjoys playing in the dunes, camping, surfing, boogie boarding, and taking pictures of the ocean and surrounding areas. The impacts from warmer water temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 14 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 20 of 100
acidification caused by Defendants will negatively impact Zealand’s future ability to enjoy the same areas on the coast that he now loves and to eat the same seafood, which is an important part of his diet.
40. Plaintiff Avery M., by and through her guardian and mother Holly McRae, is a 10-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Avery has worked to increase awareness in her community about impacts of climate change caused by Defendants and advocated for CO2 reductions before her representatives at both the municipal and state levels. Avery and her family limit their carbon footprint as much as possible by recycling, biking, eating less meat and growing some of their own food, repairing, reusing, and buying second-hand goods, decreasing energy use at home, and minimizing their vehicle and air travel.
41. The impacts from climate change caused by Defendants are harming and will continue to harm Avery and her enjoyment of and interaction with nature and wildlife. Avery’s favorite activity is swimming in natural bodies of water. Avery and her family enjoy boating, hiking, backpacking, camping, and watching salmon spawn throughout Oregon. In 2015, Avery was not been able to participate in these recreational activities as frequently as past years due to warmer temperatures, drought, low water levels, forest fires, and algal blooms. The 2015 summer heat has caused Avery to avoid outdoor activities to prevent becoming overheated. Avery also suffers from allergies, which will worsen with increased pollen count and a changing climate caused by Defendants. Avery enjoys taking vacations to Yellowstone with her family and has seen burned, beetle-killed forests on these trips. The increase of hungry bears in the area due to the decline in white bark pine trees forced her family to postpone Avery’s first big backpacking trip in the area.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 15 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 21 of 100
42. Climate change caused by Defendants has reduced snowpack levels in Oregon, negatively impacting Avery’s enjoyment of winter activities and the future availability of drinking water for her and her family. Every winter, Avery takes a trip with her family to Clear Lake, where she enjoys snowshoeing and sledding. These winter activities were not possible from 2013-2015 due to lack of snow.
43. Avery enjoys eating seafood and going to the Oregon coast, where she wades in the water and explores tide pools. At the coast, Avery has noticed coastal erosion and her recreational experience is harmed by seeing dead wildlife from the coastal changes. Warmer water temperatures, sea level rise, and ocean acidification caused by Defendants will worsen and negatively impact Avery’s enjoyment of the Oregon coast and the food she eats.
44. Plaintiff Sahara V., by and through her guardian and mother Toña Aguilar, is an 11-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Sahara is experiencing harm as a result of Defendants’ aggregate actions and omissions in causing climate change. Sahara has been involved in both local and state initiatives to raise awareness about climate change and advocate for science-based CO2 emission reductions. In order to reduce her impact on the environment, Sahara and her family bike, garden, recycle, and practice vegetarianism. Sahara spends time with her family recreating in Oregon’s rivers, lakes, beaches, sand dunes, and forests. She enjoys swimming, biking, camping, and mushroom hunting. Sahara frequently visits her grandparents’ home on the Mohawk River and has witnessed the water levels decrease dramatically.
45. Climate impacts caused by Defendants, such as increased temperatures and drought conditions, infringe upon Sahara’s enjoyment and use of freshwater resources and will continue to do so in the future if immediate action is not taken to reduce CO2 emissions. Sahara
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 16 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 22 of 100
and her family take frequent trips to the Oregon coast to visit her grandparents, who own property in Yachats. On the Oregon coast, Sahara enjoys climbing rocks and sand dunes, swimming, and tidepooling to see marine life. Sahara’s enjoyment of these activities is being increasingly harmed in the future by sea level rise, greater erosion, enhanced ocean acidification, and increased water temperatures.
46. Sahara has asthma, and the increased frequency of forest fires in Oregon, due to hotter and drier conditions, has triggered severe asthma attacks for Sahara. The smoke inhibits her ability to breath, causes her throat to close up, and necessitates the use of her inhaler. As a result of Defendants’ actions in causing climate change, Sahara has become more susceptible to grass allergies, further aggravating her asthma. These health effects will worsen as climate change becomes more severe. Warmer winters and the lack of snow in Oregon have prevented Sahara’s enjoyment of winter activities and will negatively impact her water supply in the future. Sahara wants to stay in Oregon, yet she fears her children and grandchildren will be unable to experience and enjoy Oregon’s natural resources and wildlife.
47. Plaintiff Kiran Isaac Oommen is an 18-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Kiran enjoys camping, hiking, kayaking, biking, and swimming in Oregon. In recent years, decreased water levels and rising temperatures have limited his enjoyment of both these activities and the special places in Oregon he visits. Local Oregon produce and seafood are staples in Kiran’s diet. Ocean acidification and the warmer water temperatures and lower water levels in rivers and streams have negatively impacted his ability to enjoy eating shellfish and salmon. Kiran enjoys cross-country skiing in the winter, but was not able to ski in 2015 due to the lack of snow in Oregon. Kiran enjoys visiting the Oregon coast to
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 17 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 23 of 100
walk along the beach, swim, and go tidepooling. Impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, will negatively impact Kiran’s future ability to enjoy the Oregon coast.
48. Due to drastic seasonal variations, Kiran has endured increasingly severe grass and tree pollen allergies, making it difficult for him to enjoy outdoor activities. Kiran used to be able to regularly visit his friend’s family farm in southern Oregon but the increased prevalence of forest fires due to dry conditions and high temperatures has impacted Kiran’s ability to visit this farm, as the intensity of the smoke and ash have shortened his trips and inhibited his ability to breathe.
49. Kiran has family he visits in Olympia, Washington and near Miami, Florida, both areas scientists predict will be gravely impacted by sea level rise. When Kiran visited Florida in the past, he enjoyed seeing wildlife and experiencing the beauty of the Florida Keys, which is a place he plans to visit again. Kiran would like to continue visiting his family in these coastal areas in the future, but the increasing severity of climate impacts, unless promptly abated, will prevent him from doing so – as large portions of these areas will be inundated by the rising seas.
50. Plaintiff Tia Marie Hatton is a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Bend, Oregon. She is 18 years old and will enter the University of Oregon in September 2015. For the past two years Tia has experienced pronounced climate change impacts in Bend and surrounding areas. Tia is an avid Nordic skier, and has skied competitively since middle school. During 2013-2015, her ability to ski was limited by the record low snowfall in the Bend area. Tia regularly skis at Virginia Meissner Sno-Park and Willamette Pass Resort. These areas were closed this past winter because of record low snowfall. In 2015, ski teams from across Oregon, including Tia’s team, had to move their state competition to higher elevations at Mt. Bachelor where trails were limited and not well groomed. In the future, unless the severe impacts to our
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 18 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 24 of 100
nation’s climate system are immediately abated, she will not be able to ski at all, even at higher elevations.
51. For the 2015 summer, Oregon’s Governor issued a drought declaration for Deschutes County, where Tia lives. Tia spends most of her time recreating outdoors, not only skiing, but cross-country running, rock climbing, hiking, camping, and kayaking. Warmer summer temperatures and forest fires in Deschutes National Forest south of Bend are preventing Tia from participating in these activities as often as she would like and once could. For the past several years there have been fires every summer in the forests surrounding Bend, and residents have had to evacuate. Tia is psychologically impacted by these events, as it is hard for her to watch the destruction of the wilderness she loves and its ecosystems. Tia and her family vacation around Oregon and have experienced coastal erosion in Seaside, Florence, and Newport. Tia has also experiences the climate impacts similar to those in the Bend area when she visits the Steens Mountain for running camp.
52. Tia works hard to protect the environment and create awareness about the impacts of climate change caused by Defendants. In high school she was a member of her school’s Green Club, and spent time planning Earth Day activities to raise awareness and educate the student body. Tia tries to limit her transportation via cars and is participating in the Bend Energy Challenge, a nationwide energy-saving competition, to help her family save energy and make their home healthier.
53. Plaintiff Isaac V., by and through his guardian and mother, Pamela Vergun, is a thirteen-year-old U.S. citizen and a resident of Beaverton, Oregon. Isaac is involved in climate activism and he founded Plant for the Planet Academy in Oregon, along with his mom and sister. Isaac started a petition asking the city of Beaverton to adopt a resolution to lower the city’s
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 19 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 25 of 100
carbon emissions. At home, his family installed solar panels on their roof and they drive an electric vehicle.
54. Isaac and his family are experiencing the adverse impacts of climate change caused by Defendants. 2015 has been the hottest summer Isaac remembers, with temperatures at 100 degrees Fahrenheit in his hometown. The groundwater level in his backyard has dropped significantly, causing trees to die. Isaac enjoys recreating along the Spring Water Trail near Portland, Oregon and is harmed by the drought conditions, which have eliminated a substantial portion of the flow in Johnson Creek. In parts of southern and eastern Oregon, wildfires are tearing through forests where Isaac enjoys recreating, threatening the ecosystems he relies upon for his personal enjoyment.
55. In winter, Isaac recreates in the Oregon snow and thereby derives emotional, spiritual, and physical benefits. He intends to continue his use and enjoyment of the snow. The record-low snowfall across the state, caused by Defendants’ actions and the climate change resulting from those actions, harms Isaac by reducing his opportunity to recreate in the snow.
56. Since he was very young, Isaac has had asthma. Isaac’s asthma is worsening and will continue to worsen as air quality becomes more polluted from increased pollen counts and smoke from wildfires. Isaac enjoys athletic activities including hiking, soccer, and basketball. He intends to continue these activities in the future. Increasing temperatures caused by Defendants’ actions will worsen his asthma, affect his athletic performance, and make him less likely to play sports.
57. Plaintiff Miko V., by and through her guardian and mother, Pamela Vergun, is a 14-year-old citizen of the United States and a resident of Beaverton, Oregon. Miko is a climate activist. Along with her Mother and brother, Miko started the first Plant for the Planet Academy
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 20 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 26 of 100
in Oregon to help plant 150 trees per person in the United States to combat deforestation. She is spreading awareness to other young people and working to educate adults about the climate crisis. At home, her family has solar panels on their roof and they use an electric hybrid vehicle to reduce their emissions when they drive. Miko is committed to living a low-carbon lifestyle.
58. Miko was born in the Marshall Islands, and her low-lying home island is threatened by sea level rise. She fears she will never be able to travel back to the Marshall Islands as she intends to because the islands will likely be underwater in the future. In the last couple of years, Miko has experienced record-breaking heat waves in Beaverton and Portland, Oregon. Miko recently visited Timothy Lake, 75 miles southeast of Beaverton, to swim and fish, but the water levels were lower than usual, negatively impacting her use and enjoyment of the area.
59. Seafood is an important part of Miko’s diet. Ocean acidification and warming ocean, coastal, and river waters are negatively affecting the health of fish and sea life on which Miko depends.
60. Plaintiff Hazel V., by and through her guardian and mother Margo Van Ummersen, is an 11-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Eugene, Oregon. Hazel has advocated in her community to raise awareness about climate change caused by Defendants and before her city leaders to ask for science-based reductions of CO2 emissions. Hazel and her family reduce their carbon footprint by gardening, recycling, buying local products, biking, and walking.
61. Hazel enjoys swimming, canoeing, kayaking, camping, and hiking in Oregon. In recent years, she has been unable to fully enjoy these activities and special places she visits due to the increased temperatures, low water levels, and abnormal seasonal variations caused by the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 21 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 27 of 100
acts and omissions of Defendants. Hazel frequently visits the Oregon coast, where she enjoys bodysurfing, playing on the beach, tidepooling, harvesting seaweed, and hunting mushrooms. Increased surface and ocean temperatures, sea level rise, and ocean acidification caused by the acts of Defendants threaten Hazel’s future ability to enjoy these activities, which are important aspects of her childhood. Salmon and seafood are important parts of Hazel’s diet that will continue to be threatened due to increased water temperatures, drought, and ocean acidification caused by the acts of Defendants.
62. During the winter, Hazel enjoys skiing and sledding. However, due to declining snowpack and warmer winters, she has been unable to ski or sled. Decreased snowfall in the Cascades will have long-term adverse impacts on the water level in the McKenzie River, which provides drinking water to Hazel’s hometown of Eugene. In June 2015, extreme heat caused by the acts of Defendants adversely impacted Hazel’s health on a trip she took to Washington, D.C. During that trip, she suffered from two episodes of heat exhaustion.
63. Plaintiff Sophie K., by and through her guardian and grandfather, Dr. James Hansen, is a 16-year-old citizen of the U.S., and a resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Through stories from her grandfather, Dr. James Hansen, Sophie has become passionate about climate science and feels a sense of urgency and responsibility to compel government action on climate change. Extreme weather events, including Hurricane Sandy, caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house; and Sophie has even been forced to prepare for tornado warnings, which are very unusual for the area where she lives. Intense summer heat now diminishes Sophie’s ability to participate in and enjoy outdoor activities, including track and tennis. Sophie would like to have the ability to one day live in coastal cities like New York or Los Angeles, but rising sea levels may inundate
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 22 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 28 of 100
these coastal areas within Sophie’s lifetime unless Defendants cease their actions that otherwise will soon ensure these catastrophic impacts. Sophie is distressed knowing the inundation of these, and other coastal hubs of our nation’s economy and commerce, will have profoundly negative economic impacts on our nation and on her own life as she gets older, looks for work to support herself, and begins her professional career.
64. Climate change substantially caused by the acts of Defendants is harming, and will continue to harm, the ability of Sophie and her family to grow food in her garden as the population of bees and other pollinators decline. In 2015, Sophie’s health was adversely impacted for the first time by pollen allergies, a condition exacerbated by global and regional warming. Extreme weather events, intense heat, and rising seas have had, and will increasingly have, a negative impact on Sophie. Sophie is deeply concerned about the future because she knows that climate change will not only harm her, but will also harm the entire fabric of human civilization and all living things on Earth that she cherishes and relies on for her life, liberties, and property.
65. Plaintiff Jaime B., by and through her guardian and mother Jamescita Peshlakai, is a 14-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Flagstaff, Arizona. Jaime is a member of the Navajo Nation. Jaime was born into the Bitter Water Clan, with maternal grandfathers of the Red House Clan and paternal grandfathers of the Towering House Clan. Jaime and her family are experiencing harm from climate change caused by the acts of Defendants and will experience even more severe climate impacts in the future. Since she was four years old, Jaime has been working to protect the earth. Beginning in elementary school, Jaime has written letters to President Obama about her concerns for the environment, asking him to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ensure that oil spills do not continue to happen.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 23 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 29 of 100
66. Jaime grew up in Cameron, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation Reservation. In 2011, Jaime and her Mother had to move from Cameron to Flagstaff because of water scarcity. Jaime and her extended family on the Reservation remember times when there was enough water on the Reservation for agriculture and farm animals, but now the springs they once depended on year-round are drying up. Jaime and her Mother were not able to sustain living on the Reservation because of the costs of hauling water into Cameron for themselves and their animals. Jaime is worried that her extended family, all of whom live on the Reservation, will also be displaced from their land, which will erode her culture and way of life. Participating in sacred Navajo ceremonies on the Reservation is an important part of Jaime’s life, and climate impacts caused by the acts of Defendants are starting to harm the ability for Jamie and her tribe to participate in their traditional ceremonies.
67. Jaime now lives on property her Mother owns in the Kaibab National Forest. The forest is Jaime’s favorite place to spend time. Jaime finds peace being outside in the forest surrounding her home, and she walks for 1-2 hours in the forest after school every day. Jaime’s ability to spend time in the forest is going to be limited due to increasing climate change caused by the acts of Defendants. Large parts of the Kaibab National Forest have been destroyed due to pine beetle infestations and forest fires. In 2014, Jaime and her Mother were evacuated from their home for two days because of the Oak Creek Canyon fire north of their property. Winds brought smoke and ash into their neighborhood. Jaime is worried that the area surrounding their home is becoming unsafe due to an increase in drought conditions and forest fires caused by the acts of Defendants. Jaime and her Mother have seen climate change impact the vegetables they grow for food on their property in Flagstaff. Jaime’s severe allergies have become increasingly worse over the last several years. She takes over-the-counter medication to combat her
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 24 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 30 of 100
symptoms. With record-setting temperatures and a drought that has lasted several years, Jaime fears for her future and for the future of her family, their history, their traditions, and their way of life.
68. Plaintiff Journey Z., by and through his guardian and mother Erika Schneider, is a 15-year-old citizen of the U.S. Journey is a Native American born in South Dakota and a federally enrolled member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. In 2009, Journey and his family moved to the island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Journey attends a Hawaiian cultural immersion school, has adopted the Hawaiian culture as his own, and speaks the native Hawaiian language. Journey has deep cultural and spiritual connections with the Earth and all life. These connections depend on a stable climate system for survival, providing Journey with a fundamental sense of responsibility to protect the Earth for his generation and for future generations. Journey is a youth leader on the Rising Youth for a Sustainable Earth (“RYSE”) Youth Council and a youth ambassador for the Center for Native American Youth. Journey has advocated directly to President Obama’s administration and other federal government officials to secure government action to stabilize the climate system and protect his fundamental rights.
69. Journey participates in many culturally important activities, such as working in the taro fields, organic farming, playing Tahitian drum, fire dancing, and performing Halau Hula O Leilani. He also enjoys swimming, snorkeling, fishing, canoeing, stand-up paddle boarding, and walking and biking along the beach. His participation in and enjoyment of these activities has been and will continue to be negatively impacted by the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification caused by Defendants.
70. Journey’s food security and his enjoyment of the biological diversity of the coral reefs are and will continue to be adversely impacted by ocean acidification and the climate
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 25 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 31 of 100
change impacts of sea-level rise, increased sea surface temperature, alteration in ocean circulation, and increased storm intensity, all caused by the acts of Defendants. These problems are all deleterious to coral reefs in Hawai‘i and their associated ecosystems and fisheries. Journey’s health, personal safety, cultural practices, and recreational interests are adversely impacted by the climate impacts of rising sea levels and intense storms that increase coastal flooding and erosion in Hawai‘i, damaging coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, and agriculture, on which Journey relies. Watching beaches erode away and disappear has emotionally harmed Journey. Journey performs Halau Hula O Leilani at the hotels along the beaches and will not be able to do so in the future with continued sea level rise. The rock wall at Journey’s favorite swimming beach eroded and fell into the ocean, and additional erosion will make it unsafe for Journey to swim there in the future. Decreased rainfall on Kaua‘i and the resulting lower river water levels, combined with saltwater inundation from sea level rise, have caused serious water quality problems, high bacteria levels, and increased shark activities that threaten Journey’s health and safety, preventing his use and enjoyment of rivers he frequently enjoyed. Declining freshwater availability also threatens Journey’s future access to drinking water and ability to stay on the island. Drought conditions on part of Kaua’i and saltwater inundation negatively impact the soil and the agricultural productivity of the farms and taro patches where Journey works. While total rainfall has decreased, rain intensity has increased. In 2012, this increased rain intensity threatened Journey’s personal safety when he and his family were displaced by widespread flooding and evacuated to a Red Cross shelter.
71. Plaintiff Victoria B., by and through her guardian and mother Daisy Calderon, is a 16-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of White Plains, New York. In September 2015, Victoria will be a junior in high school at Notre Dame School of Manhattan in New York City.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 26 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 32 of 100
Since 2013, Victoria has been active in the climate movement, educating people about climate change and working to mitigate it. Victoria was a fellow with the Alliance for Climate Education and continues to advocate for education and action on climate change in New York.
72. Victoria has become emotionally distressed by the increase in superstorms in the Northeast. Victoria was harmed by Hurricane Sandy when she and her family lost power to their home, her school shut down, and her forms of public transportation were not operating. Victoria is also harmed by the increasing sweltering summer temperatures, which limit the time she spends outdoors in New York. In recent years, her pollen allergies have become worse, making it even more difficult to enjoy being outside. Victoria lives on low-lying land, which is threatened by rising sea levels and more frequent storm surges.
73. Plaintiff Nathaniel B., by and through his guardian and mother Sharon Baring, is a 15-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska. Nathaniel and his family are already witnessing the impacts of climate change and he is psychologically harmed knowing of the inevitable and increasingly severe climate impacts he will experience in the future.
74. Nathaniel is an avid Nordic skier who also enjoys downhill skiing. Nathaniel has been harmed by the reduced snowfall during the past few winters. Snow that typically comes in August is coming as late as November. In 2014-2015, Anchorage received its lowest seasonal snowfall to date. Nathaniel is experiencing more ice storms in Fairbanks. Last year the city declared a state of disaster after a severe ice storm created widespread power outages. Nathaniel and his family suffered without power for nearly a week in temperatures of 18 degrees Fahrenheit.
75. This summer, Alaska experienced over 300 wildfires across the state, all occurring at once. Wildfires have become a common occurrence every summer in Alaska.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 27 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 33 of 100
During the summer of 2015, Fairbanks was surrounded by numerous wildfires and air quality rivaled that of some of the world’s smoggiest cities. As an asthma and allergy sufferer, the hot dry wildfire season makes it hard for Nathaniel to breathe outside and participate in crosscountry running, one of his favorite sports. Nathaniel is distraught knowing that changing temperatures caused by Defendants will affect his way of life and the animals and ecosystems that surround him and on which he relies for recreation and food. His family raises chickens on their property and they hunt for moose and grouse for food. These animals are harmed by the extreme climate changes happening in Alaska caused by Defendants. Nathaniel has also noticed a sharp decline of salmon, especially king salmon, which is important for his diet. This summer Alaska had a very small king salmon run on the Yukon River. Nathaniel and his family take fishing trips and he has experienced firsthand the decline in salmon runs. Nathaniel enjoys visiting Alaska’s glaciers and intends to continue to do so. However, the glaciers Nathaniel visits are significantly receding, including the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, which has retreated over 1.5 miles.
76. Nathaniel is working hard to take actions to reverse and mitigate the effects of climate change through his membership in Alaska Youth for Environmental Action and his work with Citizens Climate Lobby and his church. At home, Nathaniel and his family try to ride bikes as much as possible. Nathaniel participates in the “dime a gallon” program at church, where members contribute a certain pre-arranged amount for every gallon of gas they use for transportation, which is then used to install insulation in their buildings, and other greening projects, such as solar panels.
77. Plaintiff Aji P., by and through his guardian and mother Helaina Piper, is a 15year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of West Seattle, Washington. Aji is experiencing the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 28 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 34 of 100
impacts of climate change caused by Defendants, and has been harmed by the increasing severity of such impacts. In 2014, the State of Washington had the worst wildfire in the state’s recorded history, the Carlton Complex fire. Aji and his family were impacted by that wildfire while on a trip through the Cascade Mountains when they were forced to breathe the smoke in the air. During the summer of 2015, Aji has struggled to participate in his regular summer outdoor activities because of temperatures climbing above 90 degrees Fahrenheit for extended periods, which is highly unusual for temperate Seattle.
78. Aji has also experienced the negative effects of climate change on Puget Sound and the freshwater systems and fish. The decreasing water quality in Puget Sound is causing dead zones to occur and ocean acidification is killing fish and shellfish. Aji recreates in these areas and enjoys seeing marine life. The impacts to shellfish and the diminishing numbers of starfish harm Aji’s recreational and aesthetic interests. Aji has also been unable to touch or eat shellfish in Puget Sound due to toxicity levels. Aji is distraught by seeing the ecosystems surrounding his home harmed by climate change and ocean acidification caused by Defendants.
79. The impacts of climate change in other places in the western United States are also affecting Aji. On a trip to Montana with his grandparents, Aji experienced dead forests killed by pine bark beetles. Although Aji’s mother is from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and they have family there, Aji and his family will not move back to New Mexico because of water shortage issues and the declining aquifer.
80. Aji advocates for actions to reverse and mitigate the effects of climate change caused by Defendants. He is a member of Plant for the Planet Leadership Corps, in which he plants trees, helps restore local forests, and speaks to the public about climate change impacts. He is also a member of Rising Youth for a Sustainable Earth. Aji is a vegetarian and he and his
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 29 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 35 of 100
family try to limit the time they spend driving as much as possible, opting to walk, bike, or take public transportation.
81. Plaintiff Levi D., by and through his guardian and mother Leigh-Ann Draheim, is a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Indialantic, Florida. Levi is 8-years-old and he is experiencing the impacts of climate change and working to take action and spread awareness about protecting the climate system.
82. Levi lives with his Mother and maternal grandparents in Indialantic, which is situated on a barrier island that separates the Indian River Lagoon from the Atlantic Ocean. The barrier island consists of primarily unconsolidated sand that sits on top of porous limestone bedrock. During the summer of 2015, Levi experienced a lack of rainfall that the island usually receives in the afternoons. Temperatures have been abnormally hot, making it harder than normal for Levi and his family to grow vegetables and herbs.
83. The beaches on the island are Levi’s backyard. During the summer months he spends time at the beach five days a week. In the last couple of years, Levi has noticed a Sargassum seaweed invasion, with seaweed covering the beaches along the island. Levi is having a hard time enjoying beach activities because the rotting seaweed smells like sulfur. Levi has also seen climate impacts affect ecosystems at the beach, and has specifically experienced fewer sea turtles in the area. Levi can no longer swim in the Indian River Lagoon because of increasing flesh-eating bacteria and dead fish. Levi and his family are able to smell the dead fish in their community. He is also now limited by where he can swim in the Atlantic Ocean, due to an increase in flesh-eating bacteria.
84. Levi and his family regularly visit the City of Satellite Beach. In 2009, Satellite Beach, an 8-minute drive from Levi’s house, authorized a project to assess rising sea levels and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 30 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 36 of 100
work to mitigate impacts. In July 2010, the Sea Level Rise Subcommittee of Satellite Beach provided the results of the study: the City needs to plan for sea level rise. The island’s real estate prices are declining, and Levi’s family knows the property they own will decrease in value, and could eventually be lost completely, due to sea level rise caused by climate change and melting ice.
85. In the last two years, Levi’s severe allergies have made it harder for him to spend time outdoors. Experiencing nature and wilderness in healthy conditions is important for Levi’s emotional wellbeing, and his fears for the future of the beaches and springs in Florida and the wildlife that inhabit them are causing adverse psychological impacts to Levi. Levi works hard to keep the environment healthy on the coast by cleaning up the beaches and maintaining the dunes; at church by teaching his friends about how they can help the environment; and at home by conserving water by taking short timed showers, eating a vegetarian diet, and recycling.
86. Plaintiff Jayden F., by and through her mother and guardian Cherri Foytlin, is a 12-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Rayne, Louisiana. In 2005, Jayden moved to Louisiana Since then, she has lived through three hurricanes and many more tropical storms. Jayden has suffered harm and will continue to suffer harm to her and her family’s personal safety, bodily integrity, property, economic stability, food security, and recreational interests from rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of hurricanes with ensuing storm surges, flooding, and high winds, all associated with or exacerbated by climate change caused by Defendants. Jayden is also directly harmed by Defendants’ support and promotion of fossil fuel development in Louisiana, which adversely impacts her air and water quality and health and exacerbates the climate impacts she has experienced and will experience in the region.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 31 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 37 of 100
87. Impacts from climate change and fossil fuel development threaten Jayden’s life, liberty, and property. With warmer ocean water temperatures, hurricanes are becoming more frequent and more destructive. Rising sea level means higher storm surges, even from relatively minor storms, which increase coastal flooding, storm damage, and land loss where she lives. Defendants’ approval of the dredging of canals through marshes for oil and gas exploration and pipelines has compounded the problem by its destruction of natural storm barriers, increased erosion, and intense saltwater intrusion, resulting in additional land loss. In 2008, during Hurricane Gustav, Jayden’s family lost power and water for a week.
88. The air and water pollution from the development of fossil fuels in southern Louisiana also threaten the health of Jayden and her family. Jayden and her family used to enjoy visiting the beach frequently, swimming in the Gulf of Mexico, crabbing, and eating seafood, but she has avoided these activities since the BP oil spill because residual oil is continually dispersed across the Gulf when the increasing number of storms or hurricanes come ashore due to climate change, making such normally enjoyable activities dangerous. Jayden enjoys traveling and visiting family friends all along the Gulf Coast in every state from Texas to Florida and plans to do so in the future, but the coastal impacts from climate change caused by Defendants, including increased coastal flooding, storm damage, and land loss, will impair her ability to do so in the future.
89. Plaintiff Nicholas V., by and through his legal guardian and mother, Marie Venner, is a 14-year-old citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Lakewood, Colorado. Nick sees climate change caused by Defendants as a threat to human civilization and has given numerous presentations educating people about the science of climate change. As a Catholic, he is drawn
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 32 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 38 of 100
to the intersection between his church and environmental stewardship, and was inspired by Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical, On Care for Our Common Home.
90. Pine beetles and wildfires, forcing Nick to stop visiting some of his favorite places, have destroyed forests in Colorado, where Nick used to go hiking, fishing, and camping. Nick enjoys fishing, especially in Boulder Creek, but due to wildfires and variable water flows from droughts and floods, he has not been able to go fishing for the past three years. Nick and his family grow fruit trees, have a garden, and buy food from local farmers. Hail, rainstorms, drought, and pests have ruined their garden several years over the last decade. The unusual weather has affected Nick’s consumption of the locally grown produce available through community-supported agriculture. Rising summer temperatures make it harder for Nick to enjoy outdoor activities, including hiking, biking, and tennis. Warmer winters mean Nick gets to ski less; moreover, when he does go skiing, his favorite parts of the mountain frequently are closed.
91. Plaintiff Earth Guardians is a tribe of young activists, artists and musicians from across the globe stepping up as leaders and growing a resilient movement with youth, at the forefront, who are empowered to create a sustainable world for themselves and future generations. Earth Guardians has crews and youth members across the United States and globally, including in Eugene, Oregon. Earth Guardians’ Rising Youth for a Sustainable Earth is a diverse council of young climate leaders who are taking action and empowering youth around the world to do the same. The Generation RYSE Youth Council is made up of 16 youth leaders from around the nation, ages 10-21, who conduct trainings and sustainability initiatives in their own communities, working to protect their climate system. Members of Earth Guardians and RYSE are youth beneficiaries of the federal public trust and are harmed by the substantial impairment and alienation of their public trust resources. Their fundamental rights are infringed
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 33 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 39 of 100
by Defendants ongoing actions to allow fossil fuel exploitation, which endangers their lives, liberties and property.	  
92. Plaintiff Future Generations, by and through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen, retain the legal right to inherit well-stewarded public trust resources and to protection of their future lives, liberties, and property – all of which are imminently threatened by the actions of Defendants challenged herein. Guardian Hansen stands in this case both to demand effective governmental action to protect these fundamental rights and, until that is done, a cessation of governmental action that exacerbates the imposed risk.
93. Dr. James Hansen is the former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and is presently an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs a program in Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions. Dr. Hansen trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa, receiving a bachelor’s degree with highest distinction in physics and mathematics, master’s degree in astronomy, and Ph.D. in physics in 1967. In his early research Dr. Hansen used telescopic observations of Venus to extract detailed information on the physical properties of the cloud and haze particles that veil Venus. Since the mid-1970s, Dr. Hansen has focused on studies and computer simulations of the Earth’s climate, for the purpose of understanding the human impact on global climate. His testimony on climate change to Congress in the 1980s helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue.
94. In recent years, Dr. Hansen has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed. Dr. Hansen has also outlined steps that are needed to stabilize climate. Dr. Hansen’s most recent work clearly establishes that danger and those steps,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 34 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 40 of 100
and it is summarized in Dr. Hansen’s declaration, which Plaintiffs attach hereto as Exhibit A. Dr. Hansen has long advocated for government actions to protect the climate system for present and future generations.
95. Dr. Hansen is an elected member of the United States National Academy of Sciences (1995) and a recipient of the Heinz Award for the Environment (2001), the Leo Szilard Award for Use of Physics for the Benefit of Society (2007), the American Association for the Advancement of Science Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility (2007), the Sophie Prize (2010), and the Blue Planet Prize (2010).
96. Youth Plaintiffs2 represent the youngest living generation, beneficiaries of the public trust. Youth Plaintiffs have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in protecting the atmosphere, other vital natural resources, their quality of life, their property interests, and their liberties. They also have an interest in ensuring that the climate system remains stable enough to secure their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, rights that depend on a livable future. A livable future includes the opportunity to drink clean water, to grow food, to be free from direct and imminent property damage caused by extreme weather events, to benefit from the use of property, and to enjoy the abundant and rich biodiversity of our nation. Youth Plaintiffs are suffering both immediate and threatened injuries as a result of actions and omissions by Defendants alleged herein and will continue to suffer life-threatening and irreversible injuries without the relief sought. Youth Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm to their health, personal safety, bodily integrity, cultural and spiritual practices, economic stability, food security, property, and recreational interests from the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification caused by Defendants. Youth Plaintiffs have also been denied
2 The term “Youth Plaintiffs” refers to each of the individually named Plaintiffs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 35 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 41 of 100
the procedural right to participate in decision-making regarding the Department of Energy’s approval of LNG exports from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. Youth Plaintiffs, and all of them, have suffered procedural harm as a result of this denial.
97. Absent immediate, meaningful action by Defendants to cease their permitting, authorizing, subsidizing, and supporting fossil fuel exploitation, production, and consumption, and otherwise to act to phase-out CO2 emissions, Plaintiffs would suffer increasingly severe consequences. By 2100, these Youth Plaintiffs (many of whom should still be alive), and future generations, would live with a climate system that is no longer conducive to their survival.
DEFENDANTS 98. Defendant the United States of America (“United States”) is the sovereign trustee of national natural resources, including air, water, sea, shores of the sea, and wildlife. In its sovereign capacity, the United States controls our nation’s air space and atmosphere. In its sovereign capacity, the United States controls federal public lands, waters, and other natural resources, including fossil fuel reserves. In its sovereign capacity, the United States controls articles of interstate and international commerce, including extraction, development, and conditions for the utilization of fossil fuels, such as allowing CO2 emissions from major sources. As a result of both its exercise of control over articles of interstate and international commerce, as well as its failure to limit and phase-out CO2 emissions, the United States has caused dangerous levels of CO2 to build up in the atmosphere. That build-up seriously threatens the relatively stable climate system that enabled civilization to develop over the last 10,000 years. It impairs essential national public trust resources required by Youth Plaintiffs and future generations. This failure to prevent the present and looming climate crisis constitutes a breach in the government’s basic duty of care to protect Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 36 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 42 of 100

99. Defendant Barack Obama, the President of the United States, in his official

capacity, is vested with the executive power of the United States and must faithfully execute the

office and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Through his office, the President has

permitted and encouraged fossil fuel exploitation, utilization, and exports, which activities

generate additional CO2 emissions and, in light of the present baseline of atmospheric

concentrations, dangerously interfere with the climate system in violation of Plaintiffs’

constitutional rights. Moreover, consistent with these efforts that exacerbate the climate crisis,

the President has failed to utilize his Office to initiate any comprehensive effort to phase out

fossil fuel emissions by amounts that could avert dangerous disruption of the climate system.

100. Defendant the Office of the President of the United States includes the Council

on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), and the

Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”).

a.

CEQ’s mission is to promote the well-being of our country for both

current and future generations, which includes curbing the carbon

pollution that is causing climate change.

b.

OMB serves as the implementation and enforcement arm of all

Presidential policy, including budget development and execution,

coordination and review of all significant federal regulations, and

issuance of executive orders. OMB promotes the government’s

affirmative aggregate acts in the areas of fossil fuel production,

consumption, and combustion by coordination and review of Federal

regulations by executive agencies and review and assessment of

information collection requests.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 37 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 43 of 100

c.

OSTP leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science

and technology policies and budgets, and to work with state and local

governments, the scientific community, private sectors, and other nations

toward this end. Pursuant to authority granted by Congress under

National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act

of 1976, President Bush’s 2001 Executive Order 13226, and President

Obama’s 2010 Executive Order 13539, OSTP has been involved in the

President’s strategy for addressing climate change. Despite its charge to

ensure that the policies of the Executive are informed by sound science,

OSTP has permitted additional fossil fuel projects, including extraction,

processing, transportation, combustion, and exportation of coal, oil, and

gas from conventional and unconventional reserves.

101. The Presidential policies promoted by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP have been contrary

to sound science. These policies have led to the current dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2,

dangerous interference with a stable climate system, and violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional

rights. Specifically, the President’s strategy both continues to allow dangerous levels of carbon

pollution and, at best, promise very modest future limitations and no near-term CO2 phase out, as

is required to preserve a habitable climate system.

102. Defendant Christy Goldfuss is the current Managing Director of CEQ, and in her

official capacity is responsible for all actions of CEQ.

103. Defendant Shaun Donovan is the current Director of OMB, and in his official

capacity is responsible for all actions of OMB.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 38 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 44 of 100
104. Defendant Dr. John Holdren is the current Director of OSTP, and in his official capacity is responsible for all actions of OSTP.
105. Defendant the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) is a federal agency whose mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States through clean, reliable, and affordable energy; to protect the environment; and to encourage innovations in science and technology that improve the quality of life. DOE’s mission statement is to “ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing . . . environmental . . . challenges through transformative science.” DOE through the Office of Fossil Energy issues short-term and long-term authorizations for the import and export of natural gas pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, 15 U.S.C. § 717, as amended by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, § 201, 106 Stat. 2776, 2866. DOE permits domestic energy production and interstate commerce of fossil fuels pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. § 7112. DOE through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, regulates the minimum number of light duty alternative fuel vehicles required in certain federal fleets pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. DOE, through the Building Technology Office, also sets energy efficiency standards, which dictate energy consumption rates for appliances and equipment pursuant to authority granted by Congress under The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6201, as amended.
a. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), an agency of DOE, regulates the transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas in interstate commerce; regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce; reviews proposals for natural gas terminals,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 39 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 45 of 100
pipelines, and storage facilities; ensures the safe operation and reliability of proposed and operating LNG terminals; and monitors and investigates energy markets. 106. DOE has knowingly failed to perform its duty to transition our nation away from the use of fossil fuel energy. DOE’s actions and omissions have substantially contributed to unsafe levels of atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous climate system. 107. DOE, through the Office of Fossil Energy, issued DOE/FE Order No. 3041, granting long-term multi-contract authorization to export liquefied natural gas by vessel from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay. 	   108. Defendant Dr. Ernest Moniz is the current Secretary of Energy and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOE.	   109. Defendant the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) manages onefifth of our nation’s land, including forests and grazing lands, thirty-five thousand miles of coastline, and 1.76 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. DOI’s mission is to protect America’s natural resources and heritage, honor cultures and tribal communities, and supply the energy to power the future of our country. DOI claims to be taking the lead in protecting our nation’s resources from climate impacts and in managing federal public lands to mitigate climate change. 110. DOI, through the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), leases minerals and manages oil and gas development activities on over 570 million acres of federal lands, as well as on private lands where the federal government retained mineral rights, pursuant to the authority granted by Congress in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. § 182, as amended, and the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 40 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 46 of 100
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1719(a). BLM and other federal agencies manage most of the land suitable for oil and gas development in the U.S.
111. DOI, through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”), leases the Outer Continental Shelf, the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the jurisdiction of the States and the seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction, for oil and gas development pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a), as amended. As of January 2015, BOEM was administering more than 6,000 active oil and gas leases covering nearly 33 million Outer Continental Shelf acres. Pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594, 760, DOI repealed the 160-acre cap on coal leases, allowed the advanced payment of royalties from coal mines, and provided incentives to companies to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
112. Through its action in permitting the extraction of coal, coal-bed methane, oil, oilshale and natural gas, and oil, coal and electric infrastructure and transmission facilities, and logging, livestock grazing, and off-road vehicle use on public land, the DOI is substantially contributing to dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous climate system in our nation.
113. Defendant Sally Jewell is the current Secretary of Interior and, in her official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOI.
114. Defendant the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is a federal agency overseeing this nation’s aviation, road, highway, railway, truck, and marine transportation infrastructure. DOT’s regulations of emissions related to that infrastructure play a vital role in the Federal Government’s response to climate change.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 41 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 47 of 100
a. DOT, through the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, oversees and regulates the spending programs that finance construction and maintenance of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. § 305, as amended.
b. DOT, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, sets fuel economy standards for U.S. vehicle manufacturers, pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94–163, § 301, 89 Stat. 902, 903, 905, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 49 U.S.C. § 32902.
115. With the power to regulate the means of transportation throughout our country, DOT has the responsibility to ensure that all modes of transportation use only clean energy and eliminate dangerous carbon pollution. Further, DOT permits the transport of fossil fuels via truck and rail. DOT’s stated mission is to “[enhance] the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.” DOT acknowledges the severity of the threats of climate change, yet continues to facilitate the severity of climate change impacts by contributing approximately 27% of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2013.
116. Defendant Anthony Foxx is the current Secretary of Transportation and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOT.
117. Defendant the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) is a federal agency whose vision statement expresses the agency’s goal to preserve and conserve our nation’s
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 42 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 48 of 100
natural resources. USDA’s mission statement states that it will use the best available science as it carries out its responsibilities in caring for natural resources. USDA has authority over our nation’s food and agriculture, as well as many natural resources, including national forests, which serve the vital role of absorbing CO2 from our atmosphere—commonly referred to as “carbon sequestering.”
a. USDA, through the U.S. Forest Service, authorizes 25% of U.S. coal production.
b. The U.S. Forest Service, along with BLM, coordinates and authorizes the leasing of federal public lands for the extraction of oil and gas pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by both the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands. The U.S. Forest Service, in conjunction with BLM, issues leases and mining permits for coal mining development and oversees coal mining on federal public lands pursuant to authority granted by Congress, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 1273.
c. USDA’s Forest Service Minerals & Geology Management division manages and oversees aspects of the development and production of energy and mineral resources, including authorizing ancillary projects such as roads and pipelines that are part of the energy and minerals development projects of USDA.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 43 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 49 of 100
d. USDA has substantially contributed to and continues to substantially contribute to a dangerous climate system by permitting large-scale logging in national forests, by supporting polluting farming and agricultural practices, and by authorizing fossil fuel extraction and use under its jurisdiction. USDA has not protected the nation’s National Forest System as a carbon sink.
118. Defendant Thomas J. Vilsack is the current Secretary of Agriculture and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of the USDA.
119. Defendant the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) is a federal agency that is supposed to promote sustainable development. Commerce has authority over the monitoring equipment for greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, giving it direct oversight of our nation’s industries and emissions pursuant to authority granted by Congress under Title 15 of the United States Code.
a. Commerce, through National Institute of Standards and Technology, oversees research in energy efficiency opportunities for homes and companies nationwide.
b. Commerce, through the International Trade Administration’s Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, promotes fossil fuel export opportunities, including identifying for the fossil fuel industry oil and gas markets where export activities can make the biggest impact, pursuant to authority granted by Congress, under the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 44 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 50 of 100
c. Commerce, through the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), authorizes and administers the rules governing crude oil exports pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 754.2. BIS issues permits to export crude oil to all destinations, including Canada.
d. Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is charged with overseeing the preservation and protection of the oceans and the atmosphere pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.
e. Commerce has abrogated its duty to preserve and protect the atmosphere and other natural resources under its jurisdiction and has not prevented the waste of the public trust in the atmosphere and oceans.
120. Defendant Penny Pritzker is the current Secretary of Commerce and, in her official capacity, is responsible for all actions of Commerce.
121. Defendant the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) is a federal agency charged with ensuring the security of this nation. DOD considers climate change a threat multiplier for its potential to exacerbate many challenges confronting our nation, including infectious disease, regional instability, mass migrations, and terrorism. Climate change has impacted and will continue to impact all military installations, as well as the DOD’s supply chains, equipment, vehicles, and weapon systems.
a. DOD is our nation’s largest employer and is responsible for significant carbon pollution from both its vehicle fleet, and its 500 bases of military infrastructure, including 300,000 buildings totaling 2.2 billion square feet.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 45 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 51 of 100
b. For all exports of coal, oil, and gas by ship, the DOD’s Army Corps of Engineers authorizes marine export facilities, pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Rivers & Harbors Act. The Army Corps of Engineers also maintains international navigation channels, including the navigation channel at Coos Bay, pursuant to authority granted by Congress under the Rivers & Harbors Act. Such exports endanger the climate system on which our nation and plaintiffs alike depend.
122. Defendant Ashton Carter is the current Secretary of Defense and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of DOD.
123. Defendant the United States Department of State (“State Department”) is a federal agency whose stated mission is to “shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.” The State Department plays a lead role in Defendants’ response to climate change. The State Department prepared the 2014 U.S. Climate Action Report, which states that the Federal Government is “committed to continuing enhanced action . . . to lead the global effort to achieve a low-emission, climate resilient future.”
a. The State Department leads international efforts on climate change on behalf of the Office of the President.
b. The State Department, through the Office of the Special Envoy for Climate Change is the Administration’s chief climate negotiator. In 2009, Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern stated: “The costs of inaction—or inadequate actions—are unacceptable. But along with this challenge comes a great opportunity. By transforming to a low-carbon
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 46 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 52 of 100
economy, we can stimulate global economic growth and put ourselves on a path of sustainable development for the 21st century.” c. The Secretary of State receives all applications for Presidential Permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance, at the borders of the United States, of facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, or other fuels, including hazardous liquids to or from a foreign country, and is required to issue a Presidential Permit if such exportation would serve the national interest, under Executive Order 13337, and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 301. Specifically, the State Department has jurisdiction over all cross-border oil pipelines, and in the last decade has been considering and approving longer cross-border projects, including those transporting oil sands crude, otherwise known as tar sands. All petroleum products entering and leaving the U.S. by pipeline do so under State Department approval. Currently there are at least 13 active Presidential Permits for oil pipelines. The State Department has consistently approved such permits, even though it has full authority and discretion to deny them where fossil fuel projects endanger the nation by causing or enhancing dangerous climate change. 124. Defendant John Kerry is the current Secretary of State and, in his official capacity, is responsible for all actions of the State Department. 125. Defendant the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) permits and regulates the activities, industries, and sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 47 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 53 of 100
Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The stated mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment and ensure that the Federal Government’s actions to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available science. EPA sets CO2 standards for power plants, which account for our nation’s largest source of CO2 emissions at 37% of U.S. annual emissions. EPA has authorized, and continues to authorize installations and activities that emit prodigious amounts of CO2, which authorizations dangerously disrupt and fail to preserve a habitable climate system – in violation of Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights.
a. EPA, through the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and the Office of Science and Technology, exempts oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (thereby easing regulatory burdens to oil and gas development), pursuant to authority granted by Congress, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
126. EPA abrogated its duty to implement its 1990 Plan, entitled “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate,” to reduce CO2 emissions (a pollutant under its jurisdiction) in line with the best available science, and continues to allow CO2 emissions in excess of what is necessary for climate stability.
127. That failure is not allayed by EPA’s August 3, 2015 final “Clean Power Plan” because CO2 emissions reductions projected under the “Clean Power Plan” do not even approach the rate required to preserve a habitable climate system. First, the “Clean Power Plan” affects emissions only in the power sector. Second, the “Clean Power Plan” aims for power plant emissions reductions of only approximately 32% from 2005 levels by full implementation in 2030. Those power plant emission reductions from 2005 levels would achieve only an 8-10%
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 48 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 54 of 100
reduction in total U.S. emissions by 2030. The annualized emissions reduction rate is thus, even accepting EPA’s biased math, approximately 1.25% per year, a reduction rate that is a fifth of that minimally required to preserve a habitable climate system. Moreover, nearly half of the EPA-asserted emission reduction was already realized in the 2005-2014 period, namely before the “Clean Power Plan” was finalized. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the “Clean Power Plan” will allow fossil fuel-fired power units to continue to operate and will encourage increased investment in, utilization, and reliance on natural gas (whose principle constituent, methane, is a highly potential greenhouse gas). The “Clean Power Plan,” moreover, does nothing to halt or otherwise diminish fossil fuel extraction, production, and exportation in the United States, fails even to return U.S. emissions to 1990 levels, and continues to allow CO2 emissions far in excess of what is minimally required to secure a stable climate system. EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” accordingly, is not an adequate or proportionally appropriate response to the climate crisis. By allowing emissions to continue at dangerous levels, EPA continues to jeopardize the climate system on which Plaintiffs depend, now and in the future.
128. Defendant Gina McCarthy is the current Administrator of EPA and, in her official capacity, is responsible for all actions of EPA.
129. Defendants have permitted, authorized, and subsidized the extraction, production, transportation, and utilization of fossil fuels across the U.S. (and beyond). Defendants retain authority to limit or to deny that extraction, production, transportation, and utilization of fossil fuels, and otherwise to limit or prohibit their emissions. The vastness of our nation’s fossil fuel enterprise renders it infeasible for Plaintiffs to challenge every instance of Defendants’ violations and, even if feasible, challenging each of Defendants’ actions would overwhelm the court. Nonetheless, Defendants’ liability arises in part from their aggregate actions. Those actions have
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 49 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 55 of 100
substantially caused the present climate crisis. They form the predicate for Plaintiffs’ allegations that current and new fossil fuel projects, to the extent they will further raise atmospheric CO2 levels, infringe upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
130. President Barack Obama, Director Christy Goldfuss, Director Shaun Donovan, Director Dr. John Holdren, Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary Sally Jewell, Secretary Anthony Foxx, Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary Penny Pritzker, Secretary Ashton Carter, Secretary John Kerry, and Administrator Gina McCarthy, through their respective offices, departments, and agencies, CEQ, OMB, OSTP, DOE, DOI, DOT, USDA, Commerce, DOD, State Department, and EPA, are primarily responsible for authorizing, permitting, and incentivizing fossil fuel production, consumption, transportation, and combustion, causing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase to at least 400 ppm and, thus, substantial harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants have failed to preserve a habitable climate system for present and future generations, and instead have created dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The affirmative aggregate acts and omissions of Defendants, jointly and severally, have violated and continue to violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property; Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal protection; Plaintiffs’ unenumerated inherent and inalienable natural rights; and Plaintiffs’ rights as beneficiaries of the federal public trust.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 50 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 56 of 100

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT CARBON

DIOXIDE POLLUTION WAS CAUSING CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE AND

THAT MASSIVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND A NATION-WIDE TRANSITION

AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS WAS NEEDED TO PROTECT PLAINTIFFS’

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

131. As early as 1899, scientists understood that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere

cause heat retention on Earth and that a doubling or tripling of the CO2 content in 1899 would

significantly elevate Earth’s surface temperature. Scientists also understood that CO2 was the determinative factor for global heating. By the turn of the 20th Century, it was widely accepted

in the scientific community that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could cause

global climate change.

132. By 1965, the Executive Branch reported that anthropogenic pollutants, including

CO2, impair our nation’s economy and its quality of life. In the 1965 Report of President

Lyndon Johnson’s Scientific Advisors, “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” the White

House confirmed that anthropogenic pollutants, including CO2, threaten “the health, longevity,

livelihood, recreation, cleanliness and happiness of citizens who have no direct stake in their

production, but cannot escape their influence.”

133. For fifty years, the Executive Branch has known that “pollutants have altered on a

global scale the CO2 content of the air” through “the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.” The

Executive Branch predicted that CO2 “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an

extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable th[r]ough local or even national efforts,

could occur.” The Executive Branch warned that “carbon dioxide [gases] are accumulating in

such large quantities that they may eventually produce marked climatic change.”

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 51 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 57 of 100
134. Fifty years ago, the Executive Branch described the marked climatic changes from CO2 pollution as including the melting of the Antarctic icecap, rising sea levels, warming oceans, acidifying waters, and additional releasing of CO2 and methane due to these events. It recommended reducing the heating of the Earth because of the extraordinary economic and human importance of our climate system.
135. Fifty years ago, the White House recommended that a tax system be implemented to tax polluters, including air pollution, “in proportion to their contribution to pollution” to incentivize pollution reduction.
136. In 1969, Patrick Moynihan, then-Adviser to President Nixon, wrote a letter to White House counsel John Ehrlichman stating that CO2 pollution resulting from burning fossil fuels was a problem perhaps on the scale of “apocalyptic change,” threatening the loss of cities like New York and Washington D.C. from sea level rise. The 1969 Moynihan Letter urged the Federal Government to immediately address this threat.
137. In 1978, Congress passed the National Climate Program Act “to establish a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications.” 15 U.S.C. § 2901(3).
138. On June 23, 1988, Plaintiff-Guardian Dr. James Hansen, then Director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies and a leading climate scientist in the Federal Government, testified before Congress that carbon pollution in the atmosphere was causing global warming and that impacts were already being observed.
139. Around the time of Dr. Hansen’s testimony, Congress directed its own offices and EPA to separately prepare reports on how to stabilize the global climate system and transition our country away from the use of fossil fuels.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 52 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 58 of 100
140. In response, in December 1990, EPA submitted a report to Congress on “Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate.” The EPA’s 1990 Report concluded: “responses to the greenhouse problem that are undertaken now will be felt for decades in the future, and lack of action now will similarly bequeath climate change to future generations.”
141. The EPA’s 1990 Report called for a 50% reduction in total U.S. CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2025. EPA explained that such reductions were the only pathway to achieve Congress’ goal of stopping global warming and stabilizing the climate system. The EPA’s 1990 Report also called for stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 350 ppm, the current level of that time, a response to the congressional objective that total global warming not exceed 1.5° C above the preindustrial level. In its 1990 Report, EPA confirmed the Executive Branch’s findings from 1965 that CO2 was a “dangerous” pollutant.
142. In 1991, promptly following EPA’s 1990 Report, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (“OTA”) delivered to Congress its own report, “Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases.” Finding the United States was the single largest contributor to carbon pollution, the OTA’s 1991 Report developed “an energy conservation, energy-supply, and forest-management package that can achieve a 20- to 35-percent emissions reduction”	  through a mix of regulatory and market-based federal policies, in order to prevent global warming and climate change. OTA reported that, if its “package” was implemented, the Federal Government could lower CO2 emissions 35% from 1987 levels by 2015 and possibly save the Federal Government $20 billion per year. OTA determined that the 35% necessary reduction in CO2 emissions was only the beginning and further efforts in the 21st century would be required to stabilize our nation’s climate system.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 53 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 59 of 100
143. The OTA’s 1991 Report stated that major reductions of CO2 would require significant new initiatives by the Federal Government and must be sustained over decades, even before all the scientific certainties are resolved: “[I]t is clear that the decision to limit emissions cannot await the time when the full impacts are evident. The lag time between emission of the gases and their full impact is on the order of decades to centuries; so too is the time needed to reverse any effects.” The OTA’s 1991 Report informed Congress that the level of emission reductions needed would require the country to wean itself from fossil fuels. OTA also urged that, while global warming was a problem on a global scale, U.S. leadership was critical to solving the problem and would seriously impact what happened around the globe.
144. Concluding that actions would be required across the federal government, both the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report concluded that an essential component of reducing CO2 emissions was implementing a rising carbon tax.
145. On October 15, 1992, following receipt of the EPA and OTA Reports, the Senate ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”). The UNFCCC was executed to “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind.” The UNFCCC evidences an “overwhelming weight” of support for protection of the atmosphere under the norms and principles of intergenerational equity. UNFCCC, Art. 3. The minimal objective of the UNFCCC is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” UNFCCC, Art. 2.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 54 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 60 of 100
146. The recommendations in the EPA’s 1990 Report (“Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate”) and the OTA’s 1991 Report (“Changing By Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases”) were never implemented. U.S. fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion all continued to accelerate at dangerous speeds for decades.
147. On December 7, 2009, nearly 17 years after the United States ratified the UNFCCC, the then-Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, issued EPA’s formal endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. The finding stated that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including, in particular, CO2, threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations. EPA issued its endangerment determination only after being compelled to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
148. On January 2, 2011, EPA commenced partial regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.
149. More than two decades have passed since the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report were issued to Congress. Little has been accomplished in the way of phasing out emissions even though, as DOE admits in its strategic plan, “our responsibility to future generations is to eliminate most of our carbon emissions and transition to a sustainable energy future.”
150. During the last decade, Defendants have repeatedly stated that allowing “business as usual” CO2 emissions will imperil future generations with dangerous and unacceptable economic, social, and environmental risks. As Defendants have acknowledged, the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions, placing our nation on an increasingly costly, insecure, and environmentally dangerous path.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 55 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 61 of 100
II. IN SPITE OF KNOWING OF THE SEVERE DANGERS POSED BY CARBON POLLUTION, DEFENDANTS CREATED AND ENHANCED THE DANGERS THROUGH FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTION, PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND EXPORTATION A. Despite the Known Danger, Defendants Caused Climate Instability and Allowed U.S. Fossil Fuel Extraction, Production, Consumption, Transportation, and Exportation and Associated Emissions, to Dangerously Increase 151. Between 1751 and 2014, the United States has been responsible for emitting
25.5% of the world’s cumulative CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from within its borders. Those emissions do not account for the embedded emissions in imported goods and materials that are consumed in the United States. Defendants enabled and permitted those cumulative emissions.
152. In the last fifty years, total U.S. production and consumption of fossil fuels drastically increased.
153. Acting with deliberate indifference, Defendants have not implemented, or complied with, the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuels, stop global warming, and protect the climate system for future generations. Had Defendants followed the EPA’s 1990 Report and the OTA’s 1991 Report, CO2 emissions today would be reduced by 35% from 1987 levels. Instead, since 1991, Defendants have knowingly allowed at least an additional 130,466 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 56 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 62 of 100

154. Accordingly, instead of pursuing their own plans to slash emissions and reduce

the risk of dangerous climate change, Defendants knowingly acted to exacerbate that risk and

impose harm on the nation and on Plaintiffs.

155. Total Fossil fuel production in the U.S. climbed to 65.244 Quadrillion Btu in

2014, up substantially from such consumption in 1965.

U.S. Primary Energy Production by Source (Quadrillion Btu)

Year 1965

Coal 13.055

Natural Gas 15.775

Petroleum 16.521

Fossil Fuels 45.351

1991

21.636

18.229

15.701

55.566

2014

20.287

26.516

18.441

65.244

156. Total Fossil fuel energy consumption in the U.S. climbed to 80.366 Quadrillion Btu in 2014, up substantially from such consumption in 1965.

Year 1965
1991
2014

U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source (Quadrillion Btu)

Coal 11.581

Natural Gas 15.769

Petroleum 23.246

Fossil Fuels 50.596

18.992

20.033

32.846

71.871

17.991

27.592

34.783

80.366

157. Fossil fuel emissions from energy consumption in the U.S. climbed to 5.4 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2014, up substantially from such emissions in 1965.

U.S. CO2 Emissions From Energy Consumption by Source (Million Metric Tons of CO2)

Year 1965

Coal 1,075

Natural Gas 828

Petroleum 1,483

Total Fossil Fuels 3,386

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 57 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 63 of 100

1991 2014

1,807 1,713

1,047 1,441

2,005 2,249

4,859 5,404

158. In 2011, fossil fuel combustion in the U.S. accounted for 94% of CO2 emissions. 159. The above emissions figures are from U.S. Government sources and, regrettably, underreport the amount of emissions that Defendants’ actions have substantially caused. EPA uses a sector-based emission inventory, upon which the other Defendants also rely. A sectorbased emission inventory accounts only for in-boundary emissions, and not those attributed to embedded emissions – emissions that account for the consumption of goods imported to the U.S. Defendants have not provided a national consumption-based inventory for CO2 emissions, which would include all embedded CO2 emissions for goods produced outside of the U.S. and consumed within the U.S. 160. In 2012, the U.S. was the largest producer of natural gas, producing a total that year of 24,058 billion cubic feet (Bcf). Also in 2012, the U.S. was second in “Total Primary Coal Production,” with 1,016,458 thousand short tons; second in “Total Primary Energy Production,” producing 79.212 Quadrillion Btu; and second in “Total Primary Energy Consumption,” consuming 95.058 Quadrillion Btu. 161. In 2014, according to the United States Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), the U.S. was the largest producer of total petroleum and other liquids with 13,973 thousand barrels produced per day. 162. The U.S. is by far the dominant producer of both shale gas and tight oil in the world. Also, the U.S. is one of four countries in the world that is producing commercial volumes

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 58 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 64 of 100
of either natural gas from shale formations (shale gas) or crude oil from shale formations (tight oil).
163. The aggregate actions by Defendants in allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and emissions to increase in the U.S. since 1965 ignored science driven considerations of climate system protection. These aggregate actions were taken with deliberate indifference to the need for a national carbon budget or a national plan that includes an analysis of the cumulative impacts of Defendants’ actions upon the climate system and with respect to the fundamental rights of the present and future generations.
B. Defendants Have Allowed Excessive Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Public Lands.
164. In 2013, 25% of all fossil fuels extracted in the U.S. originated on federal public lands.
165. In 2014, Defendant United States, through the President, DOI through BLM, DOD through Army Corps of Engineers, and EPA, authorized and oversaw the sale of 421 million tons of coal from federally-leased lands.
166. Since January 1990, DOI through BLM has leased 107 coal tracts, and associated coal production and revenues have grown. In 2015, the BLM reported that approximately 40% of all coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands. The United States has more coal deposits available than any other fossil fuel resource within its borders and, as of 2015, has 28% of the world’s coal reserves.
167. In 1985, there were 18,849 recorded federal producing oil and gas leases issued by DOI through BLM. By 2014 there were 23,657 recorded federal producing oil and gas leases issued by DOI through BLM.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 59 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 65 of 100
168. As of June 2014, DOI’s BLM has authorized approximately 47,000 oil and gas leases on public lands, and approximately 95,000 oil and gas wells, with an additional 3,000 wells drilled annually by the oil and gas industry. The BLM oversees approximately 700 million subsurface acres of mineral estate. There are currently 36 million acres of federal land under lease for potential fossil fuel development in 33 states, pursuant to DOI’s BLM authorization.
169. From 2009-2011, the President and DOI through BLM processed more applications for permits to drill oil and gas, despite receiving far fewer applications, than the prior administration from 2006-2008.
170. Since 1985, DOI through BLM has issued between 1,486 to 6,617 permits annually to drill on federal lands. BLM has approved approximately 99% of all received applications for permits to drill, without taking into consideration that such permits would endanger Plaintiffs or increase Plaintiffs’ susceptibility to harm.
C. Defendants Subsidize the Fossil Fuel Industry 171. In addition to leasing federal public lands for fossil fuel exploitation, the United States subsidizes, funds, and subsidizes fossil fuel production and consumption. 172. The United States subsidizes the fossil fuel industry by undervaluing royalty rates for federal public leasing, as well as through royalty relief resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of foregone revenue. U.S. royalty rates are consistently less than state royalty rates. For example, Texas’s royalty rate for leasing is double the federal percentage. 173. Through eleven federal fossil fuel production tax provisions, the United States incurs approximately $4.7 billion in annual revenue costs. Through a fossil fuel consumption subsidy, the United States annually forgoes approximately $3.4 billion in revenue.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 60 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 66 of 100
174. The United States provides approximately $5.1 billion per year in tax provision subsidies to support fossil-fuel exploration.
175. Two tax code provisions for the benefit of the fossil fuel enterprise were introduced in the early 1900s. These provisions are still in place today, resulting in substantial revenue losses. The “intangible drilling costs” provision was introduced in 1916, 26 U.S.C. § 263(c); in 1926 the “percentage depletion allowance” provision was introduced, 26 U.S.C. § 613.
176. According to the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), the United States is the world’s top subsidizer of fossil fuels, in absolute terms, in the amount of $502 billion per year, which includes the IMF’s accounting of negative externalities.
177. The United States has supported fossil fuel development through overseas public financing, primarily through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, an agency of the Office of the President. For example, through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the President provided $14.8 billion in commitments for 78 transactions or projects in the petroleum sector, including 49 transactions in Latin American, 14 in Africa, six in Russia/FSU, five in the Middle East, and four in Asia. In fiscal year 2010, the Export-Import Bank of the United States provided approximately $3 billion in financing for the Papua New Guinea LNG Project or Papua New Guinea Liquefied Natural Gas Project and $18 million for the Sangatta Surface Coal Mine in Indonesia. The Export-Import Bank of the United States also supported numerous coal and gas power plants.
178. The United States supports fossil fuel development by allowing the fossil fuel industry to avoid the true social cost of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Based on EPA’s social cost of carbon estimates, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have the potential to cause trillions of dollars in damages.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 61 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 67 of 100
D. Defendants Recklessly Allow Interstate and International Transport of Fossil Fuels
179. Despite knowledge of the harm to Plaintiffs caused by the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, Defendants recklessly allow all interstate transport of fossil fuels. Despite knowledge of the harm to Plaintiffs caused by the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, Defendants recklessly authorize and/or permit the exportation and importation of fossil fuels and/or the facilities allowing the exports and imports of fossil fuels.
180. The Office of the President exercises permitting authority over the construction and operation of “pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, [and] petroleum products.” President Obama has failed to dismantle the U.S. fossil fuel edifice, adding an additional 100,000 miles to the 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines within the nation.
181. A presidential exemption or federal license is required for all exports of crude oil to all destinations. In 2014, DOE oversaw the importation of 2,677,911 thousand barrels of crude oil, and Commerce through BIS authorized the exportation of 126,152 thousand barrels of crude oil, both increases from 2013.
182. No natural gas can be exported or imported without DOE authorization through FERC. FERC permits all LNG export terminals, including Jordan Cove LNG Terminal. Since 1995, the U.S. has imported 71,730 Bcf of natural gas and exported 14,623 Bcf. In 2014, through DOE’s authorization, 51,824 thousand barrels of natural gas plant liquids and liquefied refinery gases were imported and 257,948 thousand barrels of natural gas plant liquids and liquefied refinery gases were exported.
183. Although in 1975 Congress authorized the Office of the President to restrict coal exports under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6212(a), the
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 62 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 68 of 100
President has not exercised this authority to impose any significant export restrictions on coal. In fact, since 1990, the United States has promoted expanding coal exports. Coastal facilities through which coal may be exported are subject to federal approvals. In the Pacific Northwest alone, three new marine coal terminal projects are under various stages of federal permitting and review.
184. In 2011, the U.S. exported 107 million short tons of coal. In 2012, U.S. coal exports totaled 125 million short tons, the highest level of coal exports in over twenty years. Most recently, in 2014 the EIA reported that the U.S. imported 11 million short tons of coal and exported 97 million short tons of coal.
E. Defendants Recklessly Allow CO2 Pollution From Combustion of Fossil Fuels 185. Either directly or through the control of the Federal Government, Defendants authorize the combustion of all fossil fuels in the U.S., including coal, oil, and gas. Such combustion occurs primarily in the energy and refineries sector, the transportation sector, and the manufacturing sector. 186. In 2012, petroleum accounted for 36.5% of the total primary energy consumption in the U.S., the single largest source of energy consumption. All U.S. petroleum refineries are permitted and regulated by EPA. 187. In 2013, fossil fuel combustion from various industrial processes accounted for approximately 15% of total CO2 emissions in the U.S. The EPA regulates these industrial processes. 188. The DOE establishes efficiency standards in buildings and appliances. These standards affect levels of energy consumption and combustion.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 63 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 69 of 100
189. Since 1975, through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFE”) program, the United States has required manufacturers of vehicles sold in the U.S. to comply with fuel economy standards set by DOT. By controlling the fuel economy standards, Defendants have exercised control over CO2 emissions in the transportation sector.
190. From 1996-2014, through tax breaks, the United States subsidized the purchase, and thus increased demand for, vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds (“SUVs”). SUVs are less fuel-efficient and emit greater quantities of CO2 per mile than lighter-weight vehicles, other factors held equal.
191. In 2012, U.S. CO2 equivalent emissions from transportation were 1,837 million metric tons. In 2012, CO2 equivalent emissions from transportation of all vehicles in the U.S., including aviation, passenger cars, SUVs, heavy-duty trucks, freight rail, ships, and boats, were responsible for 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. III. THE JORDAN COVE LNG EXPORTS
192. Enacted in 1992, Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act mandates the authorization of natural gas imports from, or exports to, a nation with which the United States has a free trade agreement, without modification or delay, to any person applying for such authorization. Accordingly, under the Energy Policy Act, such natural gas imports and exports are automatically deemed consistent with the public interest. 15 U.S.C. § 717b(c).
193. Pursuant to Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act, on December 7, 2011, DOE, through the Office of Fossil Energy, issued DOE/FE Order No. 3041, granting long-term multicontract authorization to Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. to export liquefied natural gas from Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, to free trade agreement nations. The DOE/FE Order authorizes the export of up to 13,140 Bcf of natural gas over 30 years. That quantity of
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 64 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 70 of 100
natural gas would result in approximately 716.2 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, more than all of the CO2 emitted in 2012 by our nation’s largest emitter, Texas.
194. Jordan Cove will be operational in the first quarter of 2018, according to the Vice President of the Jordan Cove Energy Project, LLC, seven years after receiving its export authorization from DOE.
195. Pursuant to its authorization, the Jordan Cove LNG L.P. has given notice to DOE that, by the end of 2015, even before it has all final approvals from other agencies, it will enter into “binding long-term liquefaction tolling service agreements” for the full liquefaction capacity of the export terminal.
196. The sources of natural gas for Jordan Cove LNG’s exports authorized by DOE include suppliers operating in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S., western Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, northern Utah, northern Nevada, and northern California.
197. In a letter of support for Jordan Cove LNG Terminal exports, Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado wrote to DOE and FERC: “Jordan Cove is of specific interest to Colorado . . . The project terminal is the only LNG facility on the west coast that would directly link Colorado to new energy markets via the Ruby Pipeline which originates in northwest Colorado and carries natural gas from that region to states further west of Colorado.”
198. Jordan Cove LNG will liquefy this natural gas for export at its proposed LNG export terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. Jordan Cove plans to build a new power plant to provide the additional electricity needed to liquefy the natural gas for export. The proposed 420-MW South Dunes Power Plant would be the second-largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon and would be the largest single source of CO2 emissions in Oregon in 2020 if it were
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 65 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 71 of 100
built. The Jordan Cove South Dunes Power Plant would emit 51.6 million tons of CO2 over 30 years, or 1.72 million tons of CO2 per year.
199. According to the EIA, liquefying natural gas requires the energy equivalent of 10% of the gas being exported.
200. The CO2 emissions resulting from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal exports and the South Dunes Power Plant emissions will harm Youth Plaintiffs who live in and around Oregon, as well as Future Generation Plaintiffs, by further endangering the climate system.
201. Youth Plaintiffs who live in Colorado are also adversely impacted by the opening up of an international market for the export of natural gas being extracted through hydraulic fracturing in the State of Colorado, and in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. generally, and then shipped by pipeline to Oregon for liquefaction and export abroad, ultimately to be burned, thereby causing additional CO2 emissions. The Youth Plaintiffs from Colorado and Oregon are harmed by the fossil fuel exploitation in and running through their states, which will be connected by the Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline and 3,900 mile gas transmission system crossing the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. IV. CURRENT SCIENCE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN
ACIDIFICATION 202. There is a scientific consensus that climate change endangers humanity and nature. Present climate change is a consequence of anthropogenic GHGs, primarily CO2, derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel emissions have led to an energy imbalance and consequent dangerous disruption of the climate system upon which our nation and Plaintiffs depend. 203. Atmospheric CO2 levels greater than 350 ppm cause this energy imbalance. That energy imbalance is now approximately 0.6 Watts/m2 averaged over the entire planet, equivalent
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 66 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 72 of 100
to exploding more than 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year, throughout our planet.
204. The 2014 National Climate Assessment acknowledged that “[t]he cumulative weight of the scientific evidence . . . confirms that climate change is affecting the American people now, and that choices we make will affect our future and that of future generations.”
205. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act like a blanket over the Earth, trapping energy received from the sun. More GHG emissions in the atmosphere means that more energy is retained on Earth, with less being radiated back into space.
206. A substantial portion of every ton of CO2 emitted by humans persists in the atmosphere for as long as a millennium or more. Therefore, the impacts associated with past and current CO2 emissions will be borne by our children and future generations. Our nation will continue to warm in response to concentrations of CO2 from past emissions, as well as future emissions.
207. The current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration caused by human-made climate change has already taken our country into the danger zone.
208. In 2013, the atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. The pre-industrial concentration was 280 ppm. Emissions must be rapidly and systematically reduced to well below the natural rate of draw-down into Earth’s forests, soils, and crust in order to restore energy balance and avoid crossing tipping points that set in motion disastrous impacts to human civilization and nature.
209. March 2015 was the first month that the monthly global average concentration of CO2 was 400 ppm for an entire month, reaching levels that have not been seen for about three
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 67 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 73 of 100
million years. CO2 concentrations have risen more than 120 ppm since pre-industrial times, with half of that rise occurring since 1980.
210. Earth has now warmed about 0.9°C above pre-industrial temperatures. That temperature is equivalent to the maximum temperatures of the Holocene era, the period of climate stability over the last 10,000 years that enabled human civilization to develop. Warming is expected to hit 1°C in 2015-16.
211. Civilization and the water sources, crops, foods, wildlife, marine life, and coastlines on which people depend have developed within a very narrow set of climatic conditions. It will be nearly impossible for Plaintiff to adapt to all of the current climate change impacts in the quick time-frame in which they will occur. The survival and well-being of Plaintiffs is significantly threatened by climate destabilization.
212. Cessation of Defendants’ actions in permitting, authorizing, or otherwise subsidizing new fossil fuel projects, along with cessation of government actions that limit carbon sequestration in soils and forests, could reduce the earth’s energy imbalance, the severity of our disruption of the climate system, and the severity and pace of ocean acidification, within the lifetimes of Youth Plaintiffs. V. EXISTING IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACROSS THE NATION
213. Climate change already damaging human and natural systems, causing loss of life and pressing species to extinction. Unless arrested by government action informed by science, climate change will impose increasingly severe impacts on our nation and others, potentially to the point of collapse.
214. Recent scientific reports, for example, warn of the disintegration of both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the East Antarctic ice sheet, causing multi-meter sea-level rise. Such will
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 68 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 74 of 100
devastate coastal regions, including much of the eastern seaboard. Millions of Americans and trillions of dollars in property damage will result. The risk of this devastation approaches certainty, unless fossil fuel emissions are rapidly phased out. The recent studies more fully than prior studies account for the potential for non-linear ice sheet melting, which could raise the sea level by 10 feet (or more) by mid-century.
215. If carbon pollution is not quickly abated, there is near scientific certainty that humanity will suffer sea level rise of several meters, submerging much of the eastern seaboard of the U.S., including Florida, as well as other low lying areas of Europe, the Far-East, and the Indian sub-continent.
216. Well-documented and observable impacts from the changes in Earth’s climate system highlight that the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration has already taken our nation into a danger zone. Increased CO2 emissions are already resulting not only in the warming of land surfaces, but also in the warming of oceans, increasing atmospheric moisture levels, rising global sea levels, and changing rainfall and atmospheric air circulation patterns that affect water and heat distribution.
217. One key observable change is the rapid increase in recorded surface temperatures. As a result of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activities, our nation has been warming as scientists predicted as early as 1965. The increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have raised global surface temperature by approximately 0.9° Celsius. In the last thirty years, Earth has been warming at a rate three times faster than that over the previous one hundred years. 2014 was the hottest on record, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”).
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 69 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 75 of 100
218. As expected, our country’s sea levels have also risen from glacial and ice cap melting, as well as from the thermal expansion of the ocean itself. Based on measurements taken from 1993 to 2010, sea levels have been rising at an average rate of 3.2 millimeters per year. Though sea levels rose about 170.18 millimeters (0.2 meters) over the last century, within the last decade, the rate of sea-level rise has nearly doubled. Rising seas have caused and will cause flooding in coastal and low-lying areas. The combination of rising sea levels and more severe storms creates conditions conducive to severe storm surges during high tides. In coastal communities this can overwhelm levees and sea walls, as witnessed during Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, and other major storms.
219. Today, rising sea levels are submerging low-lying lands, eroding beaches, converting wetlands to open water, exacerbating coastal flooding, and increasing the salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers. Between 1996 and 2011, twenty square miles of land were inundated by rising sea levels along the Atlantic coast. Coastal states, such as Maryland and Louisiana, are experiencing wetland loss due to rising sea levels. Scientists have predicted that wetlands in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. cannot withstand a seven-millimeter per year rise in sea levels.
220. Similarly, climate change is already causing, and will continue to result in, more frequent, extreme, and costly weather events, such as floods and hurricanes. The annual number of major tropical storms and hurricanes has increased over the past 100 years in North America, coinciding with increasing temperatures in the Atlantic sea surface. Across the U.S., nine of the top ten years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990.
221. Changes in our country’s water cycle as a result of climate change also increase the potential for, and severity of, droughts. Even in arid regions, increased precipitation is likely
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 70 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 76 of 100
to cause flash flooding, and will be followed by drought. These changes are already occurring. Droughts in parts of the Midwestern, Southeastern, and Southwestern U.S. have increased in frequency and severity within the last fifty years, coinciding with rising temperatures. Most of the recent heat waves can be attributed to human-caused climate disruption.
222. In higher altitude and latitude regions, including in mountainous areas, more precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow. With early snow melt occurring because of climate change, the reduction in snowpack can aggravate water supply problems. The snow cover extent of North America in June 2015 was 0.75 million square miles, the second lowest ever recorded behind June 2012, with 0.68 million square miles. The average area of North America covered by snow decreased by about 3,500 square miles per year between 1972 and 2013.
223. Arctic sea ice is declining precipitously and is expected to disappear completely in the coming decades. In 2013, Arctic sea ice extent for September was 700,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average for the same period. In 2014, the Arctic sea ice extent for September was 463,000 square miles below average. In 2015, the maximum extent of the Arctic sea ice was the lowest in the satellite record. With less sea ice, less solar radiation is reflected back to space, a positive feedback loop serving to amplify regional and global warming.
224. Similarly, there has been an increase in permafrost temperatures and melting in Alaska. Substantial methane releases from thawing permafrost have already been observed in Alaska. Because much of the Alaskan permafrost overlays old peat bogs that sequester methane, permafrost melting ill release methane that will further increase global warming to even more dangerous levels. CO2 and methane released from thawing permafrost could contribute as much as 0.4°F to 0.6°F of warming by 2100.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 71 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 77 of 100
225. Mountain glaciers are receding nationwide because of warming temperatures. In 2010, Glacier National Park in Montana had only twenty-five glaciers larger than twenty-five acres, as opposed to 150 such glaciers in 1850. In the Brooks Range of northern Alaska, all of the glaciers are in retreat and in southeastern Alaska, 98% are in retreat.
226. The melting of mountain glaciers is particularly serious in areas that rely on snow melt for irrigation and drinking water supply. In effect, a large snow pack or glacier acts as a supplemental reservoir or water tower, holding a great deal of water in the form of ice and snow through the winter and spring and releasing it in the summer when rainfall is lower or absent. The water systems of the western U.S., particularly in California and Oregon, heavily rely on this natural water storage. Yet as temperatures warm, not only will these areas lose this supplemental form of water storage, but severe flooding is also likely to increase as rainfall accelerates the melting of glaciers and snow packs.
227. Changes in water supply and water quality will also impact agriculture in the U.S. Increased heat and associated issues such as pests, crop diseases, and weather extremes, will all impact crop and livestock production and quality. For example, anthropogenic climate change in the U.S. has produced warmer summers, enabling the mountain pine beetle to produce two generations of beetles in a single summer season, where it had previously only been able to produce one. In Alaska, the spruce beetle is maturing in one year when it had previously taken two years. The expansion of the forest beetle population has killed millions of hectares of trees across the U.S. and resulted in millions of dollars lost from decreased tourism revenues.
228. Agriculture is extremely susceptible to climate change, threatening food security. Higher temperatures generally reduce yields of desirable crops while promoting pest and weed
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 72 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 78 of 100
proliferation. Climate change is predicted to decrease crop yields, increase crop prices, decrease nationwide calorie availability, and increase malnutrition.
229. Increased wildfires, shifting precipitation patterns, higher temperatures, and drought conditions also threaten forest industries and private property. In the U.S., 72,000 wildfires have been recorded, on average, each year since 1983. Nine of the ten years with the largest acreage burned have occurred in the fourteen years since 2000.
230. Increased CO2 emissions are having a severe negative impact on the health of our oceans. The oceans absorb approximately 25-30% of global CO2 emissions, resulting in a 30% increase in surface ocean acidity.
231. Ocean acidification has been rising at a geologically unprecedented rate. Currently, acidity is rising at least 100 times faster than at any other period during the last 100,000 years, threatening marine life, including human food sources. Organisms at risk include: corals, oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, abalone, crabs, geoducks, barnacles, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea stars, sea cucumbers, many common single-celled organisms and protists that act as prey, and various forms of seaweed. The loss of some of these species can cause entire food webs to collapse.
232. By 2100, the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150% more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans have not experienced for more than 20 million years. In recent years, ocean acidification has already contributed to oyster reproductive failures impacting the Pacific Northwest’s shellfish industry, including oyster harvests in Coos Bay, Oregon. In addition, warmer water in regional estuaries, such as Puget Sound, may contribute to a higher incidence of harmful blooms of algae linked to paralytic shellfish poisoning and may result in
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 73 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 79 of 100
adverse economic impacts from beach closures affecting recreational harvesting of shellfish, such as razor clams.
233. The rise in ocean acidity places coral reefs at considerable risk. Given that coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and economically important ecosystems, the impact of their loss cannot be overstated. Coral reefs provide shelter to a quarter of all marine species.
234. For major U.S. coral reefs, projections show extensive bleaching and dramatic loss of shallow coral cover occurring by 2050, and near complete loss by 2100. In Hawai‘i, coral cover is projected to decline from 38% (current coral cover) to approximately 5% by 2050, with further declines thereafter. In Florida and Puerto Rico, where present-day temperatures are already close to bleaching thresholds, coral is projected to disappear even faster. Given the severity of these impacts, it is inevitable that these effects would be felt across our country, and by future generations.
235. Climate change and ocean acidification are threatening the survival and wellbeing of plants, fish, wildlife, and biodiversity. As many as one in six species are threatened with extinction due to climate change. Many more species that do not face extinction will face changes in abundance, distributions, and species interactions that cause adverse impacts for ecosystems and humans.
236. Salmon have historically been associated with human society and been a major contributor to the economy. Due to physical changes to freshwater ecosystems resulting from climate change, salmon populations have declined significantly across the country. The optimum water temperature for salmonids is 55° to 64° Fahrenheit; massive fish kills have occurred at or above 71° Fahrenheit. As of 2015, four salmon species in eighteen locations are
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 74 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 80 of 100
on NOAA’s Endangered and Threatened Marine Species list; in five locales they are extinct. Scientists from the Salmon 2100 Project, housed in an EPA research laboratory in Oregon, have predicted that, despite current recovery efforts, salmon runs are not likely to sustain themselves through 2100 and other recovery strategies must be adopted to combat climatic shifts.
237. Fossil fuel extraction and combustion, and the resulting climate change, is already contributing to an increase in allergies, asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, heatrelated morbidity and mortality, food-borne diseases, injuries, toxic exposures, mental health and stress disorders, and neurological diseases and disorders. Climate change threatens the basic requirements for maintaining health like clean air, pure water, sufficient food, and adequate shelter. It also increases occurrence of infectious diseases.
238. In the U.S., 8,000 Americans have died from heat-related illnesses over the last three decades. There are now twice as many Lyme disease cases than were reported in 1991. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of requiring hospitalization. Longer growing seasons allow for ragweed to produce pollen for a longer period, resulting in aggravated and prolonged allergies for millions of Americans.
239. Climate change also harms our national security, adding tension even in stable regions of the world. The DOD acknowledged the severity of climate change and its connections to national security when, in its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, climate change was classified as a “threat multiplier”: “Pentagon leaders have identified three main ways that climate change will affect security; accelerating instability in parts of the world wracked by drought, famine, and climate-related migrations; threatening U.S. military bases in arid Western states or
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 75 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 81 of 100
on vulnerable coastlines; and increasing the need for U.S. forces to respond to major humanitarian disasters.”
240. By 2025, 40% of the world’s population will be living in countries experiencing significant water shortages, while sea-level rise could cause displacement of tens, or even hundreds, of millions of people. As a result, the U.S. will experience an additional need to accept immigrant and refugee populations as droughts increase and food production declines in other countries. Increased extreme weather events (such as hurricanes) will also present an increased strain on foreign aid provided by the U.S. and materially increased deployment of our country’s military forces.
241. Our nation is already observing significant impacts from the relatively small amount of warming that has occurred. These impacts constitute harbingers of far more dangerous changes to come. If unabated, continued GHG emissions, especially CO2, will initiate dynamic climate change and effects that spin out of control for Plaintiffs and future generations as the planet’s energy imbalance triggers amplifying feedbacks and the climate system and biological system pass critical tipping points. Such changes would be irreversible on any time scale relevant to Plaintiffs and threaten their survival. VI. FUTURE NATIONAL CLIMATE IMPACTS EXPECTED BY 2050 AND 2100
242. By 2050, Youth Plaintiffs will range in age from 43 to 55. 243. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be at 56 inches, if sea level rise occurs linearly. Based on that global projection, it is predicted that the U.S. will experience a 56-65 inch sea level rise on the East Coast, up to a 76-87 inch sea level rise in areas surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, and a 47-65 inch sea level rise along the West Coast. Sea level rise could be even more catastrophic depending upon the rate of disintegration of the Antarctic ice sheets. Sea
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 76 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 82 of 100
level rise will result in increased erosion and the loss of land. In Washington and Oregon, more than 140,000 acres of coastal lands lie within 40 inches in elevation of high tide. Among the most vulnerable parts of the coast is the heavily populated south Puget Sound region, which includes Olympia, Tacoma, and Seattle, Washington.
244. New scientific evidence demonstrates that a non-linear process could trigger much greater sea level rise in a time frame of 50 to 200 years.
245. Global temperature increases are projected to increase by 9° Fahrenheit by 2100. In the U.S., the largest temperature increases are expected in the Mountain West and Northern regions consisting of 14° and 12° Fahrenheit, respectively.
246. In an EPA-funded study, “Ensemble Projections of Wildfire Activity and Carbonaceous Aerosol Concentrations Over the Western United States in the Mid-21st Century,” scientists estimated that, by 2050, wildfire activity is expected to double in the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains Forest, and the Eastern Rockies/Great Plains regions. In the western U.S., increases in temperature are projected to cause an increase of 54% in annual mean area burned by 2050 relative to the present day. Changes in area burned are ecosystem dependent, with the forests of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains experiencing the greatest increases of 78% and 175%, respectively. Increased area burned results in near doubling of wildfire carbonaceous aerosol emissions by midcentury. The increase in wildfires and the associated emissions will have harmful impacts on health. Polar bears are just one of the species listed as endangered due to the impacts of a changing climate on their habitat. If emissions continue to rise at current rates throughout the 21st century, polar bears will likely be extirpated from much of their present-day range, including Alaska’s North Slope Borough. Sea ice, which
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 77 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 83 of 100
polar bears depend upon to access their prey, is projected to disappear by 2100. Experts project there will be massive species extinction this century.
247. Human-induced warming, if business continues as usual, is projected to raise average temperatures by about 6° to 11° Fahrenheit in this century. Heat waves would then increase in frequency, severity, and duration. For example, by the end of this century, if Defendants do not dramatically reduce emissions, the number of heat-wave days in Los Angeles is projected to double, and the number of heat-wave days in Chicago to quadruple, resulting in many more deaths.
248. While potential climate change impacts on water resources vary between regions, the western states will be particularly impacted by drought, reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants.
249. Warmer temperatures particularly impact the Pacific Northwest because reduced snowpack and earlier snowmelt alter the timing and amount of water supplies. By 2050, snowmelt is projected to shift three to four weeks earlier than the 20th century average. Since earlier snowmelt will result in warmer and shallower rivers and streams in summer and fall, diseases and parasites that tend to flourish in warmer water threaten to eliminate up to 40% of remaining Northwest salmon populations by 2050.
250. By 2050, biologists conservatively expect decreases in salmon populations will lead to 11% to 14% less annual carcass biomass available to bald eagles, our country’s national bird.
251. Defendants, through the Department of Homeland Security, have acknowledged mass human migrations are a potential impact of climate change, and have developed a mass
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 78 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 84 of 100
migration plan. Estimates put the number of climate-induced migrants worldwide at 200 million by 2050.
252. Climate change projections estimate an increase in monetary damages associated with inland flooding across most of the contiguous U.S. Approximately 190,000 of our nation’s bridges are vulnerable to increased inland flooding caused by climate change, with adaptation costs estimated at $170 billion for the period from 2010 to 2050. In the Northwest, a region including Washington and parts of Oregon and Idaho, 56% of inland bridges are identified as vulnerable in the second half of the 21st Century.
253. In 2100 alone, adaptation costs associated with the 50-year, 24-hour storm moniker in 50 U.S. cities are estimated to range from $1.1 to $12 billion. Further, climate change is projected to result in $5.0 trillion in damage to coastal properties in the contiguous U.S. through 2100.
254. Due to extreme temperature increases and unsuitable working conditions, our nation’s labor force may experience a drastic decline in labor hours and lost wages. In 2100, a projected 1.8 billion labor hours will be lost along with approximately $170 billion in lost wages.
255. By 2050, climate change is expected to add thousands of additional premature deaths per year nationally from combined ozone and particle health effects. Higher surface temperatures, especially in urban areas, promote the formation of ground–level ozone, which has adverse impacts on human health by irritating the respiratory system, reducing lung function, aggravating asthma, and inflaming and damaging cells that line the airways. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of high ozone pollution events by 50% to 100% by 2050.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 79 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 85 of 100

VII.

RESTORING THE ENERGY BALANCE AND PROTECTING AGAINST A DANGEROUS DESTABILIZED CLIMATE SYSTEM IS POSSIBLE BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

256. An urgent and critical undertaking is required to protect the climate system and

cause a cessation of Defendants' infringement of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Defendants

must act rapidly and effectively to phase out CO2 emissions so as to restore Earth’s energy

balance. Absent such immediate action, the Federal Government must cease permitting and

authorizing fossil fuel projects so as not to exacerbate the climate crisis and further infringe on

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

257. Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations must be reduced to below 350 ppm by the

end of the century in order to limit the period of CO2 overshoot and stabilize our climate system.

258. To reduce global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm by the end of this

century would require a near-term peak in CO2 emissions and a global reduction in CO2

emissions of at least 6% per year, alongside approximately 100 gigatons of carbon drawdown

this century from global reforestation and improved agriculture. If emissions had peaked and

reductions had begun in 2005, only a 3.5% per year global reduction would have been necessary

to reach 350 ppm by 2100. If significant annual emission reductions are delayed until 2020, a

15% per year reduction rate will be required to reach 350 ppm by 2100. If such reductions are

delayed beyond 2020, it might not be possible to return to 350 ppm until 2500 Or beyond.

259. Reducing the global atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm by the end of the

century is also necessary in order to protect oceans and marine life. As a result of CO2

emissions, of which approximately 25% are absorbed by the oceans, humans, marine organisms,

and ecosystems are already harmed and will increasingly be harmed by ocean acidification. To

prevent the further impairment or depletion of the oceans and oceanic resources, it is imperative

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 80 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 86 of 100
that Defendants take immediate measures to return atmospheric CO2 concentrations to below 350 ppm by the end of this century.
260. Targets that aim to limit atmospheric CO2 concentrations at or below 450 ppm are insufficient to avoid severe, irreversible damage as a result of ocean acidification and ocean warming. For example, the weight of recent evidence establishes that, at a prolonged 450 ppm level, coral reefs will become extremely rare, if not extinct, and at least half of coral-associated wildlife will become either rare or extinct. As a result, coral reef ecosystems will likely be reduced to crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals remaining.
261. Current actions by Defendants will not yield atmospheric CO2 levels of 350 ppm by the end of the century, are not based on any scientific standard, and are not adequate to prevent and remedy the degradation, diminution, or depletion of our country’s public trust resources.
262. The actions and omissions of Defendants make it extremely difficult for Plaintiffs to protect their vital natural systems and a livable world. Defendants must act immediately to restore energy balance and implement a plan to put the nation on a trajectory that, if adhered to by other major emitters, will reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentrations to no more than 350 ppm by 2100. 	   VIII. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ADMISSIONS OF ITS PUBLIC TRUSTEE
OBLIGATIONS 263. Defendants are trustees of national public natural resources. The national public natural resources include the air (atmosphere), seas, shores of the sea, water, and wildlife. 264. In 1968, Congress declared that the Federal Government has “continuing responsibility” to “use all practicable means” so as to “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(1).
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 81 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 87 of 100
265. Congress also declared that the Federal Government is among the “trustees for natural resources” and directed Defendants to act as trustees, on behalf of the public beneficiaries, of all natural resources under their management and control. 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (f)(1); see also 33 U.S.C. § 2706 (Oil Pollution Act).
266. Pursuant to Congressional direction, the President designated the following federal agencies to act on behalf of the public as trustees for natural resources: the USDA, Commerce, DOD, DOE, and DOI. In this context, the term natural resources “means land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled (referred to as ‘managed or controlled’) by the United States (including the resources of the exclusive economic zone).” 40 C.F.R. § 300.600(a); see 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (f)(2)(A).
267. According to the National Research Council, “fisheries within federal waters are held in public trust for the people of the United States.”
268. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, “the U.S. government holds ocean and coastal resources in the public trust – a special responsibility that necessitates balancing different uses of those resources for the continued benefit of all Americans.”
269. According to NOAA, it “has an obligation to conserve, protect, and manage living marine resources in a way that ensures their continuation as functioning components of marine ecosystems, affords economic opportunities, and enhances the quality of life for the American public.” Further, NOAA affirmed that air is a natural resource under the public trust doctrine, and that the Federal Government shares jurisdiction with states over such public trust resources.
270. NOAA admits that one principle of the public trust doctrine is: “The public has fundamental rights and interests in natural resources such as the sea, the shore, and the air.”
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 82 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 88 of 100
271. The DOI admits that the public trust doctrine “now encompasses all natural resources,” and that natural resources include “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the U.S.” The DOI admits that the “Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce (delegated to NOAA), Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and any other Federal Land Managing Agency” are “Federal Trustees.”
272. The State Department admitted “an obligation to current and future generations to take action” on climate change.
273. The United States has taken the position before federal courts that the Federal Government is a trustee over important national natural resources, including wildlife, and has both rights and obligations under the public trust doctrine.
274. By way of example, in a 2010 complaint filed against British Petroleum, the United States alleged: “Natural resources under the trusteeship of the United States and other sovereigns have been injured, destroyed, or lost as a result of discharged oil and associated removal efforts. The discharged oil is harmful to natural resources exposed to the oil, including aquatic organisms, birds, wildlife, vegetation, and habitats.”
275. Since 1965, Defendants have known they each have mandatory duties to abate CO2 pollution from fossil fuels in order to stop global climate change: “The pervasive nature of pollution, its disregard of political boundaries including state lines, the national character of the technical, economic and political problems involved, and the recognized Federal responsibilities for administering vast public lands which can be changed by pollution, for carrying out large enterprises which can produce pollutants, for preserving and improving the nation’s natural
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 83 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 89 of 100
resources, all make it mandatory that the Federal Government assume leadership and exert its influence in pollution abatement on a national scale.”
276. Defendants have exerted their influence, control, custodianship, and sovereignty over the polluted atmosphere and the exploitation of fossil fuels, but they have not abated the harm. Because Defendants have put Plaintiffs in danger and increased Plaintiffs’ susceptibility to harm, Defendants are responsible for taking action to protect Plaintiffs. In fact, Defendants have exacerbated the harm to our atmosphere in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim for Relief
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment 277. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above. 278. The Constitution recognizes and preserves the fundamental right of citizens to be free from government actions that harm life, liberty, and property. These inherent and inalienable rights reflect the basic societal contract of the Constitution to protect citizens and posterity from government infringement upon basic freedoms and basic (or natural) rights. The rights to life, liberty, and property have evolved and continue to evolve as technological advances pose new threats to these fundamental rights and as new insights reveal discord between the Constitution’s central protections and the conduct of government. As set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution, these rights belong to present generations as well to our “Posterity” (or future generations). 279. Our nation’s climate system, including the atmosphere and oceans, is critical to Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property. Our nation’s climate system has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants. Defendants harmed our nation’s climate system with
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 84 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 90 of 100
full appreciation of the results of their acts. Plaintiffs’ substantive Fifth Amendment rights have been infringed because Defendants directly caused atmospheric CO2 to rise to levels that dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required alike by our nation and Plaintiffs. The present CO2 concentration and continuing CO2 emissions – a function, in substantial part, of Defendants’ historic and continuing permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuel extraction, production, transportation, and utilization – endangers Plaintiffs’ lives, liberties, and property.
280. For the past fifty years, Defendants have known about the danger to Plaintiffs’ safety created by carbon pollution. Acting with full appreciation of the consequences of their acts, Defendants knowingly caused, and continue to cause, dangerous interference with our atmosphere and climate system. Defendants have knowingly endangered Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion, and by subsidizing and promoting this fossil fuel exploitation. All of these deliberate actions by Defendants have cumulatively resulted in dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2, which deprive Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
281. Plaintiffs are suffering harm by the dangerous aggregate actions and deliberate omissions of Defendants. Defendants’ dangerous interference with a stable climate system is having such irreversible and catastrophic consequences as to shock the conscience. The conduct, if not fundamentally altered, will have even worse consequences for future generations.
282. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have been and are infringing on Plaintiffs’ right to life by causing dangerous CO2 concentrations in our nation’s atmosphere and dangerous interference with our country’s stable climate system.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 85 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 91 of 100
283. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have been and are infringing on Plaintiffs’ liberties by placing Plaintiffs in a position of danger with a destabilized climate system and dangerous levels of CO2 in our country’s atmosphere. Defendants’ aggregate acts of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been and are harming Plaintiffs’ dignity, including their capacity to provide for their basic human needs, safely raise families, practice their religious and spiritual beliefs, maintain their bodily integrity, and lead lives with access to clean air, water, shelter, and food.
284. After knowingly creating this dangerous situation for Plaintiffs, Defendants continue to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels, thereby violating Plaintiffs’ substantive Fifth Amendment due process rights.
285. After placing Plaintiffs in a position of climate danger, Defendants have continued to act with deliberate indifference to the known danger they helped create and enhance. A destabilized climate system poses unusually serious risks of harm to Plaintiffs’ lives and their bodily integrity and dignity. As described at length, supra, these risks are so substantial as to shock the conscience. Defendants have had longstanding, actual knowledge of the serious risks of harm and have failed to take necessary steps to address and ameliorate the known, serious risk to which they have exposed Plaintiffs. With deliberate indifference, Defendants have not implemented their own plans for climate stabilization or any other comprehensive policy measures to effectively reduce CO2 emissions to levels that would adequately protect Plaintiffs from the dangerous situation of climate destabilization.
286. By exercising sovereignty over the air space and the federal public domain, by assuming authority and regulatory responsibility over fossil fuels, and by allowing and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 86 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 92 of 100
permitting fossil fuel production, consumption, and its associated CO2 pollution, Defendants have also assumed custodial responsibilities over the climate system within its jurisdiction and influence. In assuming control of our nation’s atmosphere, air space, the federal domain, fossil fuels, and climate system, Defendants have imposed severe limitations on Plaintiffs’ freedom to act on their own behalf to secure a stable climate system and, therefore, have a special relationship with Plaintiffs, and a concomitant duty of care to ensure their reasonable safety. By their affirmative acts resulting in dangerous interference with a stable climate system, Defendants have abrogated their duty of care to protect Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. In their custodial role, Defendants have failed to protect Plaintiffs’ needs with respect to the climate system in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
287. Furthermore, Defendants’ acts, if not fundamentally altered without delay, will effect a complete taking of some of Plaintiffs’ property interests by virtue of the sea level rise that is an incident of Defendants’ unlawful actions.
288. The United States, through DOE, is depriving Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to be free from the dangerous government acts, which infringe on their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, by requiring and giving approval for the exportation and importation of natural gas resources in the U.S. through section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The extraction, interstate transport, liquefaction, exportation, and ultimate combustion of U.S. natural gas, facilitated by section 201 of the Energy Policy Act, increase carbon pollution and exacerbate already-dangerous climate instability. Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs through DOE’s issuance of the section 201 permit for Jordan Cove LNG Terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. The Energy Policy Act and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 87 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 93 of 100
DOE’s actions taken pursuant to the Energy Policy Act deprive Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
289. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel extraction, production, transportation, importation and exportation, and consumption, as described in this Complaint, are causing dangerous concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and a dangerous climate system, and irreversible harm to the natural systems critical to Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants cannot and do not operate to secure a more compelling state interest than Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. Second Claim for Relief
Violation of Equal Protection Principles Embedded in the Fifth Amendment
290. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above.
291. Defendants have violated the equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment, embedded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
292. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel production and consumption irreversibly discriminate against Plaintiffs’ exercise of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, and abridge central precepts of equality. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel production and consumption have caused and are causing irreversible climate change. As a result, the harm caused by Defendants has denied Plaintiffs the same protection of fundamental rights afforded to prior and present generations of adult citizens. The imposition of this disability on Plaintiffs serves only to disrespect and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 88 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 94 of 100
subordinate them. The principles of the Equal Protection Clause, which are embedded in the Due Process Clause, prohibit the Federal Government’s unjustified infringement of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from Defendants’ aggregate acts that destabilize our nation’s climate system whose protection is fundamental to Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. Because fundamental rights are at stake and are being infringed by the affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants, this Court must apply strict scrutiny for a denial of equal protection of the law.
293. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection principles are profoundly connected but set forth distinct principles, which are implicated here. The reason why a stable climate system is inherent in our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property becomes more clear and compelling because of the grave and continuing harm to children that results from discriminatory laws and actions that prevent a stable climate system. The application of these dual principles requires strict scrutiny of Defendants’ discriminatory laws and actions.
294. Plaintiffs are separate suspect classes in need of extraordinary protection from the political process pursuant to the principles of Equal Protection. As evidenced by their affirmative aggregate acts, Defendants have a long history of deliberately discriminating against children and future generations in exerting their sovereign authority over our nation’s air space and federal fossil fuel resources for the economic benefit of present generations of adults. Plaintiffs are an insular minority with no voting rights and little, if any, political power or influence over Defendants and their actions concerning fossil fuels. Plaintiffs have immutable age characteristics that they cannot change.
295. Future generations do not have present political power or influence, have immutable characteristics, and are also an insular minority.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 89 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 95 of 100
296. Plaintiffs have no avenues of redress other than this Court, as Plaintiffs cannot challenge or alter the acts of Defendants concerning fossil fuels. Plaintiffs will disproportionately experience the irreversible and catastrophic impacts of an atmosphere and oceans containing dangerous levels of CO2 and a dangerous destabilized national climate system. The adults living in our country today will not experience the full scope of catastrophic harms that will be experienced by Plaintiffs.
297. For purposes of the present action, Plaintiffs should be treated as protected classes because the overwhelming majority of harmful effects caused by the acts of Defendants will occur in the future. As Plaintiffs include citizens presently below the voting age and future generations, this Court should determine they must be treated as protected classes, and federal laws and actions that disproportionately discriminate against and endanger them must be invalidated.
298. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants reflect a de facto policy choice to favor influential and entrenched short-term fossil fuel energy interests to the long-term detriment of Plaintiff—precisely the sort of dysfunctional majoritarian outcome that our constitutional democratic system is designed to check. Such a check is especially appropriate here because our country will soon pass the point where Plaintiffs will no longer be able to secure equal protection of the laws and protection against an uninhabitable climate system.
299. The Energy Policy Act’s mandatory authorization for export and import of natural gas discriminates against Plaintiffs by exacerbating already-dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous climate system, the consequences of which will be irreversible and catastrophic in Plaintiffs’ lifetimes. The Energy Policy Act, section 201, creates a disproportionate impact on suspect classes. Historical evidence demonstrates Defendants’ discriminatory and intentional acts
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 90 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 96 of 100
against children and future generations in order to foster the short-term economic and energy interests of other classes, including corporations. The Energy Policy Act unconstitutionally deprives minor children and future generations of equal protection of the law because the full impacts of excess atmospheric CO2 and the dangerous climate system, resulting from the U.S. government-authorized natural gas exports and imports, will be disproportionately imposed upon minor children, including Youth Plaintiffs, and for millennia by future generations.
300. Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act violates Plaintiffs’ rights of equal protection under the law.
301. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants unconstitutionally favor the present, temporary economic benefits of certain citizens, especially corporations, over Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. Third Claim for Relief
The Unenumerated Rights Preserved for the People by the Ninth Amendment
302. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above.
303. Protecting the vital natural systems of our nation for present and future generations is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. Without a stable climate system, both liberty and justice are in peril. Our nation’s obligation to protect vital natural systems for Posterity has been recognized throughout American history, particularly through our country’s conservation legislation. Our nation’s founders intended that the federal government would have both the authority and the responsibility to be a steward of our country’s essential natural resources. This stewardship is
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 91 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 97 of 100
clear from the delegation of powers to manage lands and the conveyed authority to address major challenges facing our nation as a whole. Among the implicit liberties protected from government intrusion by the Ninth Amendment is the right to be sustained by our country’s vital natural systems, including our climate system.
304. Fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, therefore, is the implied right to a stable climate system and an atmosphere and oceans that are free from dangerous levels of anthropogenic CO2. Plaintiffs hold these inherent, inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights.
305. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have unconstitutionally caused, and continue to materially contribute to, dangerous levels of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 and a destabilized climate system.
306. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, on Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. Fourth Claim for Relief
Violation of the Public Trust Doctrine 307. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each of the allegations set forth above. 308. Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of rights under the public trust doctrine, rights that are secured by the Ninth Amendment and embodied in the reserved powers doctrines of the Tenth Amendment and the Vesting, Nobility, and Posterity Clauses of the Constitution. These rights protect the rights of present and future generations to those essential natural resources that are of public concern to the citizens of our nation. These vital natural resources include at least the air (atmosphere), water, seas, the shores of the sea, and wildlife. The overarching public trust resource is our country’s life-sustaining climate system, which encompasses our atmosphere,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 92 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 98 of 100
waters, oceans, and biosphere. Defendants must take affirmative steps to protect those trust resources.
309. As sovereign trustees, Defendants have a duty to refrain from “substantial impairment” of these essential natural resources. The affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants in the areas of fossil fuel production and consumption have unconstitutionally caused, and continue to cause, substantial impairment to the essential public trust resources. Defendants have failed in their duty of care to safeguard the interests of Plaintiffs as the present and future beneficiaries of the public trust. Such abdication of duty abrogates the ability of succeeding members of the Executive Branch and Congress to provide for the survival and welfare of our citizens and to promote the endurance of our nation.
310. As sovereign trustees, the affirmative aggregate acts of Defendants are unconstitutional and in contravention of their duty to hold the atmosphere and other public trust resources in trust. Instead, Defendants have alienated substantial portions of the atmosphere in favor of the interests of private parties so that these private parties can treat our nation’s atmosphere as a dump for their carbon emissions. Defendants have failed in their duty of care as trustees to manage the atmosphere in the best interests of the present and future beneficiaries of the trust property, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs. Such abdication of duty abrogates the sovereign powers of succeeding members of the Executive Branch and Congress to provide for the survival and welfare of our Nation’s citizens and to promote the endurance of our Nation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 93 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 99 of 100
PRAYER FOR RELIEF “[W]hen the rights of persons are violated, ‘the Constitution requires redress by the courts,’ notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decisionmaking.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip. op. at 24 (2015) (internal citations omitted). 1. Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by substantially causing or contributing to a dangerous concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that, in so doing, Defendants dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required by our nation and Plaintiffs alike; 2. Enjoin Defendants from further violations of the Constitution underlying each claim for relief; 3. Declare the Energy Policy Act, Section 201, to be unconstitutional on its face; 4. Declare DOE/FE Order No. 3041, granting long-term multi-contract authorization to Jordan Cove Energy for LNG exports from its Coos Bay terminal, to be unconstitutional as applied and set it aside; 5. Declare Defendants’ public trust violations and enjoin Defendants from violating the public trust doctrine underlying each claim for relief; 6. Order Defendants to prepare a consumption-based inventory of U.S. CO2 emissions; 7. Order Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend; 8. Retain jurisdiction over this action to monitor and enforce Defendants’ compliance with the national remedial plan and all associated orders of this Court; and
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 94 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 100 of 100
9. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of September, 2015,
s/ Julia A. Olson JULIA OLSON (OR Bar 062230) JuliaAOlson@gmail.com WILD EARTH ADVOCATES 1216 Lincoln St. Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (415) 786-4825 PHILIP L. GREGORY (applicant pro hac vice) pgregory@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 DANIEL M. GALPERN (OR Bar 061950) dan.galpern@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL M. GALPERN 1641 Oak Street Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 968-7164 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 95 RELIEF; Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC

 
 Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, Defendants.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC OPINION AND ORDER

AIKEN, Judge: 1
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group ofyoung people between the ages of eight and
nineteen ("youth plaintiffs"); Earth Guardians, an association ofyoung environmental activists; and
1 Student externs worked on each stage of the preparation of this opinion, from initial background research to final copyedits. I would be remiss ifl did not acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Daniel Bodden (University of Kentucky), Elizabeth Jacklin (University of Oregon School ofLaw), Ann Richan Metler (Willamette University College of Law), James Mullins (University of Washington School of Law), Jessy R. Nations (University of Washington School of Law), Lydeah Negro (Lewis & Clark Law School), and Eleanor J. Vincent (University of Oregon School of Law.)
PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 54
Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.2 Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies. Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide ("CO;') produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would "significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia." First. Am. Comp!.~ 1. Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs asse1t defendants, "[b]ytheir exercise ofsovereign authority over our counhy's atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, ... permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion offossil fuels, ... deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]" Id ~ 5. Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear "a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country" for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. Id. ~ 7. Plaintiffs argue defendants' actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold ce1tain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.
Plaintiffs asse1t there is a ve1y short window in which defendants could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe. They seek (1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce C02 emissions.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure
2 Although plaintiffs in this lawsuit hale from a number of different states, venue is proper in the District of Oregon. The majority of youth plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Kelsey Juliana, reside in the District of Oregon. First Am. Comp!.~~ 16, 23, 31, 35, 44, 47, 50, 53, 57, 60. In addition, plaintiff Earth Guardians has a chapter in Eugene, Oregon. PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 54
to state a claim. Doc. 27. Intervenors the National Association ofManufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute moved to dismiss on the same grounds. Doc. 19. After oral argument, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") and recommended denying the motions to dismiss. Doc. 68. Judge Coffin then referred the matter to me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Doc. 69. Defendants and intervenors filed objections (docs. 73 & 74), and on September 13, 2016, this Court heard oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, I adopt Judge Coffin's F&R as elaborated in this opinion and deny the motions to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is no ordinary lawsuit. Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President ofthe United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office ofManagement and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Depatiment of the Interior, the Depatiment of Transportation ("DOT"), the Department of Agriculture, the Depmtment of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). This lawsuit challenges decisions defendants have made across a vast set of topics - decisions like whether and to what extent to regulate C02 emissions from power plants and vehicles, whether to permit fossil fuel extraction and development to take place on federal lands, how much to charge for use of those lands, whether to give tax breaks to the fossil fuel industty, whether to subsidize or directly fund that industty, whether to fund the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines at home and abroad, whether to permit the expoti and import of fossil fuels from and to the United States, and whether to
PAGE 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 54
authorize new marine coal terminal projects. Plaintiffs assert defendants' decisions on these topics
have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise. They draw a direct causal line
between defendants' policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species
extinction, and a host of other harms. This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is
driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.3 The questions before the
Coutt are whether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change,
whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants' climate change policy in court, and whether this Coutt
can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers
doctrine.
STANDARDS The Magistrates Act authorizes a district coutt to "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings orrecommendations made by the magistrate judge.'' 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(! ). When
a patty objects to any portion of the magistrate's findings and recommendation, the district court
must review de nova that portion ofthe magistrate judge's report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also
3 For the purposes of this motion, I proceed on the understanding that climate change exists, is caused by humans, and poses a serious threat to our planet. Defendants open their Objections to Judge Coffin's F&R by stating that "[c]limate change poses a monumental threat to Americans' health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time." Fed. Defs.' Obj. to F&R 1 (doc. 78). In the 2015 State of the Union address, defendant President Barack Obama declared "[n]o challenge ... poses a greater tlll'eat to future generations than climate change." President Barack Obama, Remarks in State of the Union Address (Jan. 20, 2015), available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01 /20/remarks-president-state-union-addressjanuary-20-2015 (last visited Nov. 7, 2016). When asked at oral argument if they agreed that human-caused climate change poses a serious threat, intervenors declined to take a clear position. All parties agree, however, that a dispute over the existence of climate change is not at the heart of this case. PAGE 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 5 of 54
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Machs., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981) (for dispositive motions, "the statute grants the broadest possible discretion to the reviewing district court").
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l), a district court must dismiss an action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may attack either the allegations of the complaint or the "existence of subject matter in fact." Thornhill Pub! 'g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). The party seeking to invoke the district court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint is construed in favor of the plaintiff, and its factual allegations are taken as true. Daniels-Hall v. Nat'! Educ. Ass 'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true "conclusory" allegations or umeasonable inferences. Id. Thus, "for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonconclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive ofa claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. US. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiffpleads factual content that allows the comt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be suppo1ted by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007).
DISCUSSION Judge Coffin recommended denying defendants' and intervenors' motions to dismiss and
PAGE 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 6 of 54
holding that plaintiffs' public trust and due process claims may proceed. Defendants and intervenors object to those recommendations on a number ofgrounds. They contend plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the case presents non-justiciable political questions, plaintiffs lack standing to sue, and federal public trust claims cannot be asserted against the federal government. They fmiher argue plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which reliefcan be granted. I first address the threshold challenges to jurisdiction, and then proceed to address the viability of plaintiffs' due process and public trust claims. I. Political Question
Ifa case presents a political question, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to decide that question. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 982 (9th Cir. 2007). The political question doctrine is "primarily a function of the separation of powers." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962). This limitation on the federal comis was recognized in MarbWJ' v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this comi." However, the scope of the political question doctrine should not be overstated. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, "[t]here is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question." 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 440 (Liberty Fund 2012).
In Baker, the Supreme Comt identified six criteria, each of which could individually signal the presence of a political question:
[(!)A] textually demonstrable constitutional commitment ofthe issue to a coordinate political depatiment; [(2)] a lack ofjudicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; [(3)] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
PAGE 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 7 of 54
determination ofa kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; [(4)] the impossibility of a court's undettaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; [(5)] an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or [(6)] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various depattments on one question. Baker, 369 U.S. at 217. The Baker tests "are probably listed in descending order ofboth impottance and cettainty." Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 278 (2004) (plurality op.). The factors overlap, with the analyses "often collapsing into one another." Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 544 (9th Cir. 2005). The "common underlying inquity" is whether "the question is one that can properly be decided by the judiciaty." Id. Determining whether the political question doctrine requires abstention calls on a coutt to balance profoundly important interests. On the one hand, the separation of powers is fundamental to our system ofgovernment, known"[e]ven before the birth ofthis countty" to be "a defense against tyranny." Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 756 (1996). It is a "basic principle of our constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another." Id at 757. On the other hand, "[t]he decision to deny access to judicial relief' should never be made "lightly,'' because federal courts "have the power, and ordinarily the obligation, to decide cases and controversies properly presented to them." Alperin, 410 F.3d at 539 (quoting Liu v. Rep. ofChina, 892 F.2d 1419, 1433 (9th Cir. 1989) and W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Envt 'l Tectonics C017J., Int 'l, 493 U.S. 400, 409 (1990)). Accordingly, a comt cannot simply err on the side of declining to exercise jurisdiction when it fears a political question may exist; it must instead diligently map the precise limits ofjurisdiction. Climate change, energy policy, and environmental regulation are certainly "political" in the
PAGE 7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 8 of 54
sense that they have "motivated partisan and sectional debate during important portions of our history." US. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442, 458 (1992). But a case does not present a political question merely because it "raises an issue of great importance to the political branches." Id. Instead, dismissal on political question grounds is appropriate only if one of the Baker considerations is "inextricable" from the case. Baker, 369 U.S. at 217. As a result, federal courts regularly adjudicate claims that arise in connection with politically charged issues. See, e.g., Jewel v. Nat'/ Sec. Agency, 673 F.3d 902, 912 (9th Cir. 2011) (electronic surveillance); Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1216 (11th Cir. 1989) (detention of undocumented immigrants); Planned Parenthood Fed'n ofAm., Inc. v. Agencyfor Int 'I Dev., 838 F.2d 649, 656 (2d Cir. 1988) (international funding for birth control and abortion). In each ofthe above cases, the coutt engaged in "discriminating inquiry into the precise facts" before concluding the controversy was justiciable. Baker, 369 U.S. at 217. A similar rigorous analysis is necessaty here.
A. First Baker Factor The first Baker factor requires abstention "[w]hen a case would require a court to decide an issue whose resolution is textually committed to a coordinate political department" because "the court lacks authority to resolve that issue." Zivotofeky ex rel. Zivotofeky v. Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421, 1431 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Since Baker, the Supreme Court has found such "textual commitment" in ve1y few cases. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a former federal judge sought to challenge the Senate's processes for taking evidence during impeachment trials. Id. at 226. The Coutt found his claim nonjusticiable due to the Constitution's clear statement granting the Senate "the sole Power to tty all Impeachments." Id. at 229 (quoting U.S. Const. att. I,§ 3, cl. 6). The Court found the provision's use of the word "sole" to be "of considerable significance."
PAGE 8- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 9 of 54
Id. at 231. The Court also discussed the histoty of the clause at issue, noting that the "Framers labored over the question ofwhere the impeachment power should lie" and "at least two considered" - and rejected - placing that power within the federal judiciary. Id. at 233.
In Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 235 n.11 (1979), the Court characterized the Speech or Debate Clause as the "paradigm example" ofa "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment." That clause provides that Senators and Representatives, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, ... shall not be questioned in any other place." U.S. Const. Art. I,§ 6, cl. 1. The Coutt explained that the clause plainly shields statements of federal legislators made during speech or debate in committees or on the House or Senate floor from any sort of judicial review, and thus speaks "directly to ... separation-of-powers concerns." Davis, 442 U.S. at 235 n.11.
Most recently, in Zivotoftky, the Court held that the Constitution gives the president the exclusive authority to recognize foreign nations and governments. 135 S. Ct. at 2086. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution does not use the term "recognition." Id. at 2084. Nonetheless, the Coutt determined that the Constitution granted the recognition power to the Executive Branch "[a]s a matter of constitutional structure." Id. at 2085. The Coutt concluded that the clauses giving the president exclusive authority to receive ambassadors and to negotiate treaties implicitly granted the recognition power. Id. at 2086. That determination rested in patt on the Court's conclusion that recognition was uniquely "a topic on which the Nation much speak with one voice." Id. at 2086 (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). If Congress had the power to decline to recognize a foreign state the Executive had decided to recognize, the president would be unable to assure that foreign state that its ambassadors would be received, its officials would be immune from suit in federal couti, and it would be permitted to initiate lawsuits in the United States to vindicate its rights. Id.
PAGE 9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 10 of 54
In issuing its decision, the Court expressly declined to hold that the Constitution gives the president the "unbounded power" to "conduct diplomatic relations" and exercise "the bulk of foreign-affairs powers." Id at 2089.
Unlike in the constitutional provisions at issue Nixon and Passman, the constitutional provisions cited here contain nothing approaching a clear reference to the subject matter ofthis case. The Constitution does not mention environmental policy, atmospheric emissions, or global warming. And unlike in Zivotojksy, climate change policy is not a fundamental power on which any other power allocated exclusively to other branches of government rests. Intervenors correctly point out that the Constitution gives the political branches authority over commerce, foreign relations, national defense, and federal lands - all areas affected by climate change policy. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 cl. 3 (Congress has authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states"); Zivotoftky, 135 S. Ct. at 2084-86 (discussing various constitutional provisions granting the Executive Branch foreign relations authority); U.S. Const. art. I,§ 8 cl. 11-16 (detailing Congress's powers relating to war and the militaiy); U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1 (President is commander in chief of armed forces); U.S. Const. at1. IV,§ 3, cl. 2 (Congress has power to "dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations" regarding federal land). But holding the first Baker factor applies in any case relating to these topic areas would permit the exception to swallow the rule. The question is not whether a case implicates issues that appear in the portions of the Constitution allocating power to the Legislative and Executive Branches - such a test would, by definition, shield nearly all legislative and executive action from legal challenge. Rather, the question is whether adjudicating a claim would require the Judicial Branch to second-guess decisions committed exclusively to another branch of government.
PAGE 10-0PINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 11 of 54
In the lower courts, the first Baker factor has found its broadest application in foreign policy cases. See, e.g., Corrie, 503 F.3d at 983 ("Whether to grant military or other aid to a foreign nation is a political decision inherently entangled with the conduct of foreign relations."); Gonzalez-Vera v. Kissinger, 449 F.3d 1260, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (decision to take "drastic measures" to keep Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in power was a foreign policy decision textually committed to the Executive Branch); Sadowski v. Bush, 293 F. Supp. 2d 15, 21 (D. C. Cir. 2003) (decision to go to war in Afghanistan was not justiciable, "primarily because war powers have been explicitly committed to the political branches"). As a result, I give special consideration to the argument that granting plaintiffs' requested reliefwould usurp the Executive Branch's foreign relations authority. Climate change policy has global implications and so is sometimes the subject of international agreements. But unlike the decisions to go to war, take action to keep a particular foreign leader in power, or give aid to another country, climate change policy is not inherently, or even primarily, a foreign policy decision. Moreover, in the foreign policy context, Baker expressly warned against framing the "textually committed" inquiry too broadly. See Baker, 369 U.S. at 211 ("[I]t is error to suppose that eve1y case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.") The first Baker factor does not apply.
B. Second and Third Baker Factors "The second and third Baker factors reflect circumstances in which a dispute calls for decisionmaking beyond courts' competence." Zivotoftky, 132 S. Ct. at 1432 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). "When a court is given no standard by which to adjudicate a dispute, or cannot resolve a dispute in the absence of a yet-unmade policy determination charged to a political branch, resolution of the suit is beyond the judicial role envisioned by Article III." Id
PAGE 11 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 12 of 54
Defendants' and intervenors' arguments on the second and third Baker factors can be divided into two main points. First, intervenors contend the Comt cannot set a permissible emissions level without making ad hoc policy determinations about how to weigh competing economic and environmental concerns. But plaintiffs do not ask this Comt to pinpoint the "best" emissions level; they ask this Court to determine what emissions level would be sufficient to redress their injuries. That question can be answered without any consideration of competing interests. Cf Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 99000, *l (E.D. Cal. & N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010) (requiring state to reduce the population of adult prisons to 137.5% of their total design capacity, a target which "extend[ed] no further than necessaty to correct the violation of California inmates' federal constitutional rights"). The science may well be complex, but logistical difficulties are immaterial to the political question analysis. See Alperin, 410 F.3d at 552, 555 ("[T]he crux ofth[e political question] inquiry is . . . not whether the case is unmanageable in the sense of being large, complicated, or otherwise difficult to tackle from a logistical standpoint," but rather whether "a legal framework exists by which comts can evaluate ... claims in a reasoned manner.").
Second, intervenors aver the Comt would have to choose which agencies and sectors should reduce emissions, and by how much. At oral argument, intervenors contended this would require review of every environmental rule and regulation in the last one hundred years. These arguments mischaracterize the relief plaintiffs seek. Plaintiffs do not seek to have this Court direct any individual agency to issue or enforce any patticular regulation. Rather, they ask the Court to declare the United States' cmTent environmental policy infringes their fundamental rights, direct the agencies to conduct a consumption-based inventoty of United States C02 emissions, and use that inventoty to "prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions
PAGE 12 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 13 of 54
and draw down excess atmospheric C02 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend." First Am. Comp!. at 94. This Court could issue the requested declaration without directing any individual agency to take any particular action.
Finally, defendants and intervenors contend that plaintiffs' failure to identify violations of precise statutoty or regulatoty provisions leaves this court without any legal standard by which to judge plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs could have brought a lawsuit predicated on technical regulato1y violations, but they chose a different path. As masters oftheir complaint, they have elected to assert constitutional rather than statutoty claims. Every day, federal comts apply the legal standards governing due process claims to new sets offacts. The facts in this case, though novel, are amenable to those well-established standards. Neither the second nor the third Baker factor divests this Comt of jurisdiction.
In the political question section oftheir objections to Judge Coffin's F&R, defendants assett the allegations in the complaint are not specific enough to put them on notice of plaintiffs' claims. This argument relates to the second and third Baker factors and the competence of this Court to adjudicate those claims, considerations which are addressed above. The argument also touches on concerns about causation and redressability, which are discussed in Section II of this opinion. However, the argument is also phrased in terms common to cases governing general pleading standards. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (complaint in federal comt must contain enough information to "give the defendant fair notice" of both the claim and the "grounds upon which it rests" (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). To the extent defendants challenge the First Amended Complaint as inadequately pleaded, that challenge fails. This is not a typical
PAGE 13 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 14 of 54
environmental case. Plaintiffs are not arguing defendants issued any particular permit in violation of a statutory provision in the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. They are not arguing any specific tax break, royalty rate, or contract runs afoul of an agency's governing regulations. Rather, the themy of plaintiffs' case is much broader: it is that defendants' aggregate actions violate their substantive due process rights and the government's public trust obligations. That themy, which requires no citation to particular statutoty or regulatmy provisions, is clear from the face ofthe First Amended Complaint.
C. Fourth through Sixth Baker Factors The fomih through sixth Baker factors "address circumstances in which prudence may counsel against a comi's resolution of an issue presented." Zivotofsky, 132 S. Ct. at 1432 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Only in "rare" cases will Baker's "final factors alone render a case nonjusticiable." Id. at 1434. Intervenors contend the fourth Baker factor, which concerns a comi expressing lack of respect to another branch of government, applies in this case. They argue that because the Executive and Legislative branches have taken numerous steps to address climate change, a ruling in plaintiffs' favor would be disrespectful to those efforts. Intervenors would have this Court hold the political question doctrine prevents a court from determining whether the federal government has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights so long as the government has taken some steps to mitigate the damage. However, intervenors cite no cases - and this Couti is aware of none - to support such a broad application of the foutih Baker factor. Rather, comis have found the fourth factor applies in cases asking a comi to "question the good faith with which another branch attests to the authenticity of its internal acts." Id. at 1433. The fourth factor has also been held relevant when
PAGE 14- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 15 of 54
"judicial resolution ofa question would contradict prior decisions taken by a political branch in those limited contexts where such contradiction would seriously interfere with impmiant governmental interests." Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 249 (2d Cir. 1995).
Consistent with those formulations, federal appellate courts have found the foutih Baker factor present when judicial adjudication of a claim would be wholly incompatible with foreignrelations decisions made by one of the political branches. See, e.g., Whiteman v. Dorotheum GmbH & Co. KG, 431 F.3d 57, 59 (2d Cir. 2005) (political question doctrine prevented court from adjudicating claims against Austrian government for seizure ofproperty from Jewish families during World War II because two presidential administrations had "committed the United States to a policy of resolving Holocaust-era restitution claims through international agreements rather than litigation."); Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 FJd 190, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (political question doctrine barred review of Executive Branch decision to patiicipate in cove1i operations in Chile, a decision that had already been the subject of congressional inquily).
Although the United States has made international commitments regarding climate change, granting the relief requested here would be fully consistent with those commitments. There is no contradiction between promising other nations the United States will reduce C02 emissions and a judicial order directing the United States to go beyond its international commitments to more aggressively reduce C02 emissions. Because this Court could grant plaintiffs' requested relief without expressing disrespect for the Executive Branch's international climate change agreements, the fourth Baker factor does not apply.
Neither intervenors nor defendants suggest the fifth or sixth Baker factors apply here. Nonetheless, I address those factors because federal coutis have an "independent obligation to assure
PAGE 15- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 16 of 54
[them]selves of' the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Rosson v. Fitzgerald (In re Rosson), 545 F.3d 764, 769 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008). On the face of the complaint, I see no evidence of an "unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made" or any "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various depatiments on one question." Baker, 369 U.S. at 217. I conclude neither of the two final Baker factors deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
D. Summwy: This Case Does Not Raise a Nonjusticiable Political Question There is no need to step outside the core role ofthejudiciaiyto decide this case. At its heat1, this lawsuit asks this Comt to determine whether defendants have violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. That question is squarely within the purview of the judiciaiy. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 941 (1983) (judiciaty is bound to determine whether the political branches have "chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing [their] power"); Jewel, 673 F.3d at 912 (although lawsuit challenging federal agencies' surveillance practices "strikes at the heat1 ofa major public policy controversy," claims were justiciable because they were "straightforward claims of statutoty and constitutional rights, not political questions"). This case shares some key features with Baker itself. In Baker, a group of voters challenged a statute governing the appot1ionment ofstate legislative districts. 369 U.S. at 188-95. Sixty years ofpopulation growth without legislative reappottionment had led to some votes carrying much more weight than others. Id. at 192-93. Here, the majority ofyouth plaintiffs are minors who cannot vote and must depend on others to protect their political interests. Thus, as amicus the League ofWomen Voters persuasively argues, the youth plaintiffs' claims are similar to the Baker claims because they are "rooted in a 'debasement of their votes' and an accompanying diminishment of their voice in
PAGE 16-0PINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 17 of 54
representational government." Br. for the League of Women Voters in the United States et al. as Amici Curiae at 19-20 (doc. 79-1 ).4 In Baker, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs' claims had political dimensions and ramifications - but nonetheless concluded none ofthe Baker factors was inextricable from the case. 369 U.S. at 209. Similarly, as discussed in detail above, this case raises political issues yet is not barred by the political question doctrine.
Should plaintiffs prevail on the merits, this Court would no doubt be compelled to exercise great care to avoid separation-of-powers problems in crafting a remedy. The separation of powers might, for example, permit the Court to direct defendants to ameliorate plaintiffs' injuries but limit its ability to specify precisely how to do so. Cf S. Burlington Cnty. N.A.A. C.P. v. Mt. Laurel Twp., 336 A.2d 713, 734 (N.J. 1975) (leaving to municipality "in the first instance at least" the determination of how to remedy the constitutional problems with a local zoning ordinance). That said, federal comts retain broad authority "to fashion practical remedies when confronted with complex and intractable constitutional violations." Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 526 (2011). In any event, speculation about the difficulty of crafting a remedy could not suppo1t dismissal at this early stage. See Baker, 369 U.S. at 198 ("Beyond noting that we have no cause at this stage to doubt the District Court will be able to fashion relief if violations of constitutional rights are found, it is improper now to consider what remedy would be most appropriate if appellants prevail at trial.") Because no Baker factor is inextricable from the merits of this case, the political question doctrine is not a barrier to plaintiffs' claims.
4 The motion of the League of Women Voters of the United States and the League of Women Voters of Oregon to appear as amici curiae (doc. 79) is granted. PAGE 17 -OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 18 of 54
IL Standing to Sue "A threshold question in every federal case is ... whether at least one plaintiffhas standing."
Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Standing requires a plaintiff to allege "such a personal stake in the outcome ofthe controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers[.]" Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injmy in fact that is concrete, patiicularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injmy is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged conduct; and (3) the injmy is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). A plaintiffmust support each element ofthe standing test "with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages ofthe litigation." Id. at 561. Accordingly, at the motion to dismiss stage "general allegations" suffice to establish standing because those allegations are presumed to "embrace those specific facts that are necessary to suppoti the claim." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
A Injury in Fact In an environmental case, a plaintiff cannot demonstrate injury in fact merely by alleging injury to the environment; there must be an allegation that the challenged conduct is harming (or imminently will harm) the plaintiff. Friends ofthe Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (I'OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000). For example, a plaintiff may meet the injmy in fact requirement by alleging the challenged activity "impairs his or her economic interests or aesthetic and environmental well-being." Wash. Envt 'l Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1140 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized).
PAGE 18-0PINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 19 of 54
Plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact. Lead plaintiffKelsey Juliana alleges algae blooms harm the water she drinks, and low water levels caused by drought kill the wild salmon she eats. First Am. Comp!. '\['\[ 17-18. Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez alleges increased wildfires and extreme floodingjeopardizehis personal safety. Id '\[21. PlaintiffAlexander Loznak alleges recordsetting temperatures harm the health ofthe hazelnut orchard on his family farm, an impottant source of both revenue and food for him and his family. Id '\[ 26. Plaintiff Jacob Lebel alleges drought conditions required his family to install an irrigation system at their farm. Id '\[ 32. PlaintiffZealand B. alleges he has been unable to ski during the winter as a result of decreased snowpack. Id '\[ 38. Plaintiff Sahara V. alleges hot, dty conditions caused by forest fires aggravate her asthma. Id. '\[ 46.
The most recent allegations of injmy appear in the supplemental declaration of plaintiff Jayden F., a thitteen-year-old resident of Rayne, Louisiana. Jayden alleges that at five o'clock the
morning of August 13, 2016, her siblings woke her up. Deel. Jayden F. 'If 5 Sept. 7, 2016 (doc. 78).
She stepped out of bed into ankle-deep water. By the end of the day, Floodwaters were pouring into our home through evety possible opening. We
tried to stop it with towels, blankets, and boards. The water was flowing down the hallway, into my Mom's room and my sisters' room. The water drenched my living room and began to cover our kitchen floor. Our toilets, sinks, and bathtubs began to overflow with awful smelling sewage because our town's sewer system also flooded. Soon the sewage was evetywhere. We had a stream of sewage and water running through our house. Id '\[ 8. With no shelters available and nowhere else to go, the family remained in the flooded house for weeks. Id '\[ l 0. The floodwaters eventually receded, but the damage remains: the carpets are soaked with sewage water. Id '\[ 12. The water-logged walls must be torn down to prevent the growth of black mold. Id The entire family sleeps together in the living room because the bedrooms are uninhabitable. Id '\[ l 5. Jayden alleges the storm that destroyed her home "ordinarily
PAGE 19- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 20 of 54
would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change." Id if 2.
The government contends these injuries are not particular to plaintiffs because they are caused by climate change, which broadly affects the entire planet (and all people on it) in some way. According to the government, this renders plaintiffs' injuries nonjusticiable generalized grievances. See Lexmark Int'/, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1387 n.3 (2014) (explaining that generalized grievances do not meet Atticle Ill's case or controversy requirement).
The government misunderstands the generalized grievance rule. As the Ninth Circuit recently explained, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear a case when the harm at issue is "not only widely shared, but is also of an abstract and indefinite nature - for example, harm to the common concern for obedience to the law." Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed Elec. Comm 'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 23 (1998)). Standing alone, "the fact that aharm is widely shared does not necessarily render it a generalized grievance." Jewel, 673 F.3d at 909; see also Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) ("[I]t does not matter how many persons have been injured by the challenged action" so long as "the patty bringing suit shows that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way." (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized)); Akins, 524 U.S. at 24 ("[A]n injury .... widely shared ... does not, by itself, automatically disqualify an interest for Atticle III purposes. Such an interest, where sufficiently concrete, may count as an 'injury in fact."'); Covington v. Jefferson Cnty., 358 F.3d 626, 651 (9th Cir. 2004) (Gould, J., concurring) ("[T]he most recent Supreme Coutt precedent appears to have rejected the notion that injmyto all isinjmyto none for standing purposes."); Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 469 (4th Cir. 2001) ("So long as the plaintiff ... has a concrete and particularized injmy, it does not matter that legions of other persons have the same injmy."). Indeed, even if"the experience at the
PAGE 20 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 21 of 54
root of [the] complaint was shared by virtually every American," the inquity remains whether that shared experience caused an injury that is concrete and particular to the plaintiff. Jewel, 673 F.3d at 910. Applying the correct formulation ofthe generalized grievance rule, plaintiffs' alleged injuries - harm to their personal, economic and aesthetic interests - are concrete and particularized, not abstract or indefinite.
That leaves imminence. Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they seek to press and for each form ofreliefsought. Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuna, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). Because plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, they must show their injuries are "ongoing or likely to recur." Consumer Fin. Prof. Bureau v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016)(quoting FTC v. Evans Prods. Co., 775 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 1985)). They have met this requirement. The complaint alleges that "[t]he present level of C02 and its warming, both realized and latent, are
already in the zone of danger." First Am. Comp!. 'if 8. It also alleges that "our countty is now in a
period ofcarbon overshoot, with early consequences that are already threatening and that will, in the
shott term, rise to unbearable unless Defendants take immediate action[.]" Id. 'if 10 (quotation marks
omitted). Youth plaintiffs each allege harm that is ongoing and likely to continue in the future. See,
e.g., id. 'if 17 (alleging current harm and harm "[i]n the coming decades" from ocean acidification and rising sea levels); id. 'if 45 (alleging damage to freshwater resources now and in the future "if
immediate action is not taken" to reduce C02 emissions). This is sufficient to satisfy the imminence requirement.
By alleging injuries that are concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, plaintiffs have satisfied the first prong of the standing test.
PAGE 21 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 22 of 54
B. Causation The second requirement of standing is causation. A plaintiff must show the injury alleged is "fairly traceable" to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of"the independent action of some third patiy not before the couti." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although a defendant's action need not be the sole source of injuty to support standing, Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 633 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2011), "[t]he line of causation between the defendant's action and the plaintiffs harm must be more than attenuated," Native Vil!. ofKivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted). However, a "causal chain does not fail simply because it has several links, provided those links are not hypothetical or tenuous and remain plausible." Id. (citations, quotation marks, and bracket omitted). The government contends plaintiffs have not adequately alleged causation, relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bellon. In that case, environmental advocacy groups sought to compel the Washington State Depatiment of Ecology and other regional agencies "to regulate greenhouse gas emissions" ("GHGs") from five oil refineries. Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1135. The court held plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the causal link between the agencies' regulatory decisions and the plaintiffs' injuries was "too attenuated." Id. at 1141. The couti explained the special challenge of showing causation with respect to the production of greenhouse gases: Greenhouse gases, once emitted from a specific source, quickly mix and disperse in the global atmosphere and have a long atmospheric lifetime. Current research on how greenhouse gases influence global climate change has focused on the cumulative environmental effects from aggregate regional or global sources. But there is limited scientific capability in assessing, detecting, or measuring the relationship between a cetiain GHG emission source and localized climate impacts in a given region.
PAGE 22 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 23 of 54
Id at 1143. The court noted that the five oil refineries at issue were responsible for just under six percent oftotal greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state ofWashington, and quoted the state's expe1i's declaration that the effect of those emissions on global climate change was "scientifically indiscernible, given the emission levels, the dispersal ofGHGs world-wide, and the absence ofany meaningful nexus between Washington refinery emissions and global GHG concentrations now or as projected in the future." Id. at 1144 (quotation marks omitted). The comi concluded the "causal chain [wa]s too tenuous to support standing." Id
This case is distinguishable from Bellon in two important respects. First, the procedmal postme is different. In Bellon, the appeal was taken from a grant ofsummaiy judgment. Id at 1138. That procedural postme is underscored by the court's reliance on expert declarations in rendering its decision. Plaintiffs have alleged a causal relationship between their injmies and defendants' conduct. At this stage, I am bound to accept those allegations as true. This rule appropriately acknowledges the limits of the judiciaiy's expertise: at the motion to dismiss stage, a federal cou1i is in no position to say it is impossible to introduce evidence to suppo1i a well-pleaded causal connection. See Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc., 582 F.3d 309, 347 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that causation in climate change cases is "best left to the rigors of evidentiary proof at a future stage of the proceedings, rather than dispensed with as a threshold question of constitutional standing"), rev'd on other grounds, Am. E/ec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 429 (2011). I note, too, that climate science is constantly evolving. See Kirsten Engel & Jonathan Overpeck, Adaptation and the Courtroom: Judging Climate Science, 3 Mich. J. Envt'I & Admin. L. 1, 25 (2013) (although "climate impacts at the regional and local levels are subject, among other things, to the uncertainties of downscaling techniques[,] ... our knowledge of the climate is
PAGE 23 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 24 of 54
developing at a breakneck pace.") As a result, I cannot interpret Bellon - which relied on a summaty judgment record developed more than five years ago - to forever close the courthouse doors to climate change claims.
Second, the emissions at issue in this case, unlike the emissions at issue in Bellon, make up a significant share of global emissions. In Bellon, as noted, the five oil refineries were responsible for just under six percent ofthe greenhouse gas emissions generated in the state ofWashington. The Ninth Circuit recently explained that in Bellon, "causation was lacking because the defendant oil refineries were such minor contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and the independent third-pmiy causes ofclimate change were so numerous, that the contribution ofthe defendant oil refineries was 'scientifically undiscernable. "' WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep 't ofAgric., 795 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1144). Here, by contrast, plaintiffs' chain of causation rests on the core allegation that defendants are responsible for a substantial share of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Plaintiffs allege that over the 263 years between 1751and2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global C02 emissions. First Am. Comp!. ~ 151. Greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States continue to increase. Id. ~ 152. In 2012, the United States was the second largest producer and consumer of energy in the world. Id. ~ 160. Bellon's reasoning, which rested on a determination the oil refineries were "minor contributors" to climate change, does not apply. WildEarth Guardians, 795 F.3d at 1158.
The government broadly asserts that Bellon rejected "the argument that allegations that a source 'contributed' to climate change are sufficient to satisfy Article III' s causation requirement[.]" Fed. Defs.' Mem. of Points & Auth. in Supp. of Mot. Dismiss at 12 (doc. 27-1). Not so. Bellon rejected-al the summmyjudgment stage- "vague, conclusmy" statements purporting to establish
PAGE 24 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 25 of 54
a causal relationship between the emissions of five refineries and the plaintiffs' injuries. 732 F.3d at 1142. Although the Constitution did not require the Bellon plaintiffs to "connect each molecule to their injuries," it demanded more than "simply saying that the Agencies have failed to curb emission of greenhouse gases, which contribute (in some undefined way and to some undefined degree) to their injuries[.]" Id. at 1142-43.
The causal chain alleged by plaintiffs here is concluso1y, but that is because they have not yet had the opportunity to present evidence. And unlike in Bellon, plaintiffs' causation allegations are not vague. At oral argument, plaintiffs explained that their theory of causation has two components. The first relates to defendants' affirmative acts. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that fossil fuel combustion accounts for approximately ninety-four percent of United States C02 emissions. First Am. Comp!.~ 158. Defendants lease public lands for oil, gas, and coal production; undercharge royalties in connection with those leases; provide tax breaks to companies to encourage fossil fuel development; permit the import and export of fossil fuels; and incentivize the purchase ofsp01tutilityvehicles. Id.~~ 164, 166, 171, 173, 181, 190. Here, thechainofcausationis: fossil fuel combustion accounts for the lion's share of greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States; defendants have the power to increase or decrease those emissions; and defendants use that power to engage in a variety of activities that actively cause and promote higher levels of fossil fuel combustion.
The second component of plaintiffs' causation the01y involves defendants' failure to act in areas where they have authority to do so. Plaintiffs allege that together, power plants and transportation produce nearly two-thirds of C02 emissions in the United States. Id. ~ 115 (transportation produces approximately twenty-seven percent ofannual emissions); id. ~ 125 (power
PAGE 25 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 26 of 54
plants produce roughly thirty-seven percent of annual emissions). Plaintiffs also allege DOT and EPA have broad power to set emissions standards in these sectors. So the chain of causation is: DOT and EPA have jurisdiction over sectors producing sixty-four percent of United States emissions, which in turn constitute roughly fourteen percent ofemissions worldwide; they allow high emissions levels by failing to set demanding standards; high emissions levels cause climate change; and climate change causes plaintiffs' injuries.
Each link in these causal chains may be difficult to prove, but the "spectre ofdifficulty down the road does not inform [the] justiciability determination at this early stage of the proceedings." Alperin, 410 F.3d at 539. At the pleading stage, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a causal link between defendants' conduct and the asserted injuries.
C. Redressability The final prong of the standing inquiry is redressability. The causation and redressability prongs of the standing inqui1y "overlap and are two facets of a single causation requirement." Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1146 (citation and quotation marks omitted). They are distinct in that causation "examines the connection between the alleged misconduct and injmy, whereas redressability analyzes the connection between the alleged inju1y and requested judicial relief." Id A plaintiff need not show a favorable decision is ce11ain to redress his inju1y, but must show a substantial likelihood it will do so. Id It is sufficient for the redressability inquiry to show that the requested remedy would "slow or reduce" the harm. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 525 (citing Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 243 n.15 (1982)). The declarato1y and iajunctive relief plaintiffs request meets this standard. Most notably, plaintiffs ask this Court to "[o]rder Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national
PAGE 26 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 27 of 54
remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric C02[.J" First Am. Comp!. ~ 94. Ifplaintiffs can show, as they have alleged, that defendants have control over a quarter of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions, and that a reduction in those emissions would reduce atmospheric C02 and slow climate change, then plaintiffs' requested relief would redress their injuries.
Bellon is not to the contraty. In Bellon, the court concluded the plaintiff's injuries would continue unabated even if the five oil refineries shut down, repeating its conclusion that the effect of the emissions produced by those refineries on global emissions levels was "scientifically indiscernable." 732 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, Bellon's redressability holding, like its causation holding, rested on a factor not present here: that the defendants were minor contributors to global climate change. Accordingly, Bellon's reasoning does not apply.
Defendants and intervenors essentially argue that because many entities contribute to global watming, an injunction operating on one entity- even a major player- would offer no guarantee of an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But whether the Court could guarantee an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the wrong inquity for at least two reasons. First, redressability does not require certainty, it requires only a substantial likelihood that the Court could provide meaningful relief. Second, the possibility that some other individual or entity might later cause the same injury does not defeat standing - the question is whether the injury caused by the defendant can be redressed.
Redressability in this case is scientifically complex, particularly in light of the specter of "ineversible climate change,'' wherein greenhouse gas emissions above a certain level push the planet past "points of no return, beyond which ineversible consequences become inevitable, out of
PAGE 27 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 28 of 54
humanity's control." Hansen Deel. if 13 & Ex. 2 at 13 Sept. 10, 2015 (docs. 7-1 & 7-3) (quotation
marks omitted). This raises a host of questions, among them: What part of plaintiffs' injuries are attributable to causes beyond this Court's control? Even if emissions increase elsewhere, will the magnitude of plaintiffs' injuries be less if they obtain the relief they seek in this lawsuit? When would we reach this point of no return, and do defendants have it within their power to avert reaching it even without cooperation from third parties? All of these questions are inextricably bound up in the causation inquity, and none ofthem can be answered at the motion to dismiss stage.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to "order Defendants to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out C02 emissions, as well as take such other action necessmy to ensure that atmospheric C02 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth's energy balance, and implement that
national plan so as to stabilize the climate system." First Am. Comp!. if 12 (emphasis omitted).
Construing the complaint in plaintiffs' favor, they allege that this relief would at least partially redress their asserted injuries. Youth plaintiffs have adequately alleged they have standing to sue.5 III. Due Process Claims6
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the federal government from depriving a person of "life, liberty, or property" without "due process of
5 Defendants and intervenors also challenge the standing of future generations plaintiffs on a number of grounds. It is not necessmy to address these arguments because once a federal court concludes one plaintiff has standing, it need not determine whether the remaining plaintiffs have standing. Nat'! Ass'n ofOptometrists & Opticians LensCrafters, Inc. v. Brown, 567 F.3d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 2009).
6 Plaintiffs' due process claims encompass asserted equal protection violations and violations of unenumerated rights secured by the Ninth Amendment. For simplicity's sake, this opinion refers to these claims collectively as "due process claims." PAGE 28 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 29 of 54
law." U.S. Const. amend. V. Plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their due process rights by "directly caus[ing] atmospheric C02 to rise to levels that dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required alike by our nation and Plaintiffs[,]" First Am. Comp!. ~ 279; "knowingly endanger[ing] Plaintiffs' health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion," id. ~ 280; and, "[a]fter knowingly creating this dangerous situation for Plaintiffs, ... continu[ing] to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels," id. ~ 284.
Defendants and intervenors challenge plaintiffs' due process claims on two grounds. First, they assert any challenge to defendants' affirmative actions (i.e. leasing land, issuing permits) cannot proceed because plaintiffs have failed to identify infringement of a fundamental right or discrimination against a suspect class of persons. Second, they argue plaintiffs cannot challenge defendants' inaction (i.e., failure to prevent third parties from emitting C02 at dangerous levels) because defendants have no affirmative duty to protect plaintiffs from climate change.
A. Infringement ofa Fundamental Right When a plaintiff challenges affirmative government action under the due process clause, the threshold inquity is the applicable level ofjudicial scrutiny. Witt v. Dep 't ofthe Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 2008). The default level of scrutiny is rational basis, which requires a reviewing couit to uphold the challenged governmental action so long as it "implements a rational means of achieving a legitimate governmental end[.]" Kim v. United States, 121F.3d1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). When the government infringes a "fundamental right," however, a reviewing court applies strict scrutiny. Witt, 527 F.3d at 817. Substantive due process "forbids
PAGE 29 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 30 of 54
the government to infringe ce1tain 'fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) (emphasis in original). It appears undisputed by plaintiffs, and in any event is clear to this Coutt, that defendants' affirmative actions would survive rational basis review. Resolution ofthis part ofthe motions to dismiss therefore hinges on whether plaintiffs have alleged infringement of a fundamental right.7
Fundamental libetty rights include both rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution and rights and libetties which are either (1) "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or (2) "fundamental to our scheme of ordered libe1ty[.]" McDonaldv. City ofChicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 767(2010) (internal citations, quotations, and emphasis omitted). The Supreme Court has cautioned that federal courts must "exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the libetty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transfotmed into"judicial policy preferences. Washington v. G/ucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
This does not mean that "new" fundamental rights are out of bounds, though. When the Supreme Court broke new legal ground by recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote that
The nature ofinjustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill ofRights ... did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations
7 Strict scrutiny also is triggered by an allegation that the government discriminated on the basis of a suspect classification, regardless of whether the government action infringed a fundamental right. Green v. City ofTucson, 340 F.3d 891, 896 (9th Cir. 2003). Because I conclude that plaintiffs have alleged a violation of their fundamental rights, I need not address whether youth or future generations are suspect classifications for equal protection purposes. PAGE 30 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 31 of 54
a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to libetty must be addressed. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2598 (2015). Thus, "[t]he identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part ofthe judicial duty to interpret the Constitution ... [that] has not been reduced to any formula." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a right is fundamental, courts must exercise "reasoned judgment," keeping in mind that "[h]istoty and tradition guide and discipline this inquity but do not set its outer boundaries." Id. The genius of the Constitution is that its text allows "future generations [to] protect . . . the right of all persons to enjoy libetty as we learn its meaning." Id. Often, an unenumerated fundamental right draws on more than one Constitutional source. The idea is that certain rights may be necessaty to enable the exercise of other rights, whether enumerated or unenumerated. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53 (1973), the Court exhaustively chronicled the jurisprudential histoty of the fundamental right to privacy - another right not mentioned in the text ofthe Constitution. Roe's central holding rests on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 153. But the Court also found "roots" of the right to privacy in the First Amendment, the Fou1th Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, and the Ninth Amendment. Id. at 152. Similarly, in Obergefell, the Comt's recognition of a fundamental right to many was grounded in an understanding ofmarriage as a right underlying and suppotting other vital liberties. See 135 S. Ct. at 2599 ("[I]t would be contradictory to recognize a right to privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is at the foundation ofthe family in our society." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); id. at 2601 ("[M]arriage is a keystone of our social order.").
PAGE 31 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 32 of 54
Exercising my "reasoned judgment," id at 2598, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. Just as marriage is the "foundation of the family," a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation "ofsociety, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." Id (quoting Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888)); cf Minors Oposa v. Sec'y ofthe Dep't o/Envt'l &Natural Res., G.R. No. 101083, 33 I.L.M. 173, 187-88 (S.C., Jul. 30, 1993) (Phil.) (without "a balanced and healthful ecology," future generations "stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.").
Defendants and intervenors contend plaintiffs are asserting a right to be free from pollution or climate change, and that courts have consistently rejected attempts to define such rights as fundamental. Defendants and intervenors mischaracterize the right plaintiffs assert. Plaintiffs do not object to the government's role in producing any pollution or in causing any climate change; rather, they assett the government has caused pollution and climate change on a catastrophic level, and that if the government's actions continue unchecked, they will permanently and irreversibly damage plaintiffs' propetty, their economic livelihood, their recreational opp01tunities, their health, and ultimately their (and their children's) ability to live long, healthy lives. Echoing Obergefell's reasoning, plaintiffs allege a stable climate system is a necessaty condition to exercising other rights to life, liberty, and property.
In framing the fundamental right at issue as the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life, I intend to strike a balance and to provide some protection against the constitutionalization ofall environmental claims. On the one hand, the phrase "capable ofsustaining human life" should not be read to require a plaintiffto allege that governmental action will result in
PAGE 32 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 33 of 54
the extinction ofhumans as a species. On the other hand, acknowledgment ofthis fundamental right does not transform any minor or even moderate act that contributes to the warming ofthe planet into a constitutional violation. In this opinion, this Court simply holds that where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet's ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation. To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government's knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged infringement of a fundamental right.
B. "Danger Creation" Challenge to Inaction With limited exceptions, the Due Process Clause does not impose on the government an affirmative obligation to act, even when "such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or propetty interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep 't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989). This rule is subject to two exceptions: "(1) the 'special relationship' exception; and (2) the 'danger creation' exception." L. W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992). The "special relationship" exception provides that when the government takes an individual into custody against his or her will, it assumes some responsibility to ensure that individual's safety. Id. The "danger creation" exception permits a substantive due process claim when government conduct "places a person in peril in deliberate indifference to their safety[.]" Peni/la v. City ofHuntington Park, 115 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs purport to challenge the government's failure to limit third-party C02 emissions pursuant to the danger creation DeShaney exception.
PAGE 33 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 34 of 54
In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff challenging government inaction on a danger creation theory must first show the "state actor create[d] or expose[d] an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced." Kennedy v. City ofRidgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006). The state action must place the plaintiff "in a worse position than that in which he would have been had the state not acted at all." Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized). Second, the plaintiff must show the "state actor ... recognize[d]" the unreasonable risks to the plaintiffand "actually intend[ed] to expose the plaintiffto such risks without regard to the consequences to the plaintiff." Campbell v. Wash. Dep 't ofSoc. & Health Servs., 671 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 2011) (brackets and quotation marks omitted). The defendant must have acted with"[d]eliberate indifference," which "requires a culpable mental state more than gross negligence." Pauluk, 836 F.3d at 1125 (quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs allege that "[a]cting with full appreciation of the consequences of their acts, Defendants knowingly caused, and continue to cause, dangerous interference with our atmosphere
and climate system." First Am. Comp!. ii 85. They allege this danger stems, "in substantial part,
[from] Defendants' historic and continuing permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuel
extraction, production, transportation, and utilization." Id. ii 279. Plaintiffs allege defendants acted "with full appreciation" of the consequences of their acts, id. iii! 278-79, specifically "[harm to]
Plaintiffs' dignity, including their capacity to provide for their basic human needs, safely raise families, practice their religious and spiritual beliefs, maintain their bodily integrity, and lead lives
with access to clean air, water, shelter, and food." Id. ii 283. In the face of these risks, plaintiffs
allege defendants "have had longstanding, actual knowledge of the serious risks of harm and have failed to take necessary steps to address and ameliorate the known, serious risk to which they have
PAGE 34 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 35 of 54
exposed Plaintiffs." Id. 'if 285. In sum: plaintiffs allege defendants played a unique and central role
in the creation of our current climate crisis; that they contributed to the crisis with full knowledge of the significant and unreasonable risks posed by climate change;8 and that the Due Process Clause therefore imposes a special duty on defendants to use their statutory and regulatory authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Accepting the allegations ofthe complaint as true, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a danger creation claim.
Defendants argue the DeShaney exceptions are inapplicable when the actor is the federal government rather than a state government. It is true that DeShaney was a section 1983 case and that the Ninth Circuit cases interpreting the DeShaney exceptions are also section 1983 cases. But in DeShaney, the Supreme Court was mapping the contours of the Due Process Clause, not section 1983. Defendants have cited no case or legal principle to justify limiting DeShaney to the section 1983 context.
Next, defendants contend application of the DeShaney danger creation exception in this context would permit plaintiffs to "raise a substantive due process claim to challenge vittually any government program" - for example, to challenge foreign policy decisions that heighten or exacerbate international tensions, or to health and safety regulations the plaintiffdeems insufficiently
8 At oral argument, plaintiffs supplied the Comt with a timeline documenting purported evidence of defendants' knowledge of climate change. The timeline, which dates back to 1955, includes the 1988 testimony of Dr. James Hansen before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Dr. Hansen, who appears in this lawsuit as a guardian for his granddaughter and for future generations, testified about rising global temperatures and their relationship to human activity. First Session on the Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change Before the Comm. on Energy & Natural Res., lOOth Cong. 39 (1988). He urged legislators to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Id. at 158. Dr. Hansen's testimony was preceded by a statement from Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, who bemoaned, "We're not going to have a lot of political support for this. Nobody wants to take on the automobile industry. Nobody wants to take on any of the industries that produce the things we throw up into the atmosphere." Id. at 38. PAGE 35 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 36 of 54
stringent. Fed. Defs.' Obj. 18. Defendants fail to recognize that DeShaney imposes rigorous proof
requirements. A plaintiff asse1ting a danger-creation due process claim must show (1) the
government's acts created the danger to the plaintiff; (2) the government knew its acts caused that danger; and (3) the government with deliberate indifference failed to act to prevent the alleged harm.
These stringent standards are sufficient safeguards against the flood oflitigation concerns raised by defendants - indeed, they pose a significant challenge for plaintiffs in this ve1y lawsuit.9
Questions about difficulty ofproof, however, must be left for another day. At the motion to dismiss stage, I am bound to accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants played a significant role in creating the current climate crisis, that defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions, and that defendants have failed to correct or mitigate the harms they helped create in deliberate indifference to the injuries caused by climate change. They may therefore proceed with their substantive due process challenge to defendants' failure to adequately regulate CO, emissions.
IV. Public Trust Claims
In its broadest sense, the term "public trust" refers to the fundamental understanding that no
government can legitimately abdicate its core sovereign powers. See Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S.
814, 820 (1879) ("[T]he power of governing is a trust committed by the people to the government, no pait ofwhich can be granted away.") The public trust doctrine rests on the fundamental principle that"[e]ve1y succeeding legislature possesses the same jurisdiction and power with respect to [the
public interest] as its predecessors." Newton v. Mahoning Cnty. Comm 'rs, 100 U.S. 548, 559 (1879).
9 There are other barriers to asserting defendants' hypothetical danger-creation claims. For example, as discussed in Part I ofthis opinion, the political question doctrine sharply limits judicial review of decisions inherently entangled with the conduct of foreign relations. PAGE 36 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 37 of 54
The doctrine conceives of certain powers and obligations - for example, the police power - as inherent aspects of sovereignty. Id. at 554. Permitting the government to permanently give one of these powers to another entity runs afoul ofthe public trust doctrine because it diminishes the power of future legislatures to promote the general welfare.
Plaintiffs' public trust claims arise from the particular application ofthe public trust doctrine to essential natural resources. With respect to these core resources, the sovereign's public trust obligations prevent it from "depriving a future legislature of the natural resources necessary to provide forthe well-being and survival ofits citizens." Br. ofAmici Curiae Global Catholic Climate Movement and Leadership Council of Women Religious at 3 (footnote omitted) (doc. 51-1). Application of the public trust doctrine to natural resources predates the United States of America. Its roots are in the Institutes ofJustinian, pati ofthe Corpus Juris Civilis, the body ofRoman law that is the "foundation for modern civil law systems." Timothy G. Kearley, Justice Fred Blume and the
Translation ofJustinian's Code, 99 Law Libr. J. 525, if 1 (2007). The Institutes ofJustinian declared
"the following things are by natural law common to all - the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the seashore." J. Inst. 2.1.1 (J.B. Moyle trans.). The doctrine made its way to the United States through the English common law. See Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe ofIdaho, 521 U.S. 261, 284 (1997) ("American law adopted as its own much of the English law respecting navigable waters, including the principle that submerged lands are held for a public purpose."); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 473 (1988) ("At common law, the title and dominion in lands flowed by the tide water were in the King for the benefit of the nation ... Upon the American Revolution, these rights, charged with a like trust, were vested in the original States within their respective borders[.]" (quotingShivelyv. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 57 (1894)); JosephL. Sax,
PAGE 37 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 38 of 54
The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 471, 475-76 (1970) (discussing the histo1y of the public trust doctrine in the United States).
The first comt in this country to address the applicability of the public trust doctrine to natural resources was the New Jersey Supreme Comi, in 1821. The court explained that public trust assets were pa1t of a taxonomy of prope1ty:
Every thing susceptible of prope1ty is considered as belonging to the nation that possesses the countty, as forming the entire mass of its wealth. But the nation does not possess all those things in the same manner. By ve1y far the greater patt of them are divided among the individuals ofthe nation, and become private property. Those things not divided among the individuals still belong to the nation, and are called public property. Of these, again, some are reserved for the necessities of the state, and are used for the public benefit, and those are called "the domain ofthe crown or ofthe republic," others remain common to all the citizens, who take of them and use them, each according to his necessities, and according to the laws which regulate their use, and are called common property. Of this latter kind, according to the writers upon the law ofnature and ofnations, and upon the civil law, are the air, the running water, the sea, the fish, and the wild beasts. Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1, 71 (N.J. 1821) (emphasis in original). The seminal United States Supreme Court case on the public ttust is Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). The Illinois legislature had conveyed to the Illinois Central Railroad Company title to part ofthe submerged lands beneath the harbor of Chicago, with the intent to give the company control over the waters above the submerged lands "against any future exercise of power over them by the state." Id. at 452. The Supreme Court held the legislature's attempt to give up its title to lands submerged beneath navigable waters was either void on its face or always subject to revocation. Id. at 453. "The state can no more abdicate its trust over prope1ty
in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them ... than it can
abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation ofthe peace."
PAGE 38-0PINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 39 of 54
Id In light ofthe "immense value" the harbor of Chicago carried for the people ofIllinois, the "idea that its legislature can deprive the state of control over its bed and waters, and place the same in the
hands of a private corporation" could not "be defended." Id. at 454.
The natural resources trust operates according to basic trust principles, which impose upon the trustee a fiduciary duty to "protect the trust property against damage or destruction." George G. Bogett et al., Bogert's Trusts and Ttustees, § 582 (2016). The trustee owes this duty equally to both current and future beneficiaries ofthe trust. Restatement (Second) ofTrusts § 183 (1959). In natural resources cases, the trust property consists of a set of resources important enough to the people to warrant public trust protection. See Mary C. Wood, A Nature's Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age 167-75 (2014). The government, as trustee, has a fiduciaty duty to protect the trust assets from damage so that current and future trust beneficiaries will be able to enjoy the
benefits of the trust. Id. The public trust doctrine is generally thought to impose three types of
restrictions on governmental authority: [F]irst, the propetty subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third, the propetty must be maintained for particular types of uses.
JosephL. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 471, 477 (1970).
This lawsuit is part of a wave of recent environmental cases assetting state and national governments have abdicated their responsibilities under the public trust doctrine. See, e.g., Alec L. v. Jackson, 863 F. Supp. 2d 11(D.D.C.2012); Sanders-Reed ex rel. Sanders-Reedv. Martinez, 350 P.3d 1221 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015); Kanukex rel. Kanukv. State, Dep 't ofNatural Res., 335 P.3d 1088
PAGE 39- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 40 of 54
(Alaska 2014); Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, 328 P.3d 799 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). These lawsuits depart from the "traditional" public trust litigation model, which generally centers on the second restriction, the prohibition against alienation of a public trust asset. Instead, plaintiffs assert defendants have violated their duties as trustees by nominally retaining control over trust assets while actually allowing their depletion and destruction, effectively violating the first and third restrictions by excluding the public from use and enjoyment of public resources.
Defendants and intervenors argue the public trust doctrine has no application in this case. They advance four arguments: (1) the atmosphere, the central natural resource at issue in this lawsuit, is not a public trust asset; (2) the federal government, unlike the states, has no public trust obligations; (3) any common-law public trust claims have been displaced by federal statutes; and (4) even if there is a federal public trust, plaintiffs lack a right of action to enforce it. I address each contention in turn.
A. Scope ofPublic Trust Assets The complaint alleges defendants violated their duties as trustees by failing to protect the
atmosphere, water, seas, seashores, and wildlife. First Am. Comp!. iJ 309. Defendants and
intervenors argue plaintiffs' public trust claims fail because the complaint focuses on harm to the atmosphere, which is not a public trust asset. I conclude that it is not necessmy at this stage to determine whether the atmosphere is a public trust asset because plaintiffs have alleged violations of the public trust doctrine in connection with the territorial sea.10
10 To be clear, today's opinion should not be taken to suggest that the atmosphere is not a public trust asset. The Institutes of Justinian included the air in the list of assets "by natural law common to all." J. Inst. 2.1.l (J.B. Moyle trans.). The New Jersey Supreme Court in Arnold similarly included air in its list of"common prope1ty." 6 N.J.L. at 71. Even Supreme Comt case law suggests the atmosphere may properly be deemed pmt of the public trust res. See United PAGE 40 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 41 of 54
The federal government holds title to the submerged lands between three and twelve miles
from the coastlines of the United States. See Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of
the United States§ 51 l(a) (1987) (international law permits a nation to claim as its territorial sea an
area up to twelve miles from its coast); Presidential Proclamation of Dec. 27, 1988, No. 5928, 3
C.F.R. § 547 (1989) (President Reagan expanding United States' claim from tlu·ee-mile territorial
sea to twelve-mile territorial sea); 43 U.S.C. § 1312 (seaward boundaty of a coastal state is "a line
States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 261 (1946) (holding that private rights to airspace have "no place in the modern world" because recognition of such claims would "transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.") The dearth of litigation focusing on atmosphere may reflect the limited state of scientific knowledge rather than signal a determination that the air is outside the scope of the public trust. See Mary C. Wood, Atmospheric Trust Litigation Across the World, in Fiduciaty Duty and the Atmospheric Trust 113 (Ken Coghill et al. Eds. 2012) (hypothesizing that the atmosphere does not appear in early public trust case law because air was long thought to be indestructible and incapable of privatization).
Even if the atmosphere was not always considered a public trust asset, some courts have concluded the doctrine should "be molded and extended to meet changing conditions and needs of the public it was created to benefit.'' Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 471 A.2d 355, 365 (N.J. 1984) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Just last year, Judge Hollis Hill reasoned that it "misses the point" to mechanically rely on what has been identified as a public trust asset in the past because "[t)he navigable waters and the atmosphere are intertwined and to argue a separation of the two, or to argue that [greenhouse gas] emissions do not affect navigable waters is nonsensical." Foster v. Wash. Dep 't ofEcology, No. 14-2-25295-1, slip op. at 8 (Wash. King Cnty. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2015). At least one state court has held in recent years that "the concept of public natural resources includes not only state-owned lands, waterways, and mineral reserves, but also resources that implicate the public interest, such as ambient air, surface and ground water, wild flora, and fauna (including fish) that are outside the scope of purely private propetty.'' Robinson Twp., Wash. Cnty., Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 83 A.3d 901, 955 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2013).
The Supreme Court arguably endorsed this pragmatic approach to the identification of trust assets in Illinois Central, where it held, contraty to English common law, that lakes and rivers unaffected by the ebb and flow of the tide could be navigable waters within the meaning of the public trust doctrine. 146 U.S. at 436 (English rule for determining navigability would not work in the United States, which contains "rivers [that] are navigable for great distances above the flow ofthe tide- indeed, for hundreds of miles").
PAGE 41 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 42 of 54
three geographical miles distant from its coast line"). Time and again, the Supreme Court has held thatthe public trust doctrine applies to "lands beneath tidal waters." See Phillips Petroleum Co., 484 U.S. at 474 (discussing Shively, 152 U.S. at 57 and Knight v. US. Land Ass 'n, 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891)); Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 278 (1954) (Black, J., dissenting) ("In ocean waters bordering our count1y, ifnowhere else, day-to-day national power- complete, undivided, flexible, and immediately available-is an essential attribute of federal sovereignty."); id. at 282 (Douglas, J., dissenting) ("Thus we are dealing here with incidents ofnational sovereignty .... The authority over [the sea] can no more be abdicated than any of the other great powers of the Federal Government. It is to be exercised for the benefit ofthe whole."); see also Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 471, 556 (1970) (public trust law covers "that aspect ofthe public domain below the low-water mark on the margin of the sea and the great lakes, the waters over those lands, and the waters within rivers and streams of any consequence"). Because a number ofplaintiffs' injuries relate to the effects of ocean acidification and rising ocean temperatures,' 1 they have adequately alleged harm to public trust assets.
11 See, e.g., First Am. Comp!.~ 16 ("An impo1tant patt of Kelsey's diet includes food that comes from the marine waters and freshwater rivers, including salmon, cod, tuna, clams, mussels, and crab."); id. ~ 27 ("Other food sources for Alex, including crab and seafood, are negatively impacted by ocean acidification, warming, and sea level rise caused by Defendants."); id. ~ 33 ("Ocean acidification caused by Defendants has already begun to adversely impact shellfish along the coast, and is predicted to take its toll on crab, mussels, and all shelled seafood."); id. ~ 45 ("On the Oregon coast, Sahara enjoys climbing rocks and sand dunes, swimming, and tidepooling to see marine life. Sahara's enjoyment of these activities is being increasingly harmed in the future by sea level rise, greater erosion, enhanced ocean acidification, and increased water temperatures."). PAGE 42 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 43 of 54
B. Applicability ofPublic Trust to the Federal Government Defendants and intervenors contend that in the United States, the public trust doctrine applies only to the states and not to the federal government. This argument rests primarily on a passing statement in PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576(2012). A close examination ofthat case reveals that it cannot fairly be read to foreclose application of the public trust doctrine to assets owned by the federal government. PPL Montana was not a public trust case. Its central concern was the equal footing doctrine. PPL Montana, LLC used three rivers flowing through the state ofMontana for hydroelectric projects. Id. at 580. Montana sought rent for the use of the riverbeds, arguing it had gained title to the rivers pursuant to the equal footing doctrine when it became a state in 1889. Id. The Montana Supreme Court granted summaty judgment on title to Montana. On writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Comt, review hinged on whether the rivers in question were "navigable" in 1889, because the "title consequences ofthe equal-footing doctrine" are that"[u]pon statehood, the State gains title within its borders to the beds ofwaters then navigable (or tidally influenced .. .)[.]"Id. at 589-90. The Comt reversed and remanded, holding that the Montana comts had applied the wrong methodology for determining navigability. In addition to its main argument that the rivers were navigable, Montana argued that denying it title to the riverbeds in dispute would "undermine the public trust doctrine." Id. at 601. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in sho1t order: Unlike the equal-footing doctrine, ... which is the constitutional foundation for the navigability rule ofriverbed title, the public trust doctrine remains a matter of state law, subject as well to the federal power to regulate vessels and navigation under the Commerce Clause and admiralty power. While equal-footing cases have noted that the State takes title to the navigable waters and their beds in trust for the public, the
PAGE 43 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 44 of 54
contours of that public trust do not depend upon the Constitution. Under accepted principles of federalism, the States retain residual power to determine the scope of the public trust over waters within their borders, while federal law determines riverbed title under the equal-footing doctrine. Id at 603 (citations omitted). Defendants and intervenors take the phrase "the public trust doctrine remains a matter ofstate law," and interpret it in isolation to foreclose all federal public trust claims. That is not a plausible interpretation of PPL Montana. The Coutt was simply stating that federal law, not state law, determined whether Montana has title to the riverbeds, and that ifMontana had title, state law would define the scope of Montana's public trust obligations. PPL Montana said nothing at all about the viability of federal public trust claims with respect to federally-owned trust assets. In a string citation, PPL Montana cited Coeur d'Alene, 521 U.S. at 285, and Appleby v. City a/New York, 271U.S.364, 395 (1926), forthe proposition that Illinois Central"was necessarily a statement of Illinois law." 132 S. Ct. at 1235. That statement is not surprising given the nature of the public trust doctrine. Public trust obligations are inherent aspects of sovereignty; it follows that any case applying the public trust doctrine to a particular state is necessarily a statement of that state's law rather than a statement of the law of another sovereign. In Coeur d'Alene, the Supreme Coutt explained that even though Illinois Central interpreted Illinois law, its central tenets could be applied broadly (for example, to Idaho) because it "invoked the principle in American law recognizing the weighty public interests in submerged lands." 521 U.S. at 285. The Court then detailed how the American public trust doctrine, which has diverged from the English public trust doctrine in important ways, has developed as "a natural outgrowth ofthe perceived public character ofsubmerged lands, a perception which underlies and informs the principle that these lands are tied
PAGE 44 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 45 of 54
in a unique way to sovereignty." Id. at 286. There is no reason why the central tenets of Illinois Central should apply to another state, but not to the federal government.
Defendants and intervenors also contend recognizing a federal public trust claim is contraty to United States v. 32.42 Acres ofLand, More or Less, Located in San Diego County, California, 683 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2012), which repeated PPL Afontana's statement that "the public trust doctrine remains a matter ofstate law" in concluding that the federal government's eminent domain powers trumped any state-law public trust concerns. That case did not foreclose a federal public trust claim, however, because the Ninth Circuit expressly declined to address the viability ofthe federal public trust the district comt imposed on the federal government after it ruled the land could be taken pursuant to eminent domain. Id. at 1033 & 1039 n.2.
In 2012, the federal district comt for the District of Columbia held the public trust doctrine does not apply to the federal government. Alec L. was substantially similar to the instant action: five youth plaintiffs and two environmental advocacy organizations sued a variety of heads of federal agencies, alleging the defendants had "wasted and failed to preserve and protect the atmosphere Public Trust asset." 863 F. Supp. 2d at 12. The court dismissed the suit with prejudice, holding the plaintiffs' federal public trust claims were foreclosed by PPL Montana's statement that "the public trust doctrine remains a mater of state law." Id. at 15 (quotingPPLMontana, 565 U.S. at 603). The court also relied on the D.C. Circuit's observation that '"[i]n this country the public trust doctrine has developed almost exclusively as a matter of state law."' Id. (quoting District ofColumbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In an unpublished memorandum decision, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that "[t]he Supreme Court in PPL lvfontana ... directly and categorically rejected any federal constitutional foundation for that doctrine, without qualification
PAGE 45 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 46 of 54
or reservation." Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy, 561 F. App'x 7, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2014). I am not persuaded by the reasoning of the Alec L. courts. As explained above, a close
reading ofPPL Montana reveals that it says nothing about the viability offederal public trust claims. And in Air Florida, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that "we imply no opinion regarding either the applicability of the public trust doctrine to the federal government or the appropriateness of using the doctrine to afford trustees a means for recovering from tortfeasors the cost of restoring public waters to their pre-injury condition." 750 F.2d at 1084.
Two federal courts - the district courts for the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts - have concluded the public trust doctrine applies to the federal government. The decisions, from the 1980s, concerned the federal government's acquisition of various state-owned public trust assets - for example, submerged land beneath navigable rivers or tidelands -through the power of eminent domain. The courts held that the federal government has no public trust obligations under state law, but does take the land subject to a federal public ttust. As one court explained, "[t]he trust is of such a nature that it can be held only by the sovereign, and can only be destroyed by the destruction of the sovereign." United States v. 1.58 Acres ofLand Situated in the City of Boston, Suffolk Cnty., Mass., 523 F. Supp. 120, 124 (D. Mass. 1981). Through eminent domain, the federal government "may take property ... in 'full fee simple' insofar as no other principal may hold a greater right to such land. It must be recognized, however, that the federal government is as restricted as the Commonwealth in its ability to abdicate to private individuals" its title to the land. Jd. at 124-25. In other words, "[b]y condemnation, the United States simply acquires the land subject to the public trust as though no party had held an interest in the land before." City ofAlameda v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 635 F. Supp. 1447, 1450 (N.D. Cal.
PAGE 46 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 47 of 54
1986). 32. 42 Acres ofLand is wholly consistent with these opinions; in that case, the Ninth Circuit held that when the federal government condemns state land, it takes title free and clear of any state public trust obligations - and that to hold otherwise would violate the Supremacy Clause by subjugating the federal eminent domain power to state public trust law. 683 F.3d at 1038. As noted, however, the court said nothing about the lower court's determination that the condemned tidelands had been taken subject to a federal public trust. 32.42 Acres ofLand, 683 F.3d at 1033 & 1039 n.2.
I am persuaded that the City ofAlameda and 1.58 Acres ofLand courts were conect. Their decisions rested on the history of the public trust doctrine and the public trust's unique relationship to sovereignty. I can think of no reason why the public trust doctrine, which came to this countty through the Roman and English roots of our civil law system, would apply to the states but not to the federal government.
Defendants' final argument is that recognition of a federal public trust doctrine cannot be
reconciled with Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539 (1976), in which the Supreme Court stated
that "[t]he power over public land" entrusted to Congress by the Property Clause ofthe United States Constitution is "without limitations." Again, defendants take the Supreme Court's statement out of context. In Kleppe, New Mexico challenged the federal government's authority to regulate and protect wild horses and burros, arguing that the Constitution granted Congress only the power to "dispose of and make incidental rules regarding the use of federal propetiy" and "the power to protect" the federal propetiy itself, i.e., the land but not animals living on it. 426 U.S. at 536. The Supreme Court rejected New Mexico's attempt to limit Congress's power to regulate wildlife living on federal lands. It is in that context that the Court stated the "power over public land" was "without
limitations." Id at 539. Indeed, in the ve1y same sentence the Supreme Court acknowledged that
PAGE 47 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 48 of 54
"the fmthest reaches of the power granted by the Prope1ty Clause have not yet been definitively resolved[.]" Id. The Supreme Comt in Kleppe simply did not have before it the question whether the Constitution grants the federal government unlimited authority to do whatever it wants with any parcel offederal land, regardless ofwhether its actions violate individual constitutional rights or mn afoul of public trust obligations.
The federal government, like the states, holds public assets - at a minimum, the territorial seas - in trust for the people. Plaintiffs' federal public trust claims are cognizable in federal court.
C. Displacement ofPublic Trust Claims Defendants and intervenors next argue that any common-law public trust claims have been displaced by a variety of acts of Congress, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. For this proposition, they rely on American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) ("AEP"). InAEP, the plaintiffs sued five power companies, alleging the companies' C02 emissions were a public nuisance under federal common law. Id. at 415. The Supreme Comt held the nuisance claim could not proceed because "the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-
fuel fired power plants." Id. at 424.
Defendants and intervenors contend thatAEP controls the displacement analysis. The district cou1t in Alec L. agreed with them. 12 The cou1t relied heavily onAEP's statement that the Clean Air Act displaces '"any federal common law right'" to challenge C02 emissions, and also discussed at length theAEP court's concerns that authorizing a judicial order setting C02 emissions limits would require federal judges to make decisions involving competing policy interests - decisions an
12 The D.C. Circuit did not address the displacement question on appeal. PAGE 48 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 49 of 54
"expert agency 'is surely better equipped to [make] than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions."' Alec L., 863 F. Supp. 2d at 16 (quotingAEP, 564 U.S. at 424, 428).
I am not persuaded by the Alec L. comt's reasoning regarding displacement. In AEP, the Comt did not have public trust claims before it and so it had no cause to consider the differences between public trust claims and other types of claims. Public trust claims are unique because they concern inherent attributes ofsovereignty. The public trust imposes on the government an obligation to protect the res of the trust. A defining feature of that obligation is that it cannot be legislated away. Because of the nature of public trust claims, a displacement analysis simply does not apply.
The interplay between Congress's decision to grant regulat01y authority to various federal agencies and the authority of the courts to adjudicate public trust claims raises weightier concerns. Those concerns go to whether this case presents a nonjusticiable political question, and have been addressed in Section I of this opinion.
D. Enforceability ofPublic Trust Obligations in Federal Court As a final challenge to plaintiffs' public trust claims, defendants contend that even if the public trust doctrine applies to the federal government, plaintiffs lack a cause of action to enforce the public trust obligations. Relatedly, defendants argue that creation of a right of action to permit plaintiffs to assett their claims in federal comt would be an exercise in federal common law-making subject to the same statutoty displacement arguments outlined above. In order to evaluate the merits ofthese arguments, I must first locate the source ofplaintiffs' public trust claims. I conclude plaintiffs' public trust rights both predated the Constitution and are secured by it. See Gerald Tones & Nathan Bellinger, The Public Trust: The Law's DNA, 4 Wake Forest J. L. & Pol'y 281, 288-94 (2014).
PAGE 49 - OPINION AND ORDER

The public trust doctrine defines inherent aspects ofsovereignty. The Social Contract theo1y,
which heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, provides that people
possess certain inalienable rights and that governments were established by consent ofthe governed
for the purpose of securing those rights. 13 Accordingly, the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution did not create the rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness - the documents
are, instead, vehicles for protecting and promoting those already-existing rights. Cf Robinson Twp.,
83 A.3d at 948 (plurality opinion) (rights expressed in the public trust provision of Pennsylvania
Constitution are "preserved rather than created" by that document); Minors Oposa, 33 I.L.M. at 187
(the right of future generations to a "balanced and healthful ecology" is so basic that it "need not
even be written in the Constitution for [it is] assumed to exist from the inception of humankind").
Governments, in turn, possess certain powers that permit them to safeguard the rights of the people;
these powers are inherent in the authority to govern and cannot be sold or bargained away. One
example is the police power. Stone, 101 U.S. at 817. Another is the status as trustee pursuant to the
13 The Founding Fathers were also influenced by intergenerational considerations. They believed the inalienable rights to life, libe1ty, and property were rooted in a philosophy of intergenerational equity. Thomas Jefferson, for example, thought that each generation had the
obligation to pass the natural estate undiminished to future generations. See Br. of Amicus
Curiae John Davidson at 21-25 (doc. 60). In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson wrote that "no man can, by natural right, oblige lands he occupied ... to the payments of debts contracted by him. For ifhe could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to than the living, which would be the reverse of our principle. What is trne of every member of the society individually is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Sept. 6,
1789, in The Founders' Constitution (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner, eds.) (1986), available at press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/vlch2s23.html (last visited Nov. 7, 2016).
Although I find it unnecessaiy today to address the standing of future generations or the merits of plaintiffs' argument that youth and posterity are suspect classifications, I am mindful of the intergenerational dimensions of the public trust doctrine in issuing this opinion.
PAGE 50- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 51 of 54
public trust doctrine. Illinois Central, 146 U.S. at 459-60. Although the public trust predates the Constitution, plaintiffs' right of action to enforce the
government's obligations as trustee arises from the Constitution. I agree with Judge Coffin that plaintiffs' public trust claims are properly categorized as substantive due process claims. As explained, the Due Process Clause's substantive component safeguards fundamental rights that are "implicit in the concept ofordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's histo1y and tradition." McDonald, 561 U.S. at 761, 767 (internal citations, quotations, and emphasis omitted). Plaintiffs' public trust rights, related as they are to inherent aspects of sovereignty and the consent of the governed from which the United States' authority derives, satisfy both tests. Because the public trust is not enumerated in the Constitution, substantive due process protection also derives from the Ninth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. IX ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."); Raich v. Gonzalez, 500 F.3d 850, 861-66 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering whether the right to use medical marijuana was a fundamental right safeguarded by the Ninth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process clause). But it is the Fifth Amendment that provides the right of action.
Plaintiffs' claims rest "directly on the Due Process Clause ofthe Fifth Amendment." Davis, 442 U.S. at 243 (1979); see also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980) ("[T]he victims ofa constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right.") They may, therefore, be asserted in federal court.
CONCLUSION Throughout their objections, defendants and intervenors attempt to subject a lawsuit alleging
PAGE 51 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 52 of 54
constitutional injuries to case law governing statutory and common-law environmental claims. They are correct that plaintiffs likely could not obtain the relief they seek through citizen suits brought under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or other environmental laws. But that argument misses the point. This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants' actions and inactions - whether or not they violate any specific statuto1y dutyhave so profoundly damaged our home planet that they tln·eaten plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights to life and libe1iy.
A deep resistance to change runs through defendants' and intervenors' arguments for dismissal: they contend a decision recognizing plaintiffs' standing to sue, deeming the controversy justiciable, and recognizing a federal public trust and a fundamental right to climate system capable of sustaining human life would be unprecedented, as though that alone requires its dismissal. This lawsuit may be groundbreaking, but that fact does not alter the legal standards governing the motions to dismiss. Indeed, the seriousness ofplaintiffs' allegations underscores how vitally important it is for this Comi to apply those standards carefully and correctly.
Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it. As Judge Goodwin recently wrote,
The current state ofaffairs ... reveals a wholesale failure ofthe legal system to protect humanity from the collapse of finite natural resources by the uncontrolled pursuit of sh01i-term profits.... [T]he modern judiciaiy has enfeebled itself to the point that law enforcement can rarely be accomplished by taking environmental predators to court. ... The third branch can, and should, take another long and careful look at the barriers to litigation created by modern doctrines ofsubject-matterjurisdiction and deference to the legislative and administrative branches of government. Alfred T. Goodwin, A Wake-Up Call/or Judges, 2015 Wis. L. Rev. 785, 785-86, 788 (2015).
PAGE 52 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 53 of 54
Judge Goodwin is no stranger to highly politicized legal disputes. Nearly fifty years ago, he authored the landmark opinion that secured Oregon's ocean beaches for public use. Private landowners wanted to construct fences and otherwise keep private the beaches in front of their properties; they brought suit to challenge an Oregon state law requiring public access to all dry sand beaches. State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, 462 P.2d 671, 672-73 (Or. 1969). Writing for five ofthe six members ofthe Oregon Supreme Court, then-Justice Goodwin rooted his determination the beaches were public prope1ty in a concept from English common law:
Because so much of our law is the product oflegislation, we sometimes lose sight of the importance of custom as a source of law in our society. It seems patticularly appropriate in the case at bar to look to an ancient and accepted custom in this state as the source of a rule of law. The rule in this case, based upon custom, is salutary in confirming a public right, and at the same time it takes from no man anything which he has a legitimate reason to regard as exclusively his. 14 Id at 678. In an argument with strong echoes in defendants' and intervenors' objections here, the plaintiff private prope1ty owner contended it was "constitutionally impermissible ... to dredge up an inapplicable, ancient English doctrine that has been universally rejected in modern America." Kathryn A. Straton, Oregon's Beaches: A Birthright Preserved 65 (Or. State Parks & Recreation 1977). The Oregon Supreme Court was not persuaded by this call to judicial conservatism. Because of the application of an ancient doctrine, Oregon's beaches remain open to the public now and forever.
14 The sixth justice concurred in the judgment. He found the English rule of custom useful by analogy, but would have held the beaches were public property pursuant to the public trust doctrine. Hay, 462 P.2d at 679 (Denecke, J., concurring) ("These rights of the public in tidelands and in the beds of navigable streams have been called 'jus publicum' and we have consistently and recently reaffirmed their existence."). PAGE 53 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 83 Filed 11/10/16 Page 54 of 54
"A strong and independentjudiciary is the cornerstone ofour libe1iies." These words, spoken by Oregon Senator Mark 0. Hatfield, are etched into the walls of the Portland United States comihouse for the District of Oregon. The words appear on the first floor, a daily reminder that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbwy, 5 U.S. at 177. Even when a case implicates hotly contested political issues, the judiciary must not shrink from its role as a coequal branch of government.
I ADOPT Judge Coffin's Findings & Recommendation (doc. 68), as elaborated in this opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 27) and Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 19) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this/O~ofNovember 2016.
Ann Aiken United States District Judge
PAGE 54 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA OPINION AND ORDER

AIKEN, Judge: 1 In this civil rights action, plaintiffs-a group of young people who were between the ages
of eight and nineteen when this lawsuit was filed; Earth Guardians, a nonprofit association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for plaintiff "future

1 As with the Court's previous Order and Opinion on the federal defendants' motions to dismiss, student externs worked on each stage of the preparation of this opinion. The Court would be remiss if it did not acknowledge the invaluable contributions of JoAnna Atkinson (George Washington University Law School), Trevor Byrd (Willamette University Law School), Doyle Canning (University of Oregon School of Law), Omeed Ghafarri (University of Washington School of Law), Tyler Hardman (University of Oregon School of Law), Maggie Massey (University of Oregon School of Law), and Patrick Rosand (Boston University School of Law), Elise Williard (University of Oregon School of Law).
Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 2 of 62
generations"-allege that the federal government 1s violating their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Before the Court are two dispositive motions: federal defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 195) and federal defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 207). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted in part and denied in part, and the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2015, naming the United States, President Barack Obama, and the heads of numerous executive agencies (collectively, "federal defendants") as defendants.2 Plaintiffs allege that federal defendants have known for more than fifty years that carbon dioxide ("C02") produced by the industrial scale burning of fossil fuels was "causing global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to bum fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for
their wellbeing and survival." First Am. Compl. ii 1. Plaintiffs further allege that federal
defendants have long "known of the unusually dangerous risks of harm to human life, liberty,
and property that would be caused by continued fossil fuel burning." Id. ii 5. Plaintiffs assert
that, rather than responding to this knowledge by "implement[ing] a rational course of effective action to phase out carbon pollution," federal defendants "have continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction, development, consumption and exportation[,]" thereby
2 The First Amended Complaint names as defendants the United States, the President, and the heads of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 3 of 62
"deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in
human history[.]" Id. ifif 5, 7.
Plaintiffs contend that federal defendants' policy on fossil fuels deprives plaintiffs of life, liberty, and property without due process of law; impermissibly discriminates against "young citizens, who will disproportionately experience the destabilized climate system in our country[;]" and fails to live up to federal defendants' obligations to hold certain essential natural
resources in trust for the benefit of all citizens. Id. if 8. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory
relief, asserting that there is "an extremely limited amount of time to preserve a habitable climate system for our country" before "the warming of our nation will become locked in or rendered
increasingly severe." Id. if 10.
In November 2015, federal defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6). (doc. 27) Federal defendants argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue; that plaintiffs' public trust claims failed as a matter of law because the public trust doctrine does not apply to the federal government; that plaintiffs' equal protection claims could not proceed because plaintiffs are not members of a protected class and the government's energy and climate policies have a rational basis; and that plaintiffs' due process claims were deficient because they had not alleged violation of a fundamental right.
Also in November 2015, three national trade organizations-the National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (collectively, "intervenor-defendants")-moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and dismiss the complaint. (doc. 14 & 19) Like federal defendants, intervenor-defendants argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Intervenor defendants also
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 4 of 62
argued that plaintiffs had failed to identify a cognizable cause of action and that dismissal was required because the case presented non-justiciable political questions.
In January 2016, Magistrate Judge Coffin granted intervenor-defendants' motion to intervene. Juliana v. United States, 2016 WL 138903, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 14, 2016). In April 2016, following oral argument, Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), recommending that the Court deny both motions to dismiss. (doc. 68) Federal defendants and intervenor-defendants filed objections to the F&R and the Court held oral argument in September 2016. (doc. 73, 74 & 81) Following that argument, in November 2016, the Court issued an opinion and order adopting Judge Coffin's F&R and denying the motions to dismiss. Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1276 (D. Or. 2016).
In January 2017, federal defendants filed their Answer. (doc. 98) They agreed with many of the scientific and factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint, including that:
• "for over fifty years some officials and persons employed by the federal government have been aware of a growing scientific body of research concerning the effects of fossil fuel em1ss10ns on atmospheric concentrations of C02-including that increased concentrations of atmospheric C02 could cause measureable long-lasting changes to the global climate, resulting in an array of severe and deleterious effects to human beings, which will worsen over time;"
• "global atmospheric concentrations of C02, methane, and nitrous oxide are at unprecedentedly high levels compared to the past 800,000 years of historical data and pose risks to human health and welfare;"
• "Federal Defendants . . . permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction, development, consumption, and exportation;"
• "fossil fuel extraction, development, and consumption produce C02 emissions and . . . past emissions of C02 from such activities have increased the atmospheric concentration of C02;"
• "EPA has concluded ... that, combined, emissions of six well-mixed [greenhouse gases] are the primary and best understood drivers of current and projected climate change;"
Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 5 of 62
• "the consequences of climate change are already occurring and, in general, those consequences will become more severe with more fossil fuel emissions;"
• "climate change is damaging human and natural systems, increasing the risk of loss of life, and requiring adaptation on larger and faster scales than current species have successfully achieved in the past, potentially increasing the risk of extinction or severe disruption for many species;" and
• "human activity is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s."
Fed. Defs.' Answer to First Am. Compl. ifif 1; 5; 7; 10; 213; 217. Those admissions and federal
defendants' other filings make clear that plaintiffs and federal defendants agree on the following
contentions: climate change is happening, is caused in significant part by humans, specifically
human induced fossil fuel combustion, and poses a "monumental" danger to Americans' health
and welfare. See Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1234 n.3 (quoting federal defendants' objections to
Judge Coffin's F&R recommending denial of the motions to dismiss). The pleadings also make
clear that plaintiffs and federal defendants agree that federal defendants' policies regarding fossil
fuels and greenhouse gas emissions play a role in global climate change, though federal
defendants dispute that their actions can fairly be deemed to have caused plaintiffs' alleged injuries.3
In January 2017, Barack Obama left office and Donald J. Trump assumed the
presidency. In March 2017, both federal defendants and intervenor-defendants moved to certify
the opinion and order denying their motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b). (doc. 120 & 122) That same day, federal defendants sought a stay of
3 Intervenor-defendants' Answer, by contrast, contained no admissions with respect to plaintiffs' factual and scientific assertions about climate change. (doc. 93) Intervenordefendants asserted that they lacked sufficient information to admit or deny those allegations. At a series of status conferences in 2017, Judge Coffin pressed intervenor-defendants to clarify their position regarding whether the issues to be litigated at trial would include whether climate change is happening or whether humans play a role in causing climate change. Intervenordefendants withdrew from the lawsuit before taking a position on those questions. Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 6 of 62
proceedings pending this Court's resolution of the motion to certify for interlocutory appeal and the Ninth Circuit's resolution of that proposed appeal. (doc. 121) In April 2017, Judge Coffin denied the request for a stay. (doc. 137) In May 2017, Judge Coffin issued his F&R recommending that the Court deny the motions to certify. (doc. 146) Federal defendants and intervenor-defendants filed objections, and in June 2017, the Court adopted Judge Coffin's F&R and declined to certify the opinion and order for interlocutory appeal. Juliana v. United States, 2017 WL 2483705, at *2 (D. Or. June 8, 2017).
In May and June 201 7, intervenor-defendants moved to withdraw from this lawsuit. (docs. 163, 166 & 167) Judge Coffin granted that motion. (doc. 182)
In June 2017, federal defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit, seeking an order directing this Court to dismiss the case. (doc. 177) Federal defendants asked the Ninth Circuit to stay all proceedings in this Court pending resolution of that petition. Id. In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted the request for a stay and ordered plaintiffs to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Ninth Circuit Case No. 17-71692.
On March 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus. In re United States, 884 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 2018). The denial rested on the court's determination that federal defendants had not satisfied any of the factors justifying the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Id. at 834-38.
On May 7, 2018, federal defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (doc. 195) In that motion, they seek to dismiss President Trump as a party and to obtain dismissal of the entire lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Additionally, federal defendants argue that plaintiffs' requested relief is barred by the separation of powers. Federal defendants also moved for a protective order,
Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 7 of 62
seeking a stay of all discovery on the theory that discovery in this case is barred by the APA. (doc. 196) Specifically, federal defendants sought a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the motion for a protective order, the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a not-yet-filed motion for summary judgment. On May 22, 2018, federal defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (doc. 207) In that motion, they seek a judgment as a matter of law in their favor, arguing that (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact; (2) plaintiffs lack Article III standing to sue; (3) plaintiffs have failed to assert a valid cause of action under the APA; (4) plaintiffs' claims violate separation of powers principles; (5) plaintiffs have no due process right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life; and (6) the federal government has no obligations under the public trust doctrine.
Meanwhile, the Solicitor General was considering seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion denying mandamus relief. The presumptive deadline to file a petition for writ of certiorari to review that opinion was June 5, 2018. On May 24, 2018, the Solicitor General sought to extend the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari to July 5, 2018. That request was docketed in United States v. US. District Court for the District of Oregon, Supreme Court No. 17A13 04. Justice Kennedy granted the extension.
On May 25, 2018, Judge Coffin denied federal defendants' motion for a protective order and a stay. (doc. 212) On June 1, 2018, federal defendants filed objections to Judge Coffin's denial of the protective order and requested a stay of discovery pending resolution of those objections. (doc. 215 & 216) On June 14, 2018, the Court denied that request for a stay by minute order. (doc. 238)
Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 8 of 62
On June 25, 2018, federal defendants sought a second extension of the deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari. Justice Kennedy granted that request and extended the deadline to August 4, 2018.
On June 29, 2018, the Court affirmed Judge Coffin's denial of federal defendants' request to stay all discovery. (doc. 300) On July 5, 2018, federal defendants sought review of that decision through a second petition for writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit. In separate filings, federal defendants asked this Court and the Ninth Circuit to stay all discovery and trial pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of that petition. On July 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a stay. On July 17, 2018, the Court denied the request for a stay. (doc. 324) That same day, the Solicitor General petitioned Justice Kennedy for a stay of proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the mandamus petition. That request was docketed at United States v. US. District Court for the District ofOregon, Supreme Court No. 18A65. In his application for a stay, the Solicitor General suggested to Justice Kennedy that he could construe the stay application as a petition for writ of mandamus directing this Court to dismiss the lawsuit or as a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's first mandamus decision.
On July 18, 2018, the parties appeared for oral argument before this Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment.
On July 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied federal defendants' second mandamus petition, holding that federal defendants had not met the standard to qualify for mandamus relief. In re United States,_F.3d_, 2018 WL 3484444, at *1 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018). The court concluded that because "no new circumstances justify this second petition," it "remains the case that the issues the government raises in its petition are better addressed through the ordinary course oflitigation." Id.
Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 9 of 62
That same day, the Solicitor General wrote to Justice Kennedy to reiterate his request that he construe the application for a stay in Supreme Court Case No. 18A65 as a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's first mandamus decision. Alternatively, he suggested that Justice Kennedy could construe the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's second mandamus decision. On July 30, 2018, Justice Kennedy referred the application for a stay to the entire Supreme Court. In a summary order, the Supreme Court denied as the Solicitor General's application as premature.
This leaves two substantive motions before the Court, which the Court now addresses in Sections I and II below: federal defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and federal defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants have also requested that the Court certify any portion of this opinion and order denying their substantive motions for interlocutory appeal, this is addressed in Section III. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine, (doc. 254) seeking judicial notice of certain documents, is addressed in Section IV.
STANDARDS A party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed but early enough not to delay trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "Analysis under Rule 12(c) is substantially identical to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy." Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 793 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "[a] judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted). To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, "the non-
Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 10 of 62
conclusory 'factual content' [of the complaint]," and reasonable inferences from that content, "must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. US. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007).
Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts which show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. Summary judgment is inappropriate if a rational trier of fact, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor. Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008). Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial should be resolved against the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 339. Finally, even if the standards of Rule 56 are met, a court has discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment if it believes that "the better course would be to proceed to a full trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). II I II I
Page 10 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 11 of 62

DISCUSSION

There are two motions before the Court in this now three year old case: federal

defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 195) and Motion for Summary

Judgment (doc. 207). Many of the issues raised in these motions are interrelated. Given the

nature of the arguments presented, it is more efficient and likely to avoid confusion to deal with

all of the pending issues in a single opinion and order. Thus, the Court addresses each motion in

turn.

I.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 4

Federal defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings rests on four grounds, two of

which they raise for the first time in their 12(c) motion and two of which the Court has already

considered and ruled upon. First, federal defendants move to dismiss President Trump as a

defendant, arguing that he is not essential to effective relief and his presence in the lawsuit

violates the separation of powers. Second, federal defendants seek dismissal of the lawsuit in its

entirety, on the theory that the APA governs all challenges to federal agency action and plaintiffs

have failed to state a claim under the APA. Third, federal defendants invite the Court to

reconsider all aspects of its opinion and order denying their November 2016 motion to dismiss

4 Even though federal defendants could have raised each argument in its 12(c) motion in its initial motion to dismiss, that fai~ure is not a bar to asserting the arguments now. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) (prohibiting subsequent Rule 12 motions "based on [a] defense or objection ... omitted" in a prior Rule 12 motion "except ... as provided in subdivision (h)(2)"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2) ("A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits."). There are reasons to question the wisdom of permitting failure-to-state-a-claim defenses to be raised on different legal theories in back-to-back 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motions. See Sprint Telephony PCS) L.P. v. Cty. ofSan Diego, 311 F. Supp. 2d 898, 905 (S.D. Cal. 2004) ("It is a waste of judicial resources to consider motion after motion in which defendants raise the same defense over and over, each time testing a new argument. Allowing such a tactic means that defendants potentially could stall litigation indefinitely as long as they can conjure up a new argument on which to base a failure to state a claim defense."). But as presently written, the rules plainly permit such successive motions.
Page 11 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 12 of 62
and urge dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds raised in that motion. Finally, echoing arguments raised two years ago by intervenor-defendants, federal defendants contend that dismissal of this action is required because the Court cannot redress plaintiffs' injuries without violating the separation of powers.
A. Motion to Dismiss President Trump as a Defendant Federal defendants first move to dismiss President Trump as a defendant. The Ninth Circuit declined to address federal defendants' argument on that point in its denial of the 2017 mandamus petition because defendants had not first raised the issue in this Court. See In re United States, 884 F.3d at 836 ("First, to the extent the defendants argue that the President himself has been named as a party unnecessarily and that defending this litigation would unreasonably burden him, this argument is premature because the defendants never moved in the district court to dismiss the President as a party."). At oral argument, the parties reported that plaintiffs were willing to stipulate to the dismissal of the President without prejudice. Federal defendants rejected that offer and request dismissal with prejudice. In the absence of a stipulation, the Court must address both whether dismissal is warranted and, if it is, whether that dismissal should be with or without prejudice. Federal defendants assert that it would violate separation of powers principles for this Court to issue an injunction or declaration against President Trump in connection with his official duties. The extent to which a federal court may issue equitable relief against a sitting President is unsettled and hotly contested. As Justice O'Connor, writing for a plurality of the Court, explained twenty-five years ago: While injunctive relief against executive officials like the Secretary of Commerce is within the courts' power, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, [343 U.S. 579 (1952),] the District Court's grant of injunctive relief against the President himself is extraordinary, and should have raised judicial eyebrows. We
Page 12 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 13 of 62
have left open the question whether the President might be subject to a judicial injunction requiring the performance of a purely "ministerial" duty, Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475, 498-499 (1867), and we have held that the President may be subject to a subpoena to provide information relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), but in general "this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties." Mississippi v. Johnson, [4 Wall. at 501]. At the threshold, the District Court should have evaluated whether injunctive relief against the President was available, and, if not, whether appellees' injuries were nonetheless redressable.
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802-03 (1992) (plurality op.) (parallel citations
omitted). Justice O'Connor ultimately concluded that it was unnecessary to "decide whether
injunctive relief against the President was appropriate" because "the injury alleged [wa]s likely
to be redressed by declaratory relief against the Secretary [of Commerce] alone." Id. at 803.
Since Franklin, subsequent cases have made clear that there is no absolute bar on
issuance of declaratory and injunctive relief against a sitting president, even with regard to the
exercise of his official duties. For example, in Clinton v. City ofNew York, 524 U.S. 417, 449
(1998), the Supreme Court affirmed a declaratory judgment holding that certain actions taken by
President Clinton under the Line Item Veto Act violated the Constitution's allocation of
lawmaking authority between Congress and the President.
In its recent decision on President Trump's second "travel ban" executive order, the
Ninth Circuit cited Franklin for the proposition that when adequate equitable relief is likely
available from some inferior governmental official (or group of officials) the President ought to
be dismissed out of respect for separation of powers:
Finally, the Government argues that the district court erred by issuing an injunction that runs against the President himself. This position of the Government is well taken. Generally, we lack "jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties." Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802-03 (1992) (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall. ) 475, 501 (1866)); see id. at 802 ("[I]njunctive relief against the President himself is extraordinary, and should ... raise [ ] judicial eyebrows."). Injunctive relief, however, may run against executive officials, including the Secretary of Page 13 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 14 of 62
Homeland Security and the Secretary of State. See, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 588-89 (holding that President Truman did not act within his constitutional power in seizing steel mills and affirming the district court's decision enjoining the Secretary of Commerce from carrying out the order); Franklin, 505 U.S. at 802-03. We conclude that Plaintiffs' injuries can be redressed fully by injunctive relief against the remaining Defendants, and that the extraordinary remedy of enjoining the President is not appropriate here. See Franklin, 505 U.S. at 803. We therefore vacate the district court's injunction to the extent the order runs against the President, but affirm to the extent that it runs against the remaining "Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them." Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741, 788 (9th Cir. 2017), vacated and remanded on mootness grounds, 138 S. Ct. 377 (2017). Hawaii makes Franklin's plurality opinion on this point binding Ninth Circuit precedent. The inquiry is not into the President's action or inaction in relationship to the injuries complained of, but rather into the relief requested, and whether or not equitable remedies involving the President himself are essential to that relief. As adopted in Hawaii, Franklin's rule on when the President is an appropriate defendant is best understood as a strain of the canon of constitutional avoidance: because granting equitable relief against the President of the United States raises serious constitutional questions, dismissal of the President as a defendant is appropriate whenever it appears likely that the plaintiffs' injuries can be redressed through relief against another defendant. Plaintiffs' opposition to dismissing President Trump boils down to a general assertion that complete relief may be unavailable without the President as a defendant. They argue that further development of the factual record is necessary to determine whether injunctive or declaratory relief is available against President Trump and whether plaintiffs' injuries are redressable in the absence of such relief. The Court is not persuaded. This lawsuit is, at its heart, a challenge to the environmental and energy policies of the federal government as
Page 14- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 15 of 62
expressed through the action (or inaction) of federal agencies. Because the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have spoken so clearly about the separation of powers concerns inherent in awarding equitable relief against a sitting president, the burden is on plaintiffs to explain with specificity why relief against President Trump is essential to redressing their injuries. They have failed to carry that burden.
In an attempt to demonstrate why President Trump is necessary to effective equitable relief, plaintiffs cite a number of specific presidential actions in their Amended Complaint and briefs. For example, plaintiffs cite:
• An Executive Order in which President Trump directed a rollback of the Clean Power Plan by rescinding the moratorium on coal mining on federal lands and six other Obamaera executive orders aimed at curbing climate change and regulating emissions;
• An Executive Order in which President Trump ordered the expedition of environmental reviews and approvals for infrastructure projects;
• An Executive Order in which President Trump ordered a review of the "Waters of the United States" Rule; and
• Presidential memoranda encouraging approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline. The problem with those examples is that it is not enough, under Hawaii, to show that the
President was involved in the challenged action; plaintiffs must show that effective relief is unavailable unless it is awarded against the President. Like the "travel ban" challenged in Hawaii, each of the foregoing orders and memoranda included express directives to be carried out by other governmental officials. See, e.g. Exec. Order No. 13783, 82 Fed. Reg. 16093 (Mar. 28, 2017) (issuing orders to "[t]he heads of agencies" including to the "Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency" and the "Secretary of the Interior"); Exec. Order No. 13766, 82 Fed. Reg. 8657 (directing the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to take certain actions); Exec.
Page 15 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 16 of 62
Order No. 13778, 82 Fed. Reg. 12497 (Feb. 28, 2017) (addressing "the Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, and the heads of all executive departments and agencies" including the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency); President Trump Takes Action to Expedite Priority Energy and Infrastructure Projects (Jan. 24, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-takes-action-expeditepriority-energy-infrastructure-projects/ (summarizing memoranda addressed to "relevant Federal agencies"). Thus, with respect to the propriety of the President as a defendant, this case is indistinguishable from Hawaii and Franklin: because lower governmental officials are charged with executing the challenged presidential policies, equitable relief against President Trump is not essential to redressability.
Plaintiffs note that Hawaii concerned injunctive relief only, and certainly injunctive relief implicates more serious separation of powers concerns than declaratory relief. But as articulated in Franklin, any equitable relief awarded against a sitting president with respect to his official duties raises constitutional concerns. Accordingly, when effective relief is available against lower administration officials, the Court concludes that dismissal of the President is the correct decision for either type of equitable relief. See Franklin, 505 U.S. at 827-828 (Stevens, J., concurring) (arguing that declaratory relief against the president, like injunctive relief, "would produce needless head-on confrontations between district judges and the Chief Executive"). On the current record, the Court concludes that President Trump is not essential to effective relief because "[p]laintiffs' injuries can be redressed fully by injunctive [or declaratory] relief against the remaining [d]efendants." Hawaii, 859 F.3d at 788. Due respect for separation of powers therefore requires dismissal of President Trump as a defendant.
Page 16 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 17 of 62
The next question is whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. Across a host of contexts, the default rule is dismissal without prejudice. See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should be with prejudice only if the court determines that the pleading "could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts"); Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that, even when a party's misconduct justifies the sanction of dismissal, dismissal with prejudice is "extreme" and rarely deployed); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (providing that dismissal at the plaintiffs request shall be without prejudice unless the dismissal order states otherwise); In re Fresenius Granujlo/Naturalyte Dialysate Prods. Liability Litig., 111 F. Supp. 3d 103, 106 (D. Mass. 2015) (explaining that dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) generally is justified only in situations where it is clear that there is "no way for any plaintiff to bring the same claim" in the future, for example when the applicable statute of limitations has "conclusively run"); Lepesh v. Barr, 2001 WL 34041885, *3 (D. Or. 2001) (citing Ninth Circuit precedent governing when amendment of a pleading would be futile for the proposition that dismissal should be with prejudice only if it "appear[s] to a certainty that Plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proven").
Federal defendants argue that President Trump should be dismissed with prejudice because Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent is clear that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue equitable relief in connection with a sitting president's performance of his official duties. As explained above, however, neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has gone so far. Indeed, it is clear that under some limited circumstances and when required by the constitution, such equitable relief is available. Clinton, for example, involved a challenge to President
Page 17 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 18 of 62
Clinton's use of the line-item veto. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 449. The veto power is, of course, exercised directly by the President and not by subordinate agencies, so no other federal official would have been an appropriate defendant in that case. More recently, in a case involving alleged violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland addressed the availability of equitable relief against President Trump:
The Court also disagrees that the President's status as the sole defendant changes this analysis, given that no official other than he could be sued to enforce the purported violations at issue. "[I]t would be exalting form over substance if the President's acts were held to be beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny when he himself is the defendant, but held within judicial control when he and/or the Congress has delegated the performance of duties to federal officials subordinate to the President and one or more of them can be named as a defendant." Nat'! Treasury Emps. Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1974). District of Columbia v. Trump, 291 F. Supp. 3d 725, 751-52 (D. Md. 2018). The Emoluments Clauses, like the veto power, are specific to the President. A lawsuit asserting violation of those clauses therefore could not be directed to federal agency heads or other federal officials. As explained above, on the current record, it appears that this is a case in which effective relief is available through a lawsuit addressed only to lower federal officials. It is not possible to know how developments to the record in the course of the litigation may change the analysis. The Court cannot conclude with certainty that President Trump will never become essential to affording complete relief. For that reason, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate course. Any harm the President will suffer from the continuing hypothetical possibility that he might be joined as a defendant in the future is minimal. Moreover, that minimal harm is further mitigated by the fact that federal defendants would be free to oppose any future motion for leave to amend the complaint and add the President as a defendant on the
Page 18- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 19 of 62
grounds that permitting such amendment would cause "undue prejudice to the opposing party."
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Federal defendants' motion to dismiss President Trump from this lawsuit is granted. The
dismissal is without prejudice.
B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under the APA
Federal defendants next argue that this entire case must be dismissed because plaintiffs
are challenging the actions (and inactions) of federal agencies, and thus must bring their suit, if at
all, under the APA.5 The APA provides a right of judicial review to "[a] person suffering legal
wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action." 5 U.S.C.
§ 702. "Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no
other adequate remedy in court are subject to judicial review." Id. § 704. A reviewing court has
authority both to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" and to
5 As a threshold matter, plaintiffs contend that this Court already has rejected federal defendants' APA argument, and that the Ninth Circuit affirmed that rejection under the "no clear error' standard. Neither contention is correct. First, this Court has not addressed federal defendants' APA argument. Federal defendants argued in their motion to dismiss that plaintiffs had failed to identify a viable cause of action, but they did not argue that the APA was the exclusive vehicle for claims that a federal agency has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights. Second, the Ninth Circuit did not "affirm" any of this Court's determinations under the "clear error" standard. It is true that in both mandamus opinions, the Ninth Circuit held that the government had not shown that this Court's order was "clearly erroneous as a matter oflaw," as required to satisfy the third factor of the five-factor test for mandamus relief. In re United States, 884 F.3d at 837-38; see also In re United States, 2018 WL 3484444, at *2 ("As detailed in our opinion denying the first mandamus petition, the government does not satisfy the third, fourth, or fifth Bauman factors."). But in finding that the third factor had not been satisfied, the Ninth Circuit declined to take a position on whether this Court's rulings were clearly erroneous. See In re United States, 884 F.3d at 837 ("[W]e decline to exercise our discretion to intervene at this stage of the litigation to review preliminary legal decisions made by the district court or otherwise opine on the merits."). Because this is the first time either this Court or the Ninth Circuit has addressed federal defendants' APA argument, the Court will address the argument on its merits. See Sprint Telephony, 311 F. Supp. 2d at 905 (holding that application of the law of the case doctrine was inappropriate because, "although the court previously considered defendants' failure to state a claim defense in its earlier order, the court has not considered the issues defendants now raise in their motion presently before the court"). Page 19- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 20 of 62
"set aside agency action" on several grounds, including that the action is "arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion;" is "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity"; or exceeds the agency's statutory authority. Id. § 706(1) & (2)(A)-(C). The APA's judicial review provisions apply only in limited circumstances such as when agency action is final or "otherwise reviewable by statute." Navajo Nation v. Dep 't of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1171 (9th Cir. 2017).
When a plaintiff asserts an APA claim, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has identified a final agency action subject to judicial review. Lujan v. Nat'! Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1990). But here, plaintiffs have not asserted APA claims; their claims are brought directly under the United States Constitution, which has no "final agency action" requirement. As a general rule, plaintiffs are "master[s] of [their] complaint" and may choose which claims to assert and which legal theories to press. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1987). Federal defendants' APA argument succeeds only if they can demonstrate that the APA is the only available avenue to judicial review of the government's conduct that plaintiffs challenge in this lawsuit.
Federal defendants' argument that the APA is the exclusive means to challenge any agency action rests on the proposition that "[w]here Congress has created a remedial scheme for the enforcement of a particular federal right," courts "have, in suits against federal officers, refused to supplement that scheme with one created by the judiciary." Seminole Tribe ofFla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 74 (1996). Federal defendants indiscriminately cite cases involving both claims for damages and claims for equitable relief in arguing that the APA is a comprehensive statutory scheme demonstrating Congressional intent to cut off common law claims. But in order to properly analyze federal defendants' argument, it is critical to avoid conflating the
Page 20 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 21 of 62
Supreme Court's treatment of claims for damages with its treatment of claims for equitable relief.
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 396 (1971), the Supreme Court broke new ground by permitting a suit for damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment, even though no federal statute created such a cause of action. The Court subsequently extended Bivens to two other contexts. In Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 247 (1979), the Court recognized an implied right of action to sue for damages based on an allegation that a U.S. Congressman had discriminated against an employee on the basis of sex, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 20 (1980), the Court recognized a Bivens cause of action for a federal prisoner alleging violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
"Since Carlson, however, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to extend Bivens liability to any new context or new category of defendants." Western Radio Servs. Co. v. US. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009); see also, Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc.,_U.S._, 135 S. Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015) (rejecting the argument that the Supremacy Clause creates an implied cause of action for every violation of federal law). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, whether to recognize a Bivens cause of action in a new context involves a two-step inquiry:
First, the Court determines whether there is any alternative, existing process for protecting the plaintiffs interests. Such an alternative remedy would raise the inference that Congress expected the Judiciary to stay its Bivens hand and refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages. The Court has explained that, when the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional Bivens remedies....
Page 21- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 22 of 62
Second, if the Court cannot infer that Congress intended a statutory remedial scheme to take the place of a judge-made remedy, the Court next asks whether there nevertheless are factors counseling hesitation before devising such an implied right of action. Even where Congress has given plaintiffs no damages remedy for a constitutional violation, the Court has declined to create a right of action under Bivens when doing so would be plainly inconsistent with Congress' authority in this field. Id. at 1120-21 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Applying that two-step inquiry in Western Radio, the Ninth Circuit determined that the APA is the sort of "comprehensive remedial scheme" that indicates "Congress's intent that courts should not devise additional, judicially crafted default remedies." Id. at 1123. Based on that determination, the court held "that the APA leaves no room for Bivens claims based on agency action or inaction." Id. Federal defendants cite Western Radio for its broad language on the comprehensiveness of the APA. However, Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent make clear that the analysis for Bivens claims is specific to the availability ofremediesfor damages. The process for determining whether Congress intended to cut off common law claims for equitable relief-such as those contained in plaintiffs' petition-is substantially different. With respect to equitable relief, the Supreme Court has expressly required a "heightened" showing of clear legislative intent to displace constitutional claims in part to avoid the "serious constitutional question" that would arise "if a federal statute were construed to deny any judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim." Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988). In Webster, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that the APA provided the only available route to judicial review of agency action and inaction. Id. That rejection is brought into sharp relief by Justice Scalia's assertion, in dissent, that "at least with respect to all entities that come within the [APA]' s definition of 'agency,' if review is not available under the APA it
is not available at all." Id. at 607 n. * (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Page 22 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 23 of 62
The APA contains no express language suggesting that Congress intended it to displace constitutional claims for equitable relief. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that § 702 of the APA "is an unqualified waiver of sovereign immunity in actions seeking nonmonetary relief against legal wrongs for which governmental agencies are accountable"-whether such actions are asserted under the APA or under the general federal question jurisdiction statute. The Presbyterian Church (US.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 525 & n.9 (9th Cir. 1989). Recognition of causes of action against federal agencies that fall outside the APA is implicit in Presbyterian Church; it makes little sense to hold that the APA waives sovereign immunity for both APA and non-APA claims against federal agencies if the only viable claims are subject to the APA' s judicial review provisions.
In a recent case involving a challenge to "the confinement conditions imposed on illegal aliens pursuant to a high-level executive policy," the Supreme Court underscored the difference between claims for damages and claims for equitable relief:
It is of central importance, too, that this is not a case like Bivens or Davis in which it is damages or nothing. Unlike the plaintiffs in those cases, respondents do not challenge individual instances of discrimination or law enforcement overreach, which due to their very nature are difficult to address except by way of damages actions after the fact. Respondents instead challenge large-scale policy decisions concerning the conditions of confinement imposed on hundreds of prisoners. To address those kinds ofdecisions, detainees may seek injunctive relief Ziglar v. Abbasi,_U.S._137 S. Ct. 1843, 1862 (2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The Court expressly noted that separation-of-powers concerns "are . . . more pronounced when the judicial inquiry comes in the context of a claim seeking money damages rather than a claim seeking injunctive or other equitable belief' because "the risk of personal damages liability is more likely to cause an official to second-guess difficult but necessary decisions[.]" Id. at 1861.
Page 23 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 24 of 62
Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit, and other cases plainly show that challenge to federal agency action may, depending on the circumstances, be stated as an APA claim or a constitutional claim. See, e.g., Franklin, 505 U.S. at 801 ("Although the apportionment challenge is not subject to review under the standards of the APA, that does not dispose of appellees' constitutional claims."); Webster, 486 U.S. at 603 (holding that § 102(c) of the National Security Act rendered the CIA director's personnel decisions unreviewable under the APA, but rejecting that argument that the same statute precluded a claim that those decisions violated the Constitution); Navajo Nation, 876 F.3d at 1170 ("Claims not grounded in the APA, like . . . constitutional claims . . . , do not depend on the cause of action found in the first sentence of§ 702 [of the APA] and thus § 704's limitation does not apply to them.") (internal quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized); Stone v. Trump, 280 F. Supp. 3d 747, 772 (D. Md. 2017) (dismissing the plaintiffs' APA claim but permitting equal protection and due process claims to proceed in a case challenging the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military); L. v. US. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1168 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (dismissing the plaintiffs' APA claim but permitting their due process claim to proceed in a case challenging the federal practice of separating migrant children from their parents at the border).
Plaintiffs' claims simply do not fall within the scope of the APA. As federal defendants correctly point out, the Supreme Court has made clear that review under the APA requires a "case-by-case approach" to determine whether "a specific final agency action has an actual or immediately threatened effect." Lujan, 497 U.S. at 892. By its terms, the APA contains no provisions by which plaintiffs may "seek wholesale improvement of [an agency] program by court decree[.]" Id. at 891 (emphasis in original). But that case law does not support the
Page 24 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 25 of 62
conclusion that plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed; it simply underscores that plaintiffs' claims are not APA claims. Plaintiffs do not contend that any single agency action is causing their asserted injuries-nor could they, given the complex chain of causation involved in climate change. They seek review of aggregate action by multiple agencies, something the APA's judicial review provisions do not address. The APA does not govern plaintiffs' claims. As a result, plaintiffs' failure to state a claim under the APA is not a ground for dismissal of this action.
C. Motion to Dismiss on Separation ofPowers Grounds & Request to Reconsider the November 2016 Denial ofthe Government's 12(b)(6) Motion
Finally, federal defendants raise a set of arguments on which this Court already has ruled. First, federal defendants open their Rule 12(c) motion by asserting "that [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the reasons set forth in [their] November 2015 motion to dismiss." Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 6. Federal defendants ask the Court to "revisit its order denying the motion to dismiss and grant judgment to Defendants on some or all of Plaintiffs' claims." Id. at 7. Second and more specifically, federal defendants argue that any claim brought outside the APA's framework is foreclosed by the separation of powers.
As an initial matter, the Court acknowledges now, as it did in 2016, that the allocation of power among the branches of government is a critical consideration in this case and reiterate that, "[s]hould plaintiffs prevail on the merits, this Court would no doubt be compelled to exercise great care to avoid separation-of-powers problems in crafting a remedy." Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1241. The Court recognizes that there are limits to the power of the judicial branch, as demonstrated by the Court's determination that President Trump is not a proper defendant in this case.
Page 25 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 26 of 62
This is the first time that federal defendants have highlighted separation of powers concerns; they did not raise that argument, except in passing, in their 12(b)(6) motion. But former defendant-intervenors raised and fully briefed separation-of-powers arguments in the section of their motion to dismiss addressing the political question doctrine. Although this is the first time federal defendants are raising a political question challenge, their brief on the subject largely reiterates arguments considered and rejected in the opinion and order on the motion to dismiss. And obviously, the invitation to reconsider the November 2016 order and opinion necessarily implicates issues on which this Court has already ruled.
In order to determine how to address federal defendants' attempt to re-raise these issues, the Court begins by considering the application of the law of the case doctrine. Under that doctrine, "a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court." Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). The doctrine is "founded upon the sound public policy that litigation must come to end." Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997) (en bane). It also "serves to maintain consistency." Id. The doctrine has three exceptions: reconsideration is permitted when "(l) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2) intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial." Old Person, 114 F.3d at 1039. Although the federal rules permit back-toback motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, see Section I n.3, supra, courts are under no obligation to give full consideration to a rehash of arguments already presented in a 12(b)(6) motion. See Alexander v. City of Greensboro, 801 F. Supp. 2d 429, 434 (M.D.N.C. 2011) (declining to "reconsider issues that it addressed fully at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage" in adjudicating a Rule 12(c) motion).
Page 26 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 27 of 62
To the extent that federal defendants seek reconsideration on questions unrelated to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to revisit its earlier rulings. The Court gave full and fair consideration to the arguments federal defendants now raise in their November 2016 opinion. Nothing has changed to warrant expending judicial resources in retreading that ground at this juncture. The same legal standard applies to motions under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) and federal defendants have cited no intervening changes in the law.
To the extent that federal defendants' arguments challenge subject matter jurisdiction, the law of the case doctrine does not apply. United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 569 (9th Cir. 1986). But federal defendants have pointed to no relevant change in circumstances or the governing law between November 2016 and today. Accordingly, the Court has little to add to the prior opinion, which addressed the separation of powers issue at length. See Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1235-42, 1270-71. The separation of powers did not require dismissal of this lawsuit in November 2016, and it does not require dismissal of this lawsuit now.
Due respect for the separation of powers has informed, and will continue to inform, the Court's approach to this case at every step of the litigation. The Court remains mindful, however, that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Courts have an obligation not to overstep the bounds of their jurisdiction, but they have an equally important duty to fulfill their role as a check on any unconstitutional actions of the other branches of government. II I II I II I II I
Page 27 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 28 of 62
II. Motion for Summary Judgment6
Federal defendants raise several arguments in their motion for summary judgment, many
of which were previously considered in the November 2016 Order. Namely, federal defendants
reiterate their contention that plaintiffs lack Article III standing because their injuries are not
concrete and particularized; the harms alleged by plaintiffs are not fairly traceably to federal
defendants; and plaintiffs' claims are not redressable by this Court. Federal defendants also
argue that plaintiffs have failed to adequately state a claim under the APA and that plaintiffs'
claims would violate separation of powers principles. Federal defendants further argue, as they
did in their previous motion to dismiss, that there is no fundamental right to a climate system
capable of sustaining human life; that plaintiffs cannot establish a state-created danger claim; and
that the public trust doctrine does not apply to the federal government.
In response, plaintiffs proffer the declarations of the named plaintiffs as well as declarations from eighteen expert witnesses.7 They argue that genuine issues of material fact
exist as to standing, separation of powers, and their due process and public trust claims.
6 Subsequent to Oral Argument in July 2018, plaintiffs filed what they style as a Notice of Supplemental Disputed Facts Raised by federal defendants' Expert Reports in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (doc. 338) Essentially, plaintiffs submit excerpts from defendant's expert reports and argue that these submissions show that genuine issues of material fact remain for trial. However, the Court declines to consider the notice as it is untimely and prohibited under the District's Local Rules. L.R. 7-l(f).
7 Many of documents referenced by plaintiffs' in their response to the motion for summary judgment, and supporting declarations, are subject to their motion in limine (doc. 254) seeking judicial notice of certain documents. The Court has examined which of those documents are judicially noticeable in a contemporaneous opinion. Further, at oral argument plaintiffs requested that the Court take judicial notice of the announcement of the Department of Interior's plan to offer 78 million acres offshore of the Gulf Coast for oil and gas exploration and development. The Court has located the announcement of the plan available on the Department's public website. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-announces-region-wideoil-and-gas-lease-sale-gulf-mexico. Consistent with the Court's analysis the contemporaneous opinion regarding plaintiffs' first motion in limine, the Court takes judicial notice of the announcement. Page 28 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 29 of 62
Many of these arguments raised in the present motion are substantially similar to those raised in federal defendants' and the former defendant-intervenors' motions to dismiss. However, federal defendants correctly note that the standard for this Court in reviewing a motion for summary judgment is different than the standard which was applied in the previous order. Thus the Court must review the briefing and record to determine whether there is any genuine dispute as to any material fact and the government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
A. Standing Federal defendants argue, as they did at the pleadings stage, that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring their claims. While many of the arguments offered in the present summary judgment motion are substantially similar to those offered in the federal defendants' previous motion to dismiss, a different standard applies at this stage of the proceedings. To avoid summary judgment, plaintiffs need not establish that they in fact have standing but only that there is a genuine question of material fact as to the standing elements. Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test "with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id. at 561. General factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct will suffice in responding to a motion to dismiss. Id. In responding to a motion for summary judgment, however, a plaintiff can no longer rest on '"mere allegations,' but must 'set forth' by affidavit or
Page 29 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 30 of 62

other evidence 'specific facts,' Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e), which for purposes of the summary

judgment motion will be taken to be true." Id. And at the final stage of standing evaluation,

those facts (if controverted) must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial. Id.

1.

Injury in Fact

In an environmental case, a plaintiff cannot demonstrate injury in fact merely by alleging

injury to the environment; there must be an allegation that the challenged conduct is harming (or

imminently will harm) the plaintiff. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (I'OC),

Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000). For example, a plaintiff may meet the injury in fact requirement

by alleging that the challenged activity "impairs his or her economic interests or aesthetic and

environmental well-being." Wash. Envt 'l Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1140 (9th Cir.

2013) (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized).

Plaintiffs have filed sworn declarations attesting to a broad range of personal injuries

caused by human induced climate change. For example, plaintiff Jayden F. attests to being

injured by extreme weather events in 2016 and 2017 which led to the flooding in both 2016 and
2017 of her home in Rayne, Louisiana. Jayden Deel. if 2-16; if 26; if 28-32. This has caused

emotional trauma, lost recreational opportunities, as well as lost personal and economic security.
Id. at if 36; 39-42. Other plaintiffs also attest to injuries caused by flooding caused by sea level rise and extreme weather events. See Journey Deel. ifif 21-27; Levi Deel. ifif 3; 12-16; Tia Deel. if 9; Victoria Deel. ifif 8-9. Similarly, plaintiff Journey attests that harm to his health, personal

safety, cultural practices, economic stability, food security and recreation interests have occurred
due to climate destabilization and ocean acidification. Journey Deel. ifif 1; 11-20;; See also Journey Deel. 21-27; Levi Deel. ifif 3; 12-16; Tia Deel. if 9; Victoria Deel. ifif 8-9; Jacob Deel. if

20; Wanless Deel. Ex. 1 at 30.

Page 30 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 31 of 62
Plaintiff Kelsey Juliana attests that climate change has harmed her recreational interests in Oregon's freshwater lakes, rivers, forests, and mountains and has degraded the quality of local food sources and drinking water. Kelsey Deel. ifif 10-12. She, like other plaintiffs, also alleges adverse health and recreation impacts caused by the increased occurrence and intensity of seasonal wildfires. Id. if 15; Aji Deel. ifif 2-3; Alexander Deel. ifif 33-41; Jaime Deel. if 17; Kirin Deel. ifif 6-8; Xiuhtezcatl Deel. if 15; Zealand Deel. if 6. Some plaintiffs attest that they are suffering psychological trauma as result of fossil-fuel induced climate change caused by federal defendants. See Levi Deel. if 5; Victoria Deel. ifif 8-10, 16-18; Jayden Deel. if 42; Nicholas Deel. ifif 4, 7, 17. Other plaintiffs attest to injuries to their indigenous and cultural practices and values. Miko Deel. ifif, 6-7, Jamie Deel. ifif 12-14; Xiuhtezcatl Deel. ifif6-8. These are merely a selection of the many injuries alleged.
Plaintiffs further offer expert testimony tying injuries alleged by plaintiffs to fossil fuel
I
induced global warming. See Trenberth Deel. 23 ("[I]t is my expert opinion that Plaintiffs including Jayden, Levi, Xiuhtezcatl, Victoria, Jaime, Journey, Zealand, and Nathan are already experiencing extreme weather events that have been exacerbated due to anthropogenic climate change."); Frumpkin Deel. Ex. 1, 2 & 11; Running Deel. 13 ("This will impact the many Plaintiffs in the West who suffer increased risk and severity of impacts from wildfires near their homes, in places that they visit for recreation, and in the air they breathe during the extended fire season, including Xiuhtezcatl, Jaime Lynn, Jacob, Sahara, Kelsey, Alex, Zealand, Nick, Aji, Nathan, Hazel and Avery."); Van Sustem Deel. Ex. 1, 17 ("The Plaintiffs I interviewed are suffering a range of emotional injuries from acute and chronic exposure to climate change - from being personally harmed by climate change impacts like drought and extreme weather events, to empathic identification with others who are harmed by climate change, to profound fears about
Page 31 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 32 of 62
future harm - consistent with those injuries described in the literature."); Stiglitz Deel. Ex. 1 if 29
("Youth Plaintiffs themselves will suffer the disproportionate, increased financial burdens of
climate change as the impacts of climate change propagate throughout the economy.").
Federal defendants argue that these declarations fail to show that plaintiffs' injuries are
concrete and particularized to them; rather federal defendants' contend that the injuries alleged
are generalized widespread environmental phenomena which affect all other humans on the
planet, making them nonjusticiable. See Lexmark Int'!, Inc. v. Static Control Components,
Inc.,_U.S._134 S. Ct. 1377, 1387 n.3 (2014) (explaining that generalized grievances do not
meet Article Ill's case or controversy requirement).
However, as the Court noted in its November 2016 order:
The government misunderstands the generalized grievance rule. As the Ninth Circuit recently explained, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear a case when the harm at issue is "not only widely shared, but is also of an abstract and indefinite nature - for example, harm to the common concern for obedience to the law." Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed Elec. Comm 'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 23 (1998)). Standing alone, "the fact that a harm is widely shared does not necessarily render it a generalized grievance." Jewel, 673 F .3d at 909; see also Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) ("[I]t does not matter how many persons have been injured by the challenged action" so long as "the party bringing suit shows that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way." (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized)); Akins, 524 U.S. at 24 ("[A]n injury .... widely shared ... does not, by itself, automatically disqualify an interest for Article III purposes. Such an interest, where sufficiently concrete, may count as an 'injury in fact."); Covington v. Jefferson Cnty., 358 F.3d 626, 651 (9th Cir. 2004) (Gould, J., concurring) ("[T]he most recent Supreme Court precedent appears to have rejected the notion that injury to all is injury to none for standing purposes."); Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 469 (4th Cir. 2001) ("So long as the plaintiff ... has a concrete and particularized injury, it does not matter that legions of other persons have the same injury."). Indeed, even if the experience at the root of [the] complaint was shared by virtually every American," the inquiry remains whether that shared experience caused an injury that is concrete and particular to the plaintiff. Jewel, 673 F.3d at 910.
Juliana, 217 F. Supp.3d at 1243-44.
Page 32 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 33 of 62
Further, denying "standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody." United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 687 (1973). Federal defendants have presented no new controlling authority or other evidence which changes the Court's previous analysis.
As to imminence, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they seek to press and for each form of relief sought. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuna, 547 U.S. 332, 352 (2006). Because plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, they must show that their injuries are "ongoing or likely to recur." Consumer Fin. Prat. Bureau v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting FTC v. Evans Prods. Co., 775 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiffs have met this requirement under the summary judgment standard.
Plaintiffs submit evidence that fossil fuel emissions are responsible for most of the increase in atmospheric C02, and that increasing C02, in turn, is the main cause of global warming, and that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, due to fossil fuel combustion, are increasing quickly such that planetary warming is accelerating at rates never before seen in human history. Hansen Deel. Ex. A, at 38. Further, not only are concentrations of atmospheric C02 continuing to increase, but the rate of increase has also nearly doubled since measurements began being recorded pushing humanity closer to the "point of no return." Id. at 29, 38. Estimates show that extreme weather events are likely to continue to increase as the global surface temperature continues to rise. Id. at 35; Trenberth Deel. Ex. 1, at 1, 8, 13. Indeed, the five hottest years in the 123 years of record-keeping in the United States have all occurred in the past decade. Trenberth Deel. Ex. 1, at 3. Plaintiffs present evidence that 2017 saw record
Page 33 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 34 of 62
setting events such as extreme wildfires in the western United States8 and abnormally strong hurricanes in the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico (Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria), all of which were exacerbated by climate change. Id. at 7-11.
Further, plaintiffs offer that global sea level rise will continue unabated under current conditions. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. James Hansen has submitted video animations showing how the future impacts of seal level rise will flood or impact the livability of the homes of plaintiffs in Louisiana, Oregon, Washington, Florida, New York, and Hawaii based on current assumptions about carbon emission. Hansen Deel. Ex. E-R. The most recent projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") provide that global mean sea level will rise between 1.5-2.5 m (5- 8.2 ft.) by 2100 and that it is expected to continue to rise and even accelerate more after 2100. Wanless Deel. Ex. 1at12.
In sum, the Court is left with plaintiffs' sworn affidavits attesting to their specific injuries, as well as a swath of extensive expert declarations showing those injuries are linked to fossil fuel-induced climate change and if current conditions remain unchanged, these injuries are likely to continue or worsen. Federal defendants offer nothing to contradict these submissions, and merely recycle arguments from their previous motion. Thus, for the purposes of this case, the declarations submitted by plaintiffs and their experts have provided "specific facts," of immediate and concrete injuries. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; See Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1141. II I
8 "By 2006, scientists documented that the wildfire season in the western United States was 87 days longer than it was in the 1980s (Westerling et al. 2006). The number of large fires, >1000 acres, had grown four times, and the number of acres burned per year had increased six times. Recent studies have found the global wildfire season increased 19 [percent] globally from 1979-2013, and the global area vulnerable to wildfire increased 108 [percent] (Jolly et al. 2015)." Running Deel. Ex. 1, 13. Future wildfire activity may be 200- 600 [percent] higher than today in the Pacific Northwest alone. Id. at 28.
Page 34 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 35 of 62

11.

Causation

A plaintiff must show the injury alleged is "fairly traceable" to the challenged action of

the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the

court." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although a defendant's

action need not be the sole source of injury to support standing, Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 633

F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2011), "[t]he line of causation between the defendant's action and the

plaintiffs harm must be more than attenuated," Native Vil!. ofKivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696

F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted). However, a "causal chain

does not fail simply because it has several links, provided those links are not hypothetical or

tenuous and remain plausible." Id. (citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). At the

summary judgment stage, the "causal connection put forward for standing purposes cannot be

too speculative, or rely on conjecture about the behavior of other parties, but need not be so

airtight at this stage of the litigation as to demonstrate that the plaintiffs would succeed on the

merits." Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 1152 (9th Cir. 2000)

Here, federal defendants argue again that the association between the conduct of which

plaintiffs complain, namely the government's subsidizing the fossil fuel industry; allowing the

transportation, exportation, and importation of fossil fuels; setting of energy and efficiency

standards for vehicles, appliances, and buildings; reducing carbon sequestration capacity and

expanding areas for fossil fuel extraction and production through federal land leasing policies is

tenuous and filled with many intervening actions by third parties. Thus, they argue that plaintiffs

have failed to tether their injuries, both direct and indirect, to specific actions of the United

States.

Page 35 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 36 of 62
Federal defendants again rely on the Ninth Circuit's holding in Bellon to support their argument that "the causal chain is too weak to support standing" for plaintiffs' injuries. Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1142. The Court discussed Bellon in detail in its November 2016 Order on the motions to dismiss. See Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1244-1246. Briefly, the court in Bellon found that the five oil refineries at issue in that case were responsible for just under six percent of total greenhouse gas emissions produced in the State of Washington. The court quoted the state's expert's declaration that the effect of those emissions on global climate change was "scientifically indiscernible, given the emission levels, the dispersal of greenhouse gases worldwide, and the absence of any meaningful nexus between Washington refinery emissions and global greenhouse gases concentrations now or as projected in the future." Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1144 (quotation marks omitted).
Previously, the Court distinguished Bellon on the procedural basis that it was considering motions to dismiss, while the court in Bellon reviewed an order on a motion for summary judgment. Now on summary judgment in this case, the Court still finds that Bellon does not foreclose standing for plaintiffs. The court in Bellon relied on the scientific evidence, presented in an "unchallenged declaration" from the defendants' expert that showed that the causal connection between the regulatory actions of the defendants, the greenhouse gas emissions in question, and the injuries complained of by the plaintiffs were too tenuous to support standing. Id. at 1143-44 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit later clarified, "causation was lacking [in Bellon] because the defendant oil refineries were such minor contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and the independent third-party causes of climate change were so numerous, that the contribution of the defendant oil refineries was 'scientifically indiscernible."' WildEarth
Page 36 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 37 of 62
Guardians v. US. Dep't of Agric., 795 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1144).
Unlike in Bellon, plaintiffs' claims· do not challenge the global impact of such specific em1ss10ns. Rather, plaintiffs have proffered uncontradicted evidence showing that the government has historically known about the dangers of greenhouse gases but has continued to take steps promoting a fossil fuel based energy system, thus increasing greenhouse gas em1ss10ns. As the Court noted in the November 2016 Order, climate science and our ability to understand the effects of climate change are constantly evolving. Juliana, 217 F.Supp 3d at 1245 (quoting Kirsten Engel & Jonathan Overpeck, Adaptation and the Courtroom: Judging Climate Science, 3 Mich. J. Envt'l & Admin. L. 1, 25 (2013) (although "climate impacts at the regional and local levels are subject, among other things, to the uncertainties of downscaling techniques [,] ... our knowledge of the climate is developing at a breakneck pace.")). Bellon does not foreclose standing in any suit simply because it is based on actions causing dangerous levels atmospheric carbon emissions.
In further contrast to Bellon, the pattern of federally authorized emissions challenged by plaintiffs in this case do make up a significant portion of global emissions. Federal defendants have admitted that "from 1850 to 2012, C02 emissions from sources within the United States including from land use "comprised more than 25 [percent] of cumulative global C02
emissions." Answer at if 151. At oral argument, federal defendants noted that plaintiffs'
evidence only shows "United States' current global contribution to current emissions is around 14 to 15 percent." July 18, 2018 Hearing Trans. 29. In a different context the Supreme Court held that United States motor-vehicle emissions which were responsible for six percent of worldwide C02 "make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations" when
Page 37 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 38 of 62

"judged by any standard." 9 Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 524-25. The emissions implicated by

federal defendants' conduct in the case outstrip either of those considered in either Bellon or

Massachusetts.

Still, federal defendants contend that plaintiffs do not adequately show a causal

connection between a specific action taken by federal defendants and their climate change

related injuries. They argue that plaintiffs' causal connection is based on the actions of third-

party emitters. However, plaintiffs challenge not only the direct emissions of federal defendants

through

their

use

of

fossil

fuels

to

power

its

buildings

and

vehicles

10 ,

but

also

the

emissions

that

are caused and supported by their policies. Plaintiffs have alleged that federal defendants'

systematic conduct, which includes "government policies practices, and actions, showing how

each Defendant permits, licenses, leases, authorizes, and/or incentivizes the extraction,

development, processing, combustion, and transportation of fossil fuel" caused plaintiffs'

injuries. Plaintiffs' Resp. to Mot. for Summ J. 11. And plaintiffs provide evidence that federal

defendants' actions (or inaction), such as coal leasing, oil development, fossil fuel industry

subsidies, and the setting of fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, led to plaintiffs' injuries.

For example, regarding federal leasing policy, more than five million acres of National

Forest lands are currently leased for oil, natural gas, coal, and phosphate development. Olsen

Deel. Ex. 73. In 2016, the Department of Interior administered some 5000 active oil and gas

9 The court in Bellon declined to extend the rationale of Massachusetts in part because while the 6 percent of Washington state emissions at issue in that case might be significant in that state, the plaintiffs did not "provide any evidence that places this statistic in national or global perspective to assess whether the refineries' emissions are a meaningful contribution to global greenhouse gas levels." 732 F.3d 1131, 1146 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
10 These emissions are not insignificant. In 2016, the federal government had 1,340,000 cars and 1,810,000 trucks in its fleet. Olson Deel. Ex.136. In 2015, the federal fleet consumed 310,416 gallons of gasoline and 66,736 gallons of diesel. Id. The Department of Defense uses enough electricity to power 2.6 million average American homes. Id. at Ex. 217

Page 38 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 39 of 62
leases on nearly 27 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf. Id. Ex. 215. In 2015, 782 million barrels of crude oil, five trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 421 million tons of coal were produced on federal lands managed by the Department of Interior. See Id. Ex. 74. Between 1905 and 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture authorized the harvest of 525,484,148 billion board feet of timber from federal land, thus reducing the country's carbon sequestration capacity. Id. Ex. 45. Federal defendants permit livestock grazing on over 95 million acres of National Forest lands in 26 states, further reducing carbon sequestration capacity and increasing methane emissions. Id. 42, 46, 52, 50-55, 70. It is uncontested that federal defendants control leasing and permitting on federal land. Third parties could not extract fossil fuels or make other use of the land without Federal Defendants' permission.
Federal defendants also set energy and efficiency standards that do impact the rate at which individual and businesses emit greenhouse gases. The Department of Energy sets energy conservation standards for more than 60 categories of appliances and equipment, which covers roughly 90 percent of home energy use. Id Ex. 92. Likewise, passenger cars and light trucks cannot be sold in the United States unless they comply with the Fuel Economy Standards set by the Department of Transportation, which historically have been lower in the United States than other developed nations. Id. Ex. 151.
Federal defendants' actions impact the import, export, and transport of fossil fuels. For example, in 2015, Congress lifted a ban on crude oil exports and exports rose rapidly thereafter. Id. Ex. 96. No offshore liquefied natural gas or oil import and export facility can legally operate without a license from the Department of Transportation. Id. at 120 189. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must approve interstate transport of fossil fuel, and Department of Transportation permitting is required for transportation of hazardous material including fossil
Page 39 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 40 of 62
fuels. Id. at 384, 385. These examples are merely illustrative of the evidence proffered by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' expert declarations also provide evidence that federal defendants' actions have led to led to plaintiffs' complained of injuries. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. James Hansen asserts that "[t]he United States is, by far, the nation most responsible for the associated increase in global temperatures. The [United States] alone is responsible for a 0.15°C increase in global temperature." Hansen Deel. 28. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Joseph Stiglitz offers that "the current national energy system, in which approximately 80 percent of energy comes from fossil fuels, is
a direct result of decisions and actions taken by Defendants." Stiglitz Deel. Ex. 1 if 27. That is
echoed by plaintiffs' expert Dr. Mark Jacobson who notes that "fossil fuels supply more than 80 [percent] of our all-purpose energy in the United States, not out of necessity, but because of political preference and historic government support that led to the development and maintenance of a widespread fossil-fuel infrastructure." Jacobson Deel. Ex. 1, 5. Plaintiffs' expert Peter Erickson submitted that by subsidizing the low cost of oil the United States government has historically and is currently substantially expanding the country's future oil production relative to the production that would occur if these subsidies were not in place. Erickson Deel. Ex.1, 15.
Plaintiffs' experts tether plaintiffs' specific injuries to climate change and climate change related weather events. See generally Section 2.A.ii. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Harold Wanless opines that sea level rise solely caused by fossil fuel-induced climate change poses clear and irreversible harm to plaintiffs like Levi whose community will likely be uninhabitable in future. Wanless Deel. Ex. 1 at 1-2. Likewise, plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kevin Trenberth offers, as an example of climate change related weather events harming plaintiffs, localized extreme weather
Page 40 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 41 of 62
events like the flooding affecting plaintiff Jayden and her home were heightened by climate change. Trenberth Deel. Ex. 1 at 20-22. The magnitude of rainfall and the extent of flooding near Jayden's home would not have occurred without fossil fuel-induced climate change. Id. Dr. Steven Running notes that the pattern of drought that led plaintiff Jaime to move from her home on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico is directly linked to climate change. Running Deel. 6.
At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence showing that causation for their claims is more than attenuated. Plaintiffs' "need not connect each molecule" of domestically emitted carbon to their specific injuries to meet the causation standard. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1142-43. The ultimate issue of causation will require perhaps the most extensive evidence to determine at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings, plaintiffs have proffered sufficient evidence to show that genuine issues of material fact remain on this issue. A final ruling on this issue will benefit from a fully developed factual record where the Court can consider and weigh evidence from both parties.
ni. Redressability The final prong of the standing inquiry is redressability. The causation and redressability prongs of the standing inquiry "overlap and are two facets of a single causation requirement." Bellon, 732 F.3d at 1146 (citation and quotation marks omitted). They are distinct in that causation "examines the connection between the alleged misconduct and injury, whereas redressability analyzes the connection between the alleged injury and requested judicial relief." Id. A plaintiff need not show that a favorable decision is certain to redress her injury, but must show a substantial likelihood that it will do so. Id. For the redressability inquiry, it is sufficient
Page 41- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 42 of 62
to show that the requested remedy would "slow or reduce" the harm. 11 Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 525 (citing Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 243 n.15 (1982)).
Federal defendants contend that there is no possible redress in this case because the remedies sought by plaintiffs are beyond the Court's authority to provide. 12 Further, they argue that even if this Court did find in favor of plaintiffs, any remedy it fashioned would not redress the harms alleged by plaintiffs, because fossil fuel emissions from other entities would still contribute to continuing global warming. Thus, they argue that there is no evidence that any immediate reduction in emissions caused by the United States would manifest in a reduction of climate change induced weather phenomena. As the Court has stated before, whether the Court could guarantee a reduction in greenhouse gas emission is the wrong inquiry because redressability does not require certainty. Rather, at this stage, it only requires a substantial likelihood that the Court could provide meaningful relief. Moreover, the possibility that some other individual or entity might later cause the same injury does not defeat standing; the question remains whether the injury caused by the defendants in this suit can be redressed. Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1247; See also WildEarth Guardians v. US. Dep't ofAgric., 795 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2015) ("[T]he mere existence of multiple causes of an injury does not defeat redressability, particularly for a procedural injury. So long as a defendant is at least partially
11 "[A] plaintiff satisfies the redressability requirement when he shows that a favorable decision will relieve a discrete injury to himself. He need not show that a favorable decision will relieve his every injury." Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 525
12 Federal defendants rely on Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for the proposition that the Court may only compel ministerial action. 542 U.S. 55, 57-58 (2004). However, that case involved a claim brought under the APA. The Court has already held that these claims are not governed by the APA. See Sections l.B. and 2.C.
Page 42 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 43 of 62
causing the alleged injury, a plaintiff may sue that defendant, even if the defendant is just one of multiple causes of the plaintiffs injury.").
Here, plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief as well as any other relief as the Court deems just and proper. They ask the Court, inter alia, to "[o]rder Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emission and draw
down excess atmospheric C02." First Am. Compl. if 94. Plaintiffs dispute federal defendants'
contention, however, that they are asking this Court to create a highly specific plan that federal defendants must use remedy any constitutional violations. Instead, plaintiffs urge that their request for relief, at its core, is one for a declaration that their constitutional rights have been violated and an order for federal defendants to develop their own plan, using existing resources, capacities, and legal authority, to bring their conduct into constitutional compliance. Plaintiffs point to various statutory authorities by which they claim federal defendants could affect the relief they request. Plaintiffs' Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. 24-25. See inter alia 30 U.S.C §§ 351359; 33 U.S.C. § 1344; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7112; 6291-6296; 7401-7431;13 49 U.S.C. § 32902; 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
Plaintiffs also offer evidence that the injuries they allege can be redressed through actions by federal defendants. See Hansen Deel. Ex. 1, 4 (staving off the effects of catastrophic climate change "remains possible if [the United States] phases out [greenhouse gas emissions] within several decades and actively draw[s] down excess atmospheric C02 [,]" which can be largely achieved "via reforestation of marginal lands with improved forestry and agricultural
13 Judge Coffin cited to§ 7409 (providing the Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to regulate national ambient air quality standards for the attainment and maintenance of the public welfare) in his F&R as supporting a "strong link between all the supposedly independent and numerous third party decisions given the government's regulation of C02 emissions." (doc. 68 at *10); See also Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007). (A "reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.") Page 43 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 44 of 62
practices."); Robertson Deel. Ex 1 at 6 ("All told, technology is available today to store carbon or avoid future greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in the U.S. equivalent to more than 30 [gigatonnes of carbon] by 2100); Jacobson Deel. Ex. 1 at 7 ("[I]t is technologically and economically possible to electrify fully the energy infrastructures of all 50 United States and provide that electricity with 100 [percent] clean, renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) at low cost by 2030 or 2050."); Williams Deel. Ex. 1 at 3 & 64 ("[I]t is technically feasible to develop and implement a plan to achieve an 80 [percent] greenhouse gas reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 in the United States ... with overall net [greenhouse gas] emissions of no more than 1,080 [million tons of carbon], and fossil fuel combustion emissions of no more than 750
[million tons of carbon]."); Stiglitz Deel. Ex. 1, ifil 44-49 (explaining that transitioning the
United States economy away from fossil fuels is feasible and beneficial). It is clearly within a district court's authority to declare a violation of plaintiffs'
constitutional rights. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges,_U.S.__135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015); Brown v. Bd ofEduc., 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). "Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15. (1970). As mentioned elsewhere in this opinion, should the Court find a constitution violation, it would need to exercise great care in fashioning any form relief, even if it were primarily declaratory in nature. 14 The Court has considered the summary judgment record regarding traceability and plaintiffs' experts' opinions that reducing domestic emissions, which plaintiffs contend are controlled by federal defendants'
14 Indeed, the "remedial powers of an equity court ... are not unlimited." Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 161 (1971).
Page 44 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 45 of 62
actions, could slow or reduce the harm plaintiffs are suffering. The Court concludes, for the purposes of this motion, that plaintiffs have shown an issue of material fact that must be considered at trial on full factual record.
Regarding standing, federal defendants have offered similar legal arguments to those in their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs, in contrast, have gone beyond the pleadings to submit sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material facts on whether they satisfy the standing elements. The Court has considered all of the arguments and voluminous summary judgment record, and the Court finds that plaintiffs show that genuine issues of material fact exist as to each element. As the Court notes elsewhere in this opinion, the Court will revisit all of the elements of standing after the factual record has been fully developed at trial. For now, the Court simply holds that plaintiffs have met their burden to avoid summary judgment at this time.
B. Failure to State a Claim under the APA Federal defendants next argue that even if the Court finds that plaintiffs have established standing, plaintiffs still have not identified a valid right of action. Essentially, federal defendants argue once again that this case must be dismissed because the APA provides the "sole mechanism" by which plaintiffs must bring their claims. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 18. This issue is substantively explored in Section LB, infra, and applies with equal force to this motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' claims are not governed by the APA. Thus, federal defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this issue. C. Separation ofPowers Federal defendants contend, once again that plaintiffs' claims and the relief sought are broader than what can be entertained as a case or controversy under Article III of the United
Page 45 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 46 of 62
States Constitution. The Court has already discussed similar arguments in the November 2016
Order and in Section I.C of this Opinion.
Federal defendants offer no new evidence or controlling authority on this issue that warrant reconsideration of the Court's previous analysis. 15 Nor do they offer a rationale as to
why the outcome should be different under the summary judgment standard. Indeed, they
contend that the issue here is "purely legal" in nature and that "factual development" is not
relevant to whether plaintiffs' requested remedy violates separation of powers issues. Defs.'
Reply to Mot. for Summ. J. 26.
As the Court noted above, the allocation of powers between the branches of government
is a critical consideration in this case, but it is the clear province of the judiciary to say what the
law is. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177. After a fuller development of the record and weighing of
evidence presented at trial, should the Court find a constitutional violation, then it would exercise
great care in fashioning a remedy determined by the nature and scope of that violation.
Additionally, many potential outcomes and remedies remain at issue in this case. The Court
15 Federal defendants point to a recent public nuisance case from the Northern District of California to support their position that this case violates separation of powers principles. See City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., et al., 2018 WL 3109726 (N.D. Cal. 2018). There, a district court dismissed claims brought by certain cities in California against several large oil and natural gas producers. The plaintiffs alleged that the worldwide production and sale of fossil fuels by the defendants were causing climate change, the effects of which caused damage to the cities. City of Oakland is readily distinguishable. Here, plaintiffs allege constitutional violations against the federal government based on federal defendants' domestic carbon emissions as well as a promulgation of a domestic energy market based on fossil fuels in spite of their awareness of the dangers of such emissions. The court in City ofOakland focused on nuisance claims, brought for money damages, and the resulting balancing test, as well as extraterritoriality concerns stemming from the plaintiffs' attempt to impose liability on the defendants for the production and sale of fossil fuels worldwide. Id at *7. ("Because this relief would effectively allow plaintiffs to govern conduct and control energy policy on foreign soil, we must exercise great caution.") Here, plaintiffs' claims are limited to the territorial boundaries of the United States. The Court is not persuaded that City of Oakland offers relevant guidance for the Court's consideration of this motion given the vastly different nature of the claims, requested remedies, and parties.
Page 46 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 47 of 62
could find that there is no violation of plaintiffs' rights; that plaintiffs fail to meet one or more of the requirements of standing; or, after the full development of the factual record, that the requested remedies would indeed violate the separation of powers doctrine. As has been noted before, even should plaintiffs prevail at trial, the Court, in fashioning an appropriate remedy, need not micro-manage federal agencies or make policy judgments that the Constitution leaves to other branches. The record before the Court at this stage of the proceedings, however, does not warrant summary dismissal. To grant summary judgment on these grounds at this stagewhen plaintiffs have supplied ample evidence to show genuine issues of material fact-would be premature. 16
Federal defendants also contend that merely participating in ongoing discovery and a court trial violates separation of powers principles. Federal defendants previously made this argument in their Motion for Protective Order and Stay of All Discovery. (doc. 196) This rationale was rejected by Judge Coffin in his Order denying the motion (doc. 212), which the Court later affirmed over Federal Defendant's objections. (doc. 300) Moreover, the Ninth Circuit considered this argument in federal defendant's latest petition for mandamus. The panel noted in its opinion that the government made the same argument in their first mandamus petition, and the panel "rejected" it for the purposes of the mandamus. In re United States,_F.3d_, 2018 WL 3484444 at *9 (citing In re United States, 884 F.3d at 836). Once again, the Court does not find federal defendants' argument persuasive and concludes that generally participating in discovery and trial here does not in and of itself violate separation of
16 Respect for separation of powers might, for example, permit the Court to grant declaratory relief, directing federal defendants to ameliorate plaintiffs' injuries without limiting its ability to specify precisely how to do so. That said, federal courts retain broad authority "to fashion practical remedies when confronted with complex and intractable constitutional violations." Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 526 (2011). Here the Court has not yet determined the scope, if any, of federal defendants' constitutional violations or plaintiffs' injuries. Page 47-0PINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 48 of 62

powers concerns. Federal defendants have been free to raise objections to specific discovery

requests and orders which they believe implicate separation of powers concerns.

D. Due Process Claims

Federal defendants argue that plaintiffs' individual due process claims fail as a matter of

law. The Court addresses each in tum.

1.

Fundamental Right to an Environment Capable ofSustaining Human Life

Federal defendants argue, as they did in their previous motion to dismiss that there is no

right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life. They note that this issue is "a purely

legal question" and that factual development at trial is not necessary to resolve it. Defs.' Reply

to Mot. for Summ. J. 29. Federal defendants offer substantially similar arguments to those from their motion dismiss here. 17 The Court addressed these arguments in the previous order, and

nothing in the current briefing persuades the Court to change its previous rationale. As stated in

the November 2016 order, this Court has simply held that:

where a complaint alleges knowing governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet's ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation. To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government's knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink.

Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1250.
17 Federal defendants do cite a recent case from D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that it rejected the notion of a federal due process right to a stable environment. Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm 'n, 895 F.3d 102, (D.C. Cir. 2018). However, the analysis in that case involved the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania State Constitution, and the court ultimately held that the rights created by the amendment in question bound only "only state and local governments." Id. at 110. The court noted that the plaintiffs grounded their claims on the right outlined in the Pennsylvania Constitution as creating "a protected liberty or property interest as a matter of federal due process." Id. at 108. The court found that "the Amendment is too vague and indeterminate to create a federally cognizable property interest." Id. at 109. Because the court's analysis centered on the specific Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment, it is not controlling here.
Page 48 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 49 of 62
Reviewing the summary judgment record, plaintiffs have offered expert testimony on the catastrophic harms of climate change. See Section 2.A. They also submitted evidence, in the form of expert declarations and government documents, supporting their argument that the federal defendants' actions have led to these changes and are linked to the harms alleged by plaintiffs. At this stage, federal defendants have offered no legal or factual rationale significantly different from those offered in their previous motion to dismiss. As such, the Court finds no reason to re-examine the previous ruling on the existence of this due process right. Moreover, further factual development of the record will help this Court and other reviewing courts better reach a final conclusion as to plaintiffs' claims under this theory.
11. State-Created Danger Theory Federal defendants urge that plaintiffs' claims based on the state created danger doctrine must fail. First, they argue that plaintiffs do not show a special relationship between themselves and the government. More importantly, federal defendants argue that plaintiffs cannot show that government conduct proximately caused a dangerous situation in deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' safety or that harm or loss of life has resulted from such conduct. Plaintiffs contend that they have proffered ample evidence to show genuine issues of material fact as to whether federal defendants have liability for the conduct alleged in their complaint. With limited exceptions, the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative obligation on the government to act, even when "such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep 't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989). This rule is subject to two exceptions: "(1) the 'special relationship' exception; and (2) the 'danger creation' exception." L. W v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992). The "special relationship"
Page 49 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 50 of 62
exception provides that when the government takes an individual into custody against his or her will, it assumes some responsibility to ensure that individual's safety. Id. The "danger creation" exception permits a substantive due process claim when government conduct "places a person in peril in deliberate indifference to their safety[.]" Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 1997).
A plaintiff challenging government inaction on a danger creation theory must first show the "state actor create[d] or expose[d] an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced." Kennedy v. City ofRidgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006). The state action must place the plaintiff "in a worse position than that in which he would have been had the state not acted at all." Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted and alterations normalized). Second, the plaintiff must show the "state actor ... recognize[d]" the unreasonable risks to the plaintiff and "actually intend[ed] to expose the plaintiff to such risks without regard to the consequences to the plaintiff." Campbell v. Wash. Dep't ofSoc. & Health Servs., 671 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 2011) (brackets and quotation marks omitted). The defendant must have acted with "[d]eliberate indifference," which "requires a culpable mental state more than gross negligence." Pauluk, 836 F.3d at 1125 (quotation marks omitted).
Federal defendants' mam argument is that plaintiffs' allegations regarding the government's knowledge of the dangers posed to plaintiffs by climate change do not rise to the required level of "deliberate indifference." Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Deliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action." (internal citation and quotations omitted.)). Plaintiffs' point to their expert declarations to demonstrate that federal
Page 50 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 51 of 62
defendants have known of, and disregarded, the consequences of continued fossil fuel use on the United States and its citizens. Federal defendants do not meaningfully refute the factual allegations, but instead deny their bearing on the issue. Therefore, there is a genuine issue of disputed facts surrounding the government's knowledge of climate change's dangers and summary judgment before trial, is inappropriate.
Plaintiffs specifically refer to the declaration from their expert Gus Speth, former chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality under President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Speth' s declaration examines a historical record spanning ten presidential administrations and references a number of documents, statements of government officials, and federal policy actions that go directly to the government's knowledge of the links between fossil fuels and increasing global mean temperature and the dangers associated therein, such as sea level rise to Americans at the time and in future.
For example, in 1969 Daniel Moynihan, then counselor to the President Richard Nixon, wrote to John Ehrlichman, President Nixon's Assistant for Domestic Affairs, summarizing the climate problem:
The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the tum of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25 [percent] by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. Speth Deel.~ 18. (citing Olsen Dec. Ex. 2) (emphasis added) In 1977, President Jimmy Carter's science advisor Frank Press wrote to the President explaining:
Page 51- OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 52 of 62
Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of C02 is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow 1.5 to 2.0 times that level within 60 years. Because of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric C02, the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.5° to 5° C.... The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective.
Id. if 21 (citing Olsen Deel. Ex. 4.)
Another example of the alleged knowledge and deliberate indifference of the federal
defendants cited by plaintiffs is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
which was signed by the President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992.
Speth Deel. if 44. The preamble to the Convention provided that:
[H]uman activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind
Olson Deel. Ex. 23
Plaintiffs further contend that the dangers of global warming were well known during the
administration of Presidents William Clinton and George W. Bush. In 1996, the Council on
Environmental Quality reported to Congress: "[t]he average global temperature is projected to
rise 2 to 6 degrees over the next century ... the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more
difficult the job, and the greater the risks." Olson Deel., Ex. 25, at xi. Further, a 2007 report
from the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform alleged
that the Bush Administration misled the public regarding the effects of climate change,
concluding:
The Committee's 16-month investigation reveals a systematic White House effort to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing
Page 52 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 53 of 62
testimony to Congress. The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link between increased hurricane intensity and global warming. The White House also sought to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing government climate change reports. Other actions taken by the White House involved editing EPA legal opinions and op-eds on climate change. Olson Deel., Ex. 34, at ii. In June 2009, the U.S. Global Change Research Program ("USGCRP"), government advisory council, released its Second National Climate Assessment which noted that "[c]limate change is likely to exacerbate these challenges as changes in temperature, precipitation, sea levels, and extreme weather events increasingly affect homes, communities, water supplies, land resources, transportation, urban infrastructure, and regional characteristics that people have come to value and depend on." Olson Deel. Ex. 35 at 100. Recently, in August 2017, the USGCRP Fifth National Climate Assessment found "that reversing course on climate, as expected with the passage of time, is more urgent than ever." Speth Deel.~ 76. At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiffs have introduced sufficient evidence and experts' opinions to demonstrate a question of material fact as to federal defendants' knowledge, actions, and alleged deliberate indifference. Once this claim is reviewed with a full factual record, plaintiffs must still clear a very high bar to ultimately succeed. Additionally, based on the proffered evidence and the complex issues involved in this claim, the Court exercises its discretion to "deny summary judgment in a case where there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The Ninth Circuit has reserved summary judgment in the past to obtain a more robust record. See Anderson v. Hodel, 899 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir 1990) ("[A]ppellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have reversed summary judgments where the lower court records have not
Page 53 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 54 of 62
been sufficiently developed to allow the courts to make fully informed decisions on particularly difficult and far reaching issues." (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted)); see also Eby v. Reb Realty, Inc., 495 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1974) ("In certain cases summary judgment may be inapposite because the legal issue is so complex, difficult, or insufficiently highlighted that further factual elucidation is essential for its prudently considered resolution."). The Ninth Circuit has further explained that
[C]ourts must not rush to dispose summarily of cases-especially novel, complex, or otherwise difficult cases of public importance-unless it is clear that more complete factual development could not possibly alter the outcome and that the credibility of the witnesses' statements or testimony is not at issue. Even when the expense of further proceedings is great and the moving party's case seems to the court quite likely to succeed, speculation about the facts must not take the place of investigation, proof, and direct observation. TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. American Coupon Exchange, Inc., 913 F.2d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 1990) Undoubtedly, this claim involves complicated and novel questions about standing, historical context, and constitutional rights. To allow a summary judgment decision without cultivating the most exhaustive record possible during a trial would be a disservice to the case, which is certainly a complex case of "public importance."18 Id. E. Public Trust Doctrine Federal defendants again ask this Court to reconsider the previous ruling on the applicability of the public trust doctrine to the federal government. They allege no new circumstances or any substantially new arguments for the Court to consider on summary judgment. Indeed, federal defendants repeatedly stresses that "[n]o discovery or expert opinion is necessary" for this Court to decide "the purely legal question of whether the public trust
18 This analysis applies with equal force to all of the issues raised in federal defendants' motion for summary judgment. Page 54 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 55 of 62
doctrine provides a cause of action against the federal government." Defs.' Reply to Mot. for Summ. J. 38.
Similar to the issues discussed in Sections LC, II.C, and II.D, the November 2016 Order extensively covered this legal argument, and the Court finds no need to revisit its analysis based on the nearly identical arguments in this motion. See Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1252-1261. The Court does not find that its previous order, holding that the public trust doctrine is deeply rooted in our nation's history and that plaintiffs' claims are viable was clearly erroneous. Id. at 1259, 1261. There have been no changes in the factual record or legal authority that would justify a different outcome given the current record and the fact that the arguments presented by federal defendants in this motion are substantively the same, the Court declines to revisit its previous ruling. Genuine issues of material fact remain as to the specific allegations made by plaintiffs. The application of the public trust doctrine to these claims would be better served with a full factual record to help guide this Court and any reviewing courts.
F. Plaintiffs J Remaining Claims In their motion for summary judgment, federal defendants state that "[t]his Court's order [denying the motions to dismiss] did not address [federal d]efendants' arguments concerning [p]laintiffs' Equal Protection claim under the Fifth Amendment or Plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment Claim." Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 4. They assert that "the Equal Protection and Ninth Amendment claims are no longer at issue." Id. 24 n.8. Although federal defendants overstate their position with respect to the equal protection and Ninth Amendment claims, they are correct that the prior opinion and order was somewhat unclear with respect to those claims and some clarification is warranted.
Page 55 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 56 of 62
The Court begins with plaintiffs' third claim for relief, which is pleaded as a freestanding claim under the Ninth Amendment. This claim is not viable as a matter of law. The Ninth Amendment "has never been recognized as independently securing any constitutional right, for purposes of pursuing a civil rights claim." Strandberg v. City ofHelena, 791 F.2d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 1986). Federal defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' third claim for relief.
Plaintiffs' equal protection claim requires a more substantive discussion, as it is linked to the allegation of fundamental rights violations.
When a federal court is presented with an equal protection claim, the first step is to "ascertain the appropriate level of scrutiny to employ[.]" Aleman v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000). The default level of scrutiny is rational basis review, which affords governmental classifications "a strong presumption of validity." Id. at 1200 (quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993)). The applicable analysis changes, however, when the plaintiff alleges either discrimination against a "suspect or semi-suspect class" or infringement of a fundamental right. Wright v. Incline Vil!. Gen. Improvement Dist., 665 F.3d 1128, 1141 (9th Cir. 2011 ). A classification withstands rational basis review so long as "there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." Id. at 1201 (quoting FCC v. Beach Commc 'ns, 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)).
Plaintiffs contend that "posterity"-which they defined to include both unborn members of plaintiff "future generations" and minor children who cannot vote-is a suspect classification. They contend that, for decades, federal defendants have prioritized present-day political and economic advantage over prevention of future environmental damage. Plaintiffs assert that young people and future generations will be disproportionately harmed by climate change
Page 56 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 57 of 62
because climate change and its effects are worsenmg over time. They assert that federal defendants' climate and energy policy treats "posterity" differently than other, similarly situated individuals, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Judge Coffin recommended against recognizing "a new separate suspect class based on posterity." Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1271 n.8. Although the Court stated in the introduction to the opinion and order that the Court was adopting Judge Coffin's findings and recommendation "as elaborated in this opinion," the Court expressly declined to decide whether youth or future generations were suspect classes. Id. at 1233 & 1249 n.7.
Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have held that age is not a suspect class. City ofDallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25 (1989); United States v. Flores-Villar, 536 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court has rejected only old age as a suspect classification, but that is not the case. Stanglin upheld "modest impairment of the liberty of teenagers"-specifically, 14- to 18-year-olds-in the form of an age-based restriction on entry to a dance hall. 490 U.S. at 28 (Stevens, J., concurring). Flores-Villar addressed the constitutionality of an immigration policy that treated United States citizen fathers differently depending on whether they lived in the United States for at least five years after the age of fourteen. 19 536 F.3d at 993. Stang/in and Flores-Villar both applied rational basis review to governmental action that discriminated against teenagers of a similar age to plaintiffs in this case. In both cases, that discrimination was found to be permissible if it had a rational basis.
Even if plaintiffs' suspect-class argument were not foreclosed by precedent, the Court would not be persuaded to break new ground in this area. See Cunningham v. Beavers, 858 F.2d
19 Flores-Villar also upheld the immigration policy in question against the argument that it impermissibly treated mothers and fathers differently. Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1698 (2017), abrogated Flores-Villar's gender-discrimination holding but left untouched its agediscrimination holding. Page 57 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 58 of 62
269, 273 (5th Cir. 1988) ("No cases have ever held, and we decline to hold, that children are a suspect class."). Suspect classification triggers strict scrutiny, a famously difficult test to survive. See Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 832 (2007) (discussing strict scrutiny's somewhat-exaggerated reputation as "strict in theory, but fatal in fact"). Balancing competing interests is at the heart of executive and especially legislative decision-making, and it is the rare governmental decision that does not have some effect on children or posterity. Holding that "posterity" or even just minor children are a suspect class would hamstring governmental decision-making, potentially foreclosing even run-of-themill decisions such as prioritizing construction of a new senior center over construction of a new playground or allocating state money to veterans' healthcare rather than to the public schools. Applying strict scrutiny to every governmental decision that treats young people differently than others is unworkable and unsupported by precedent.
However, the rejection of plaintiffs' proposed suspect class does not fully resolve their equal protection claim. As explained above, strict scrutiny is also triggered by alleged infringement of a fundamental right. Wright, 665 F.3d at 1141. Plaintiffs' equal protection claim rests on alleged interference with their right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life-a right the Court has already held to be fundamental. Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1249-5.0; see also id. at 1271 n.8 ("Nonetheless, the complaint does allege discrimination against a class of younger individuals with respect to a fundamental right protected by substantive due process."); Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole, 870 F.2d 1419, 1430 (9th Cir. 1989) (stopping short of identifying a fundamental right but stating that "[h]uman life, itself a fundamental right, will vanish if we continue our heedless exploitation of this planet's natural resources"). Plaintiffs' equal protection and due process claims both involve violation of a fundamental right and, as
Page 58 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 59 of 62
such, must be evaluated through the lens of strict scrutiny, which would be aided by further development of the factual record. III. Request to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal
Federal defendants seek certification for interlocutory appeal any portion of this opinion and order denying their motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
The final judgment rule gives the federal courts of appeal jurisdiction over "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Congress created a narrow exception to this rule: a district judge may certify for appeal an order that "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion" if "an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation[.]" Id. § 1292(b). The requirements of§ 1292(b) are jurisdictional, so a district court may not certify an order for interlocutory appeal if they are not met. Couch v. Telescope, Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). Congress did not intend district courts to certify interlocutory appeals "merely to provide review of difficult rulings in hard cases." US. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966). Rather, certification pursuant to § 1292(b) is reserved for "the most extraordinary situations." Penk v. Or. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 99 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Or. 1982). Even when all three of§ 1292(b)'s criteria are met, the district court retains unfettered discretion to deny a motion to certify for interlocutory review. Mowat Constr. Co. v. Dorena Hydro, LLC, 2015 WL 5665302, at *5 (D. Or. Sept. 23, 2015).
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that to the extent federal defendants seek to certify for interlocutory appeal the legal rulings contained in the November 2016 Opinion and Order denying the motion to dismiss, the Court already declined to certify those questions for interlocutory appeal. Juliana, 2017 WL 2483705, at *2. That denial is now the law of the case.
Page 59 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 60 of 62
The Court therefore denies federal defendants' request to certify the rulings on standing, the political question doctrine, the viability of public trust claims against the federal government, and the existence of a fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.
As to the argument that plaintiffs' claims must proceed (if at all) under the APA, the "substantial ground for difference of opinion" standard is not met.
To determine if a 'substantial ground for difference of opinion' exists under § 1292(b), courts must examine to what extent the controlling law is unclear. Courts traditionally will find that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where "the circuits are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not spoken on the point, if complicated questions arise under foreign law, or if novel and difficult questions of first impression are presented." Couch, 611 F.3d at 631 (quoting 3 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 3:212 (2010)). As explained in Section LB, supra, Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent make it abundantly clear that plaintiffs may (and frequently do) challenge agency action outside the framework of the APA. Moreover, even if the "substantial ground for difference of opinion" standard were met, certification of the APA issue in isolation would not materially advance the litigation. Instead, it would protract the litigation by requiring the parties to proceed on dual tracks. The request for interlocutory appeal as to the issues raised in the summary judgment motion must also fail. As to standing, the issues presented are not purely legal questions, but rather implicate mixed questions of law and fact regarding all three prongs of the standing inquiry. As genuine issues of material fact remain, this case would benefit from the further development of the factual record both for this Court and any reviewing court on final appeal. This is also true for plaintiffs' state created danger theory, which directly implicates disputed factual questions. The Court has already explained why it would be inappropriate to certify an appeal on the issue of the applicability of the APA. As to the legal questions involving in federal defendants'
Page 60 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 61 of 62
arguments regarding separation of powers, the viability of public trust claims against the federal
government, and the existence of a due process right to a climate system capable of supporting human life, the Court has already denied certification on these issues.20 Moreover, certifying a
narrow piecemeal appeal on some of these legal issues would not materially advance this
litigation, rather it would merely reshuffle the procedural deck and force the parties to proceed
on separate tracks for separate claims, which is precisely what the final judgment rule seeks to prevent.21 Accordingly, the requests to certify for interlocutory appeal made both in the motion
for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment are denied.
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
°2 Federal defendants argue in their motion that this Court's previous holding is at odds
with certain out of circuit cases. The Court has addressed these concerns in this order and see no need to revisit the Court's analysis of those cases. Federal defendants also argue in a Notice to this the Court (doc. 330) that the Supreme Court's recent ruling denying their application implies that this Court should certify an interlocutory appeal. The Court has considered the concerns raised in the one paragraph order, both in this order and previous orders. The Court does not find that Order removes the Court's discretion to deny the request for interlocutory appeal.
21 The Supreme Court has cautioned that:
[i]t would seem to us to be a disservice to the Court, to litigants in general and to the idea of speedy justice if we were to succumb to enticing suggestions to abandon the deeply-held distaste for piecemeal litigation in every instance of temptation. Moreover, to find appealability in those close cases where the merits of the dispute may attract the deep interest of the court would lead, eventually, to a lack of principled adjudication or perhaps the ultimate devitalization of the finality rule as enacted by Congress.
Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 440 (1985) (internal quotations omitted)
Page 61 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 369 Filed 10/15/18 Page 62 of 62
CONCLUSION Federal defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 195) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: the motion to dismiss President Trump as a defendant is granted, without prejudice, and is otherwise denied. Federal defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 207) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained in this opinion. Federal defendants' requests to certify this opinion and order for interlocutory appeal are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 15th day of October 2018.
.J
Ann Aiken United States District Judge
Page 62 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee11ooff9614

(1 of 91)

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA; XIUHTEZCATL TONATIUH M., through his Guardian Tamara RoskeMartinez; ALEXANDER LOZNAK; JACOB LEBEL; ZEALAND B., through his Guardian Kimberly Pash-Bell; AVERY M., through her Guardian Holly McRae; SAHARA V., through her Guardian Toa Aguilar; KIRAN ISAAC OOMMEN; TIA MARIE HATTON; ISAAC V., through his Guardian Pamela Vergun; MIKO V., through her Guardian Pamel Vergun; HAZEL V., through her Guardian Margo Van Ummerson; SOPHIE K., through her Guardian Dr. James Hansen; JAIME B., through her Guardian Jamescita Peshlakai; JOURNEY Z., through his Guardian Erika Schneider; VICTORIA B., through her Guardian Daisy Calderon; NATHANIEL B., through his Guardian Sharon Baring; AJI P., through his Guardian Helaina Piper; LEVI D., through his Guardian Leigh-Ann Draheim; JAYDEN F., through her Guardian Cherri Foytlin; NICHOLAS V., through his Guardian Marie Venner; EARTH GUARDIANS, a

No. 18-36082
D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01517-
AA
OPINION

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee22ooff9614

(2 of 91)

2

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

nonprofit organization; FUTURE GENERATIONS, through their Guardian Dr. James Hansen,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARY B. NEUMAYR, in her capacity as Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality; MICK MULVANEY, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and the Budget; KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIR, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; DAN BROUILLETTE, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DAVID L. BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Secretary of Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ELAINE L. CHAO, in her official capacity as Secretary of Transportation; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; SONNY PERDUE, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; WILBUR ROSS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARK T.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee33ooff9614

(3 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

3

ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MICHAEL R. POMPEO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Administrator of the EPA; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2019 Portland, Oregon
Filed January 17, 2020
Before: Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and Josephine L. Staton,* District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Hurwitz; Dissent by Judge Staton

* The Honorable Josephine L. Staton, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee44ooff9614

(4 of 91)

4

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

SUMMARY **

Climate Change / Standing
The panel reversed the district court’s interlocutory orders in an action brought by an environmental organization and individual plaintiffs against the federal government, alleging climate-change related injuries to the plaintiffs caused by the federal government continuing to “permit, authorize, and subsidize” fossil fuel; and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
Some plaintiffs claimed psychological harms, others impairment to recreational interests, others exacerbated medical conditions, and others damage to property. Plaintiffs alleged violations of their constitutional rights, and sought declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide].”
The panel held that: the record left little basis for denying that climate change was occurring at an increasingly rapid pace; copious expert evidence established that the unprecedented rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stemmed from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked; the record conclusively established that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions; and the record established that the government’s
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee55ooff9614

(5 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

5

contribution to climate change was not simply a result of inaction.
The panel rejected the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims must proceed, if at all, under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The panel held that because the APA only allows challenges to discrete agency decisions, the plaintiffs could not effectively pursue their constitutional claims – whatever their merits – under that statute.
The panel considered the three requirements for whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to pursue their constitutional claims. First, the panel held that the district court correctly found that plaintiffs claimed concrete and particularized injuries. Second, the panel held that the district court properly found the Article III causation requirement satisfied for purposes of summary judgment because there was at least a genuine factual dispute as to whether a host of federal policies were a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries. Third, the panel held that plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were not redressable by an Article III court. Specifically, the panel held that it was beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan where any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.
The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large.
District Judge Staton dissented, and would affirm the district court. Judge Staton wrote that plaintiffs brought suit to enforce the most basic structural principal embedded in

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee66ooff9614

(6 of 91)

6

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

our system of liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. She would hold that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the government’s conduct, have articulated claims under the Constitution, and have presented sufficient evidence to press those claims at trial.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee77ooff9614

(7 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

7

COUNSEL

Jeffrey Bossert Clark (argued), Assistant Attorney General; Andrew C. Mergen, Sommer H. Engels, and Robert J. Lundman, Attorneys; Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.

Julia A. Olson (argued), Wild Earth Advocates, Eugene, Oregon; Philip L. Gregory, Gregory Law Group, Redwood City, California; Andrew K. Rodgers, Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers, Seattle, Washington; for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Theodore Hadzi-Antich and Ryan D. Walters, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, Texas, for Amici Curiae Nuckels Oil Co., Inc. DBA Merit Oil Company; Libety Packing Company, LLC; Western States Trucking Association; and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

Richard K. Eichstaedt, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, Washington, for Amici Curiae Eco-Justice Ministries; Interfaith Moral Action on Climate; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Temple Beth Israel of Eugene, Oregon; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Leadership Counsel of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Michigan; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas’ Institute Leadership Team; GreenFaith; Leadership Team of the Sisters of Providence of Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods Indiana; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Climate Change Task Force of the Sisters of Providence of SaintMary-of-the-Woods; Quaker Earthcare Witness; Colorado

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee88ooff9614

(8 of 91)

8

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

Interfaith Power and Light; and the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.

Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, Law Office of Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, San Antonio, Texas; D. Inder Comar, Comar LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae International Lawyers for International Law.

Wendy B. Jacobs, Director; Shaun A. Goho, Deputy Director; Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae Public Health Experts, Public Health Organizations, and Doctors.

David Bookbinder, Niskanen Center, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Niskanen Center.

Courtney B. Johnson, Crag Law Center, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of the United States and League of Women Voters of Oregon.

Oday Salim, Environmental Law & Sustainability Clinic; Julian D. Mortensen and David M. Uhlmann, Professors; Alexander Chafetz, law student; University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; for Amicus Curiae Sunrise Movement Education Fund.

Zachary B. Corrigan, Food & Water Watch, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Food & Water Watch, Inc.; Friends of the Earth – US; and Greenpeace, Inc.

Patti Goldman, Earthjustice, Seattle, Washington; Sarah H. Burt, Earthjustice, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae EarthRights International, Center for Biological

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee99ooff9614

(9 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

9

Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

David Hunter and William John Snape III, American University, Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US.

Timothy M. Bechtold, Bechtold Law Firm PLLC, Missoula, Montana, for Amici Curiae Members of the United States Congress.

Rachael Paschal Osborn, Vashon, Washington, for Amici Curiae Environmental History Professors.

Thomas J. Beers, Beers Law Offices, Seeley Lake, Montana; Irma S. Russell, Professor, and Edward A. Smith, Missouri Chair in Law, the Constitution, and Society, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, Missouri; W. Warren H. Binford Professor or Law & Director, Clinical Law Program, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; for Amicus Curiae Zero Hour on Behalf of Approximately 32,340 Children and Young People.

Helen H. Kang, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, California; James R. May and Erin Daly, Dignity Rights Project, Delaware Law School, Wilmington, Delaware; for Amici Curiae Law Professors.

Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc.; Royal Blue Organics; Organically Grown Company; Bliss Unlimited, LLC, dba Coconut Bliss; Hummingbird Wholesale; Aspen Skiing Company, LLC;

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1100ooff9614

(10 of 91)

10

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

Protect Our Winters; National Ski Areas Association; Snowsports Industries America; and American Sustainable Business Council.

Alejandra Núñez and Andres Restrepo, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club, Oakland, California; for Amicus Curiae Sierra Club.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1111ooff9614

(11 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

11

OPINION
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge:
In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were “on the eve of destruction.”1 The plaintiffs in this case have presented compelling evidence that climate change has brought that eve nearer. A substantial evidentiary record documents that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change, and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse.
The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.” Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.
I.
The plaintiffs are twenty-one young citizens, an environmental organization, and a “representative of future generations.” Their original complaint named as defendants

1 Barry McGuire, Eve of Destruction, on Eve of Destruction (Dunhill Records, 1965).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1122ooff9614

(12 of 91)

12

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

the President, the United States, and federal agencies (collectively, “the government”). The operative complaint accuses the government of continuing to “permit, authorize, and subsidize” fossil fuel use despite long being aware of its risks, thereby causing various climate-change related injuries to the plaintiffs. Some plaintiffs claim psychological harm, others impairment to recreational interests, others exacerbated medical conditions, and others damage to property. The complaint asserts violations of: (1) the plaintiffs’ substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (2) the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of the law; (3) the plaintiffs’ rights under the Ninth Amendment; and (4) the public trust doctrine. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide].”2
The district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, raised justiciable questions, and stated a claim for infringement of a Fifth Amendment due process right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The court defined that right as one to be free from catastrophic climate change that “will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem.” The court also concluded that the

2 The plaintiffs also assert that section 201 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, § 201, 106 Stat. 2776, 2866 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 717b(c)), which requires expedited authorization for certain natural gas imports and exports “without modification or delay,” is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The plaintiffs also challenge DOE/FE Order No. 3041, which authorizes exports of liquefied natural gas from the proposed Jordan Cove terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1133ooff9614

(13 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

13

plaintiffs had stated a viable “danger-creation due process claim” arising from the government’s failure to regulate third-party emissions. Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs had stated a public trust claim grounded in the Fifth and the Ninth Amendments.
The government unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandamus. In re United States, 884 F.3d 830, 837–38 (9th Cir. 2018). Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court denied the government’s motion for a stay of proceedings. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Or., 139 S. Ct. 1 (2018). Although finding the stay request “premature,” the Court noted that the “breadth of respondents’ claims is striking . . . and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion.” Id.
The government then moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted summary judgment on the Ninth Amendment claim, dismissed the President as a defendant, and dismissed the equal protection claim in part.3 But the court otherwise denied the government’s motions, again holding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and finding that they had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. The court also rejected the government’s argument that the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy was under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq.
The district court initially declined the government’s request to certify those orders for interlocutory appeal. But, while considering a second mandamus petition from the government, we invited the district court to revisit

3 The court found that age is not a suspect class, but allowed the equal protection claim to proceed on a fundamental rights theory.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1144ooff9614

(14 of 91)

14

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

certification, noting the Supreme Court’s justiciability concerns. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or., No. 18-73014, Dkt. 3; see In re United States, 139 S. Ct. 452, 453 (2018) (reiterating justiciability concerns in denying a subsequent stay application from the government). The district court then reluctantly certified the orders denying the motions for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stayed the proceedings, while “stand[ing] by its prior rulings . . . as well as its belief that this case would be better served by further factual development at trial.” Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-cv01517-AA, 2018 WL 6303774, at *3 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2018). We granted the government’s petition for permission to appeal.
II.
The plaintiffs have compiled an extensive record, which at this stage in the litigation we take in the light most favorable to their claims. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 768 (2014). The record leaves little basis for denying that climate change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace. It documents that since the dawn of the Industrial Age, atmospheric carbon dioxide has skyrocketed to levels not seen for almost three million years. For hundreds of thousands of years, average carbon concentration fluctuated between 180 and 280 parts per million. Today, it is over 410 parts per million and climbing. Although carbon levels rose gradually after the last Ice Age, the most recent surge has occurred more than 100 times faster; half of that increase has come in the last forty years.
Copious expert evidence establishes that this unprecedented rise stems from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked. Temperatures have already risen 0.9 degrees Celsius above

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1155ooff9614

(15 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

15

pre-industrial levels and may rise more than 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The hottest years on record all fall within this decade, and each year since 1997 has been hotter than the previous average. This extreme heat is melting polar ice caps and may cause sea levels to rise 15 to 30 feet by 2100. The problem is approaching “the point of no return.” Absent some action, the destabilizing climate will bury cities, spawn life-threatening natural disasters, and jeopardize critical food and water supplies.
The record also conclusively establishes that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions. As early as 1965, the Johnson Administration cautioned that fossil fuel emissions threatened significant changes to climate, global temperatures, sea levels, and other stratospheric properties. In 1983, an Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) report projected an increase of 2 degrees Celsius by 2040, warning that a “wait and see” carbon emissions policy was extremely risky. And, in the 1990s, the EPA implored the government to act before it was too late. Nonetheless, by 2014, U.S. fossil fuel emissions had climbed to 5.4 billion metric tons, up substantially from 1965. This growth shows no signs of abating. From 2008 to 2017, domestic petroleum and natural gas production increased by nearly 60%, and the country is now expanding oil and gas extraction four times faster than any other nation.
The record also establishes that the government’s contribution to climate change is not simply a result of inaction. The government affirmatively promotes fossil fuel use in a host of ways, including beneficial tax provisions, permits for imports and exports, subsidies for domestic and

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1166ooff9614

(16 of 91)

16

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

overseas projects, and leases for fuel extraction on federal land.4
A.
The government by and large has not disputed the factual premises of the plaintiffs’ claims. But it first argues that those claims must proceed, if at all, under the APA. We reject that argument. The plaintiffs do not claim that any individual agency action exceeds statutory authorization or, taken alone, is arbitrary and capricious. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). Rather, they contend that the totality of various government actions contributes to the deprivation of constitutionally protected rights. Because the APA only allows challenges to discrete agency decisions, see Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 890–91 (1990), the plaintiffs cannot effectively pursue their constitutional claims—whatever their merits—under that statute.
The defendants argue that the APA’s “comprehensive remedial scheme” for challenging the constitutionality of agency actions implicitly bars the plaintiffs’ freestanding constitutional claims. But, even if some constitutional challenges to agency action must proceed through the APA, forcing all constitutional claims to follow its strictures would
4 The programs and policies identified by the plaintiffs include: (1) the Bureau of Land Management’s authorization of leases for 107 coal tracts and 95,000 oil and gas wells; (2) the Export-Import Bank’s provision of $14.8 billion for overseas petroleum projects; (3) the Depa rtment of Energy’s a pprova l of over 2 million ba rrels of crude oil imports; (4) the Department of Agriculture’s approval of timber cutting on federal land; (5) the undervaluing of royalty rates for federal leasing; (6) tax subsidies for purchasing fuel-inefficient sport-utility vehicles; (7) the “inta ngible drilling costs” a nd “percenta ge depletion a llowa nce” ta x code provisions, 26 U.S.C. §§ 263(c), 613; a nd (8) the government’s use of fossil fuels to power its own buildings and vehicles.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1177ooff9614

(17 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

17

bar plaintiffs from challenging violations of constitutional rights in the absence of a discrete agency action that caused the violation. See Sierra Club v. Trump, 929 F.3d 670, 694, 696 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that plaintiffs could “bring their challenge through an equitable action to enjoin unconstitutional official conduct, or under the judicial review provisions of the [APA]”); Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1172 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding “that the second sentence of § 702 waives sovereign immunity broadly for all causes of action that meet its terms, while § 704’s ‘final agency action’ limitation applies only to APA claims”). Because denying “any judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim” presents a “serious constitutional question,” Congress’s intent through a statute to do so must be clear. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603 (1988) (quoting Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 681 n.12 (1986)); see also Allen v. Milas, 896 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir. 2018) (“After Webster, we have assumed that the courts will be open to review of constitutional claims, even if they are closed to other claims.”). Nothing in the APA evinces such an intent.5 Whatever the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, they may proceed independently of the review procedures mandated by the APA. See Sierra Club, 929 F.3d at 698–99 (“Any constitutional challenge that Plaintiffs may advance under the APA would exist regardless of whether they could also assert an APA claim . . . . [C]laims challenging agency

5 The government relies upon Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 328–29 (2015), and Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 74–76 (1996), both of which held that statutory remedial schemes implicitly barred freestanding equitable claims. Neither case, however, involved claims by the plaintiffs that the federal government was violating their constitutional rights. See Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 323–24 (claiming that state officials had violated a federa l sta tute); Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. a t 51–52 (sa me).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1188ooff9614

(18 of 91)

18

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

actions—particularly constitutional claims—may exist wholly apart from the APA.”); Navajo Nation, 876 F.3d at 1170 (explaining that certain constitutional challenges to agency action are “not grounded in the APA”).
B.
The government also argues that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue their constitutional claims. To have standing under Article III, a plaintiff must have (1) a concrete and particularized injury that (2) is caused by the challenged conduct and (3) is likely redressable by a favorable judicial decision. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000); Jewel v. NSA, 673 F.3d 902, 908 (9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff need only establish a genuine dispute as to these requirements to survive summary judgment. See Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002).
1.
The district court correctly found the injury requirement met. At least some plaintiffs claim concrete and particularized injuries. Jaime B., for example, claims that she was forced to leave her home because of water scarcity, separating her from relatives on the Navajo Reservation. See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2416 (2018) (finding separation from relatives to be a concrete injury). Levi D. had to evacuate his coastal home multiple times because of flooding. See Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1070– 71 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding diminution in home property value to be a concrete injury). These injuries are not simply “‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical;’” at least some of the plaintiffs have presented evidence that climate change is affecting them now in concrete ways and will continue to do

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee1199ooff9614

(19 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

19

so unless checked. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)); cf. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 478 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (finding no standing because plaintiffs could “only aver that any significant adverse effects of climate change ‘may’ occur at some point in the future”).
The government argues that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are not particularized because climate change affects everyone. But, “it does not matter how many persons have been injured” if the plaintiffs’ injuries are “concrete and personal.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 581 (Kennedy, J., concurring)); see also Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he fact that a harm is widely shared does not necessarily render it a generalized grievance.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Jewel, 673 F.3d at 909). And, the Article III injury requirement is met if only one plaintiff has suffered concrete harm. See Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2416; Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1651 (2017) (“At least one plaintiff must have standing to seek each form of relief requested in the complaint. . . . For all relief sought, there must be a litigant with standing.”).
2.
The district court also correctly found the Article III causation requirement satisfied for purposes of summary judgment. Causation can be established “even if there are multiple links in the chain,” Mendia v. Garcia, 768 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014), as long as the chain is not “hypothetical or tenuous,” Maya, 658 F.3d at 1070 (quoting Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 849 (9th Cir. 2002), amended on denial of reh’g, 312 F.3d 416 (9th Cir. 2002)). The causal chain here is sufficiently established.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2200ooff9614

(20 of 91)

20

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

The plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuel production, extraction, and transportation. A significant portion of those emissions occur in this country; the United States accounted for over 25% of worldwide emissions from 1850 to 2012, and currently accounts for about 15%. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 524–25 (finding that emissions amounting to about 6% of the worldwide total showed cause of alleged injury “by any standard”). And, the plaintiffs’ evidence shows that federal subsidies and leases have increased those emissions. About 25% of fossil fuels extracted in the United States come from federal waters and lands, an activity that requires authorization from the federal government. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 181–196 (establishing legal framework governing the disposition of fossil fuels on federal land), § 201 (authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to lease land for coal mining).
Relying on Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1141–46 (9th Cir. 2013), the government argues that the causal chain is too attenuated because it depends in part on the independent actions of third parties. Bellon held that the causal chain between local agencies’ failure to regulate five oil refineries and the plaintiffs’ climate-change related injuries was “too tenuous to support standing” because the refineries had a “scientifically indiscernible” impact on climate change. Id. at 1143–44. But the plaintiffs here do not contend that their injuries were caused by a few isolated agency decisions. Rather, they blame a host of federal policies, from subsidies to drilling permits, spanning “over 50 years,” and direct actions by the government. There is at least a genuine factual dispute as to whether those policies were a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries. Mendia, 768 F.3d at 1013 (quoting Tozzi v. U.S. Dep’t of

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2211ooff9614

(21 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

21

Health & Human Servs., 271 F.3d 301, 308 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).
3.
The more difficult question is whether the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries are redressable by an Article III court. In analyzing that question, we start by stressing what the plaintiffs do and do not assert. They do not claim that the government has violated a statute or a regulation. They do not assert the denial of a procedural right. Nor do they seek damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. Rather, their sole claim is that the government has deprived them of a substantive constitutional right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” and they seek remedial declaratory and injunctive relief.
Reasonable jurists can disagree about whether the asserted constitutional right exists. Compare Clean Air Council v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 3d 237, 250–53 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (finding no constitutional right), with Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1248–50; see also In re United States, 139 S. Ct. at 453 (reiterating “that the ‘striking’ breadth of plaintiffs’ below claims ‘presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion’”). In analyzing redressability, however, we assume its existence. See M.S. v. Brown, 902 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2018). But that merely begins our analysis, because “not all meritorious legal claims are redressable in federal court.” Id. To establish Article III redressability, the plaintiffs must show that the relief they seek is both (1) substantially likely to redress their injuries; and (2) within the district court’s power to award. Id. Redress need not be guaranteed, but it must be more than “merely speculative.” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2222ooff9614

(22 of 91)

22

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

The plaintiffs first seek a declaration that the government is violating the Constitution. But that relief alone is not substantially likely to mitigate the plaintiffs’ asserted concrete injuries. A declaration, although undoubtedly likely to benefit the plaintiffs psychologically, is unlikely by itself to remediate their alleged injuries absent further court action. See Clean Air Council, 362 F. Supp. 3d at 246, 249; Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 107 (1998) (“By the mere bringing of his suit, every plaintiff demonstrates his belief that a favorable judgment will make him happier. But although a suitor may derive great comfort and joy from the fact that the United States Treasury is not cheated, that a wrongdoer gets his just deserts, or that the Nation’s laws are faithfully enforced, that psychic satisfaction is not an acceptable Article III remedy because it does not redress a cognizable Article III injury.”); see also Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 185 (“[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought.”).
The crux of the plaintiffs’ requested remedy is an injunction requiring the government not only to cease permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use, but also to prepare a plan subject to judicial approval to draw down harmful emissions. The plaintiffs thus seek not only to enjoin the Executive from exercising discretionary authority expressly granted by Congress, see, e.g., 30 U.S.C. § 201 (authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to lease land for coal mining), but also to enjoin Congress from exercising power expressly granted by the Constitution over public lands, see U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2233ooff9614

(23 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

23

As an initial matter, we note that although the plaintiffs contended at oral argument that they challenge only affirmative activities by the government, an order simply enjoining those activities will not, according to their own experts’ opinions, suffice to stop catastrophic climate change or even ameliorate their injuries.6 The plaintiffs’ experts opine that the federal government’s leases and subsidies have contributed to global carbon emissions. But they do not show that even the total elimination of the challenged programs would halt the growth of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, let alone decrease that growth. Nor does any expert contend that elimination of the challenged pro-carbon fuels programs would by itself prevent further injury to the plaintiffs. Rather, the record shows that many of the emissions causing climate change happened decades ago or come from foreign and non-governmental sources.
Indeed, the plaintiffs’ experts make plain that reducing the global consequences of climate change demands much more than cessation of the government’s promotion of fossil fuels. Rather, these experts opine that such a result calls for no less than a fundamental transformation of this country’s energy system, if not that of the industrialized world. One expert opines that atmospheric carbon reductions must come “largely via reforestation,” and include rapid and immediate decreases in emissions from many sources. “[L]eisurely reductions of one of two percent per year,” he explains, “will not suffice.” Another expert has opined that although the required emissions reductions are “technically feasible,” they can be achieved only through a comprehensive plan for “nearly complete decarbonization” that includes both an “unprecedently rapid build out” of renewable energy and a

6 The operative complaint, however, also seems to challenge the government’s inaction.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2244ooff9614

(24 of 91)

24

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

“sustained commitment to infrastructure transformation over decades.” And, that commitment, another expert emphasizes, must include everything from energy efficient lighting to improved public transportation to hydrogenpowered aircraft.
The plaintiffs concede that their requested relief will not alone solve global climate change, but they assert that their “injuries would be to some extent ameliorated.” Relying on Massachusetts v. EPA, the district court apparently found the redressability requirement satisfied because the requested relief would likely slow or reduce emissions. See 549 U.S. at 525–26. That case, however, involved a procedural right that the State of Massachusetts was allowed to assert “without meeting all the normal standards for redressability;” in that context, the Court found redressability because “there [was] some possibility that the requested relief [would] prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.” Id. at 517–18, 525–26 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572 n.7). The plaintiffs here do not assert a procedural right, but rather a substantive due process claim.7

7 The dissent reads Massachusetts to hold that “a perceptible reduction in the advance of climate change is sufficient to redress a plaintiff’s climate change-induced harms.” Diss. at 47. But Massachusetts “permitted a State to challenge EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 420 (2011), finding that as a sovereign it was “entitled to special solicitude in [the] standing analysis,” Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2664 n.10 (2015) (quoting Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 520). Here, in contrast, the plaintiffs are not sovereigns, and a substantive right, not a procedural one, is at issue. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517–21, 525–26; see also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572 n.7 (“There is this much truth to the assertion that ‘procedural rights’ are special: The person who has been accorded a

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2255ooff9614

(25 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

25

We are therefore skeptical that the first redressability prong is satisfied. But even assuming that it is, the plaintiffs do not surmount the remaining hurdle—establishing that the specific relief they seek is within the power of an Article III court. There is much to recommend the adoption of a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change, both as a policy matter in general and a matter of national survival in particular. But it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches. See Brown, 902 F.3d at 1086 (finding the plaintiff’s requested declaration requiring the government to issue driver cards “incompatible with democratic principles embedded in the structure of the Constitution”). These decisions range, for example, from determining how much to invest in public transit to how quickly to transition to renewable energy, and plainly require consideration of “competing social, political, and economic forces,” which must be made by the People’s “elected representatives, rather than by federal judges interpreting the basic charter of Government for the entire country.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128–29 (1992); see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559–60 (“[S]eparation of powers depends largely upon common understanding of what activities are appropriate to legislatures, to executives, and to courts.”).

procedural right to protect his concrete interests can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and im m edia cy.”).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2266ooff9614

(26 of 91)

26

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

The plaintiffs argue that the district court need not itself make policy decisions, because if their general request for a remedial plan is granted, the political branches can decide what policies will best “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.” To be sure, in some circumstances, courts may order broad injunctive relief while leaving the “details of implementation” to the government’s discretion. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 537–38 (2011). But, even under such a scenario, the plaintiffs’ request for a remedial plan would subsequently require the judiciary to pass judgment on the sufficiency of the government’s response to the order, which necessarily would entail a broad range of policymaking. And inevitably, this kind of plan will demand action not only by the Executive, but also by Congress. 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, or a less robust approach to addressing climate change than the plaintiffs believe is necessary. “But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s [or Legislature’s] predictive judgments on such matters, all of which ‘are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.’” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. at 2421 (quoting Chi. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948)). And, given the complexity and long-lasting nature of global climate change, the court would be required to supervise the government’s compliance with any suggested plan for many decades. See Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Injunctive relief could involve

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2277ooff9614

(27 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

27

extraordinary supervision by this court. . . . [and] may be inappropriate where it requires constant supervision.”).8
As the Supreme Court recently explained, “a constitutional directive or legal standards” must guide the courts’ exercise of equitable power. Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2508 (2019). Rucho found partisan gerrymandering claims presented political questions beyond the reach of Article III courts. Id. at 2506–07. The Court did not deny extreme partisan gerrymandering can violate the Constitution. See id. at 2506; id. at 2514–15 (Kagan, J., dissenting). But, it concluded that there was no “limited and precise” standard discernible in the Constitution for redressing the asserted violation. Id. at 2500. The Court

8 However belatedly, the political branches are currently debating such action. Many resolutions and plans have been introduced in Congress, ranging from discrete measures to encourage clean energy innovation to the “Green New Deal” and comprehensive proposals for taxing carbon and transitioning all sectors of the economy away from fossil fuels. See, e.g., H.R. Res. 109, 116th Cong. (2019); S.J. Res. 8, 116th Cong. (2019); Enha ncing Fossil Fuel Energy Ca rbon Technology Act, S. 1201, 116th Cong. (2019); Climate Action Now Act, H.R. 9, 116th Cong. (2019); Methane Waste Prevention Act, H.R. 2711, 116th Cong. (2019); Clean Energy Standard Act, S. 1359, 116th Cong. (2019); National Climate Bank Act, S. 2057, 116th Cong. (2019); Carbon Pollution Transparency Act, S. 1745, 116th Cong. (2019); Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s America Act, H.R. 2741, 116th Cong. (2019); Buy Clean Transparency Act, S. 1864, 116th Cong. (2019); Carbon Capture Modernization Act, H.R. 1796, 116th Cong. (2019); Challenges & Prizes for Climate Act, H.R. 3100, 116th Cong. (2019); Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, H.R. 763, 116th Cong. (2019); Climate Risk Disclosure Act, S. 2075, 116th Cong. (2019); Clean Energy for America Act, S. 1288, 116th Cong. (2019). The proposed legislation, consistent with the opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts, envisions that tackling this global problem involves the exercise of discretion, trade-offs, international cooperation, private-sector partnerships, and other value judgments ill-suited for an Article III court.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2288ooff9614

(28 of 91)

28

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed standard because unlike the one-person, one-vote rule in vote dilution cases, it was not “relatively easy to administer as a matter of math.” Id. at 2501.
Rucho reaffirmed that redressability questions implicate the separation of powers, noting that federal courts “have no commission to allocate political power and influence” without standards to guide in the exercise of such authority. See id. at 2506–07, 2508. Absent those standards, federal judicial power could be “unlimited in scope and duration,” and would inject “the unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the Federal Government [into] assuming such an extraordinary and unprecedented role.” Id. at 2507; see also Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 125 (2014) (noting the “separation-of-powers principles underlying” standing doctrine); Brown, 902 F.3d at 1087 (stating that “in the context of Article III standing, . . . federal courts must respect their ‘proper—and properly limited—role . . . in a democratic society’” (quoting Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018)). Because “it is axiomatic that ‘the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change,’” Brown, 902 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2605 (2015)), some questions—even those existential in nature—are the province of the political branches. The Court found in Rucho that a proposed standard involving a mathematical comparison to a baseline election map is too difficult for the judiciary to manage. See 139 S. Ct. at 2500–02. It is impossible to reach a different conclusion here.
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,

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee2299ooff9614

(29 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

29

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 that 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.” We doubt that any such plan can be supervised or enforced by an Article III court. And, in the end, any plan is only as good as the court’s power to enforce it.
C.
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,” Diss. at 35–37, 39, or as one to freedom from “the amount of fossil-fuel emissions that will irreparably devastate our Nation,” id. at 57. 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. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180–81. A suit for a violation of these reframed rights, like one for a violation of the Guarantee Clause, would also plainly be nonjusticiable. See, e.g., Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2506 (“This Court has several times concluded, however, that the Guarantee Clause does not provide the basis for a justiciable claim.”) (citing Pac. States

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3300ooff9614

(30 of 91)

30

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149 (1912)); Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 36–37, 39 (1849).
More importantly, the dissent offers no metrics for judicial determination of the level of climate change that would cause “the willful dissolution of the Republic,” Diss. at 40, nor for measuring a constitutionally acceptable “perceptible reduction in the advance of climate change,” id. at 47. Contrary to the dissent, we cannot find Article III redressability requirements satisfied simply because a court order might “postpone[] the day when remedial measures become insufficiently effective.” Id. at 46; see Brown, 902 F.3d at 1083 (“If, however, a favorable judicial decision would not require the defendant to redress the plaintiff’s claimed injury, the plaintiff cannot demonstrate redressability[.]”). Indeed, as the dissent recognizes, a guarantee against government conduct that might threaten the Union—whether from political gerrymandering, nuclear proliferation, Executive misconduct, or climate change—has traditionally been viewed by Article III courts as “not separately enforceable.” Id. at 39. Nor has the Supreme Court recognized “the perpetuity principle” as a basis for interjecting the judicial branch into the policy-making purview of the political branches. See id. at 42.
Contrary to the dissent, we do not “throw up [our] hands” by concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable. Id. at 33. Rather, we recognize that “Article III protects liberty not only through its role in implementing the separation of powers, but also by specifying the defining characteristics of Article III judges.” Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 483 (2011). Not every problem posing a threat—even a clear and present danger—to the American Experiment can be solved by federal judges. As Judge Cardozo once aptly warned, a judicial commission does not

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3311ooff9614

(31 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

31

confer the power of “a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness;” rather, we are bound “to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system.’” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (1921).9
The dissent correctly notes that the political branches of government have to date been largely deaf to the pleas of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals. But, although inaction by the Executive and Congress may affect the form of judicial relief ordered when there is Article III standing, it cannot bring otherwise nonjusticiable claims within the province of federal courts. See Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2507–08; Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1929 (“‘Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies.’ . . . Our power as judges . . . rests not on the default of politically accountable officers, but is instead grounded in and limited by the necessity of resolving, according to legal principles, a plaintiff’s particular claim of legal right.” (quoting Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 449 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring))); Brown, 902 F.3d at 1087 (“The absence of a law, however, has never been held to constitute a ‘substantive result’ subject to judicial review[.]”).
The plaintiffs have made a compelling case that action is needed; it will be increasingly difficult in light of that record

9 Contrary to the dissent, we do not find this to be a political question, although that doctrine’s factors often overlap with redressa bility concerns. Diss. a t 51–61; Republic of Marshall Islands v. United States, 865 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Whether examined under the . . . the redressability prong of standing, or the political question doctrine, the analysis stems from the same separation-ofpowers principle—enforcement of this trea ty provision is not committed to the judicial branch. Although these are distinct doctrines . . . there is significant overlap.”).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3322ooff9614

(32 of 91)

32

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

for the 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. We do not dispute that the broad judicial relief the plaintiffs seek could well goad the political branches into action. Diss. at 45–46, 49–50, 57–61. We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box. That the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.
III.
For the reasons above, we reverse the certified orders of the district court and remand this case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.10
REVERSED.

STATON, District Judge, dissenting:
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.
10 The plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal, Dkt. 21, is DENIED. Their motions for judicial notice, Dkts. 134, 149, are GRANTED.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3333ooff9614

(33 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

33

Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.
Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.1

1 I agree with the majority that plaintiffs need not bring their claims under the APA. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801 (1992); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603–04 (1988).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3344ooff9614

(34 of 91)

34

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

I.
As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15. According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.” Even government scientists2 project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200. To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities. So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami—now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future—that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.
What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility. The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation. But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage. Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “[a]tmospheric

2 NOAA, Technica l Rep. NOS CO-OPS 083, Globa l a nd Regiona l Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States 23 (Jan. 2017).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3355ooff9614

(35 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

35

warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added). Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “[t]he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added). In other words, “[g]iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.
Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote[d] fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15. According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling—at our government’s own hand—into a wasteland. In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.3
II.
In tossing this suit for want of standing, the majority concedes that the children and young adults who brought suit have presented enough to proceed to trial on the first two aspects of the inquiry (injury in fact and traceability). But

3 My a steroid a na logy would therefore be more a ccura te if I posited a scenario in which the government itself accelerated the asteroid towa rds the ea rth before shutting down our defenses.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3366ooff9614

(36 of 91)

36

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

the majority provides two-and-a-half reasons for concluding that plaintiffs’ injuries are not redressable. After detailing its “skeptic[ism]” that the relief sought could “suffice to stop catastrophic climate change or even ameliorate [plaintiffs’] injuries[,]” Maj. Op. at 23–25, the majority concludes that, at any rate, a court would lack any power to award it. In the majority’s view, the relief sought is too great and unsusceptible to a judicially administrable standard.
To explain why I disagree, I first step back to define the interest at issue. While standing operates as a threshold issue distinct from the merits of the claim, “it often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975). And, unlike the majority, I believe the government has more than just a nebulous “moral responsibility” to preserve the Nation. Maj. Op. at 31–32.
A.
The Constitution protects the right to “life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, [and] freedom of worship and assembly.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). Through “reasoned judgment,” the Supreme Court has recognized that the Due Process Clause, enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, also safeguards certain “interests of the person so fundamental that the [government] must accord them its respect.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2598 (2015). These include the right to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), to maintain a family and rear children, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996), and to pursue an occupation of one’s choosing, Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam., 353 U.S. 232, 238–39 (1957). As fundamental rights, these “may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly,

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3377ooff9614

(37 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

37

377 U.S. 713, 736 (1964) (quoting Barnette, 319 U.S. at 638).
Some rights serve as the necessary predicate for others; their fundamentality therefore derives, at least in part, from the necessity to preserve other fundamental constitutional protections. Cf., e.g., Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682, 689 (2019) (deeming a right fundamental because its deprivation would “undermine other constitutional liberties”). For example, the right to vote “is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Because it is “preservative of all rights,” the Supreme Court has long regarded suffrage “as a fundamental political right.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). This holds true even though the right to vote receives imperfect express protection in the Constitution itself: While several amendments proscribe the denial or abridgement of suffrage based on certain characteristics, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote ab initio. See U.S. Const. amends. XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI; cf. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1.
Much like the right to vote, the perpetuity of the Republic occupies a central role in our constitutional structure as a “guardian of all other rights,” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217 n.15 (1982). “Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society . . . .” Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941); see also The Ku Klux Cases, 110 U.S. 651, 657–68 (1884). And, of course, in our system, that organized society consists of the Union. Without it, all the liberties protected by the Constitution to live the good life are meaningless.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3388ooff9614

(38 of 91)

38

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

This observation is hardly novel. After securing independence, George Washington recognized that “the destiny of unborn millions” rested on the fate of the new Nation, cautioning that “whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America[.]” President George Washington, Circular Letter of Farewell to the Army (June 8, 1783). Without the Republic’s preservation, Washington warned, “there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” Id.
When the Articles of the Confederation proved ill-fitting to the task of safeguarding the Union, the framers formed the Constitutional Convention with “the great object” of “preserv[ing] and perpetuat[ing]” the Union, for they believed that “the prosperity of America depended on its Union.” The Federalist No. 2, at 19 (John Jay) (E. H. Scott ed., 1898); see also Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 24, 1787)4 (“It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States.”). In pressing New York to ratify the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the gravity of the occasion: “The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the Union, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed—the fate of an empire, in many respects the most interesting in the world.” The Federalist No. 1, at 11 (Alexander Hamilton) (E. H. Scott ed., 1898). In light of this animating principle, it is fitting that the

4 Ava ila ble a t https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/0 1-12-02-0274.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee3399ooff9614

(39 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

39

Preamble declares that the Constitution is intended to secure “the Blessings of Liberty” not just for one generation, but for all future generations—our “Posterity.”
The Constitution’s structure reflects this perpetuity principle. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (examining how “[v]arious textual provisions of the Constitution assume” a structural principle). In taking the Presidential Oath, the Executive must vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8, and the Take Care Clause obliges the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. Likewise, though generally not separately enforceable, Article IV, Section 4 provides that the “United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and . . . against domestic Violence.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4; see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 184–85 (1992).
Less than a century after the country’s founding, the perpetuity principle undergirding the Constitution met its greatest challenge. Faced with the South’s secession, President Lincoln reaffirmed that the Constitution did not countenance its own destruction. “[T]he Union of these States is perpetual[,]” he reasoned in his First Inaugural Address, because “[p]erpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861). In justifying this constitutional principle, Lincoln drew from history, observing that “[t]he Union is much older than the Constitution.” Id. He reminded his fellow citizens, “one of

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4400ooff9614

(40 of 91)

40

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was ‘to form a more perfect Union.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. Const. pmbl.). While secession manifested the existential threat most apparently contemplated by the Founders—political dissolution of the Union—the underlying principle applies equally to its physical destruction.
This perpetuity principle does not amount to “a right to live in a contaminant-free, healthy environment.” Guertin v. Michigan, 912 F.3d 907, 922 (6th Cir. 2019). To be sure, the stakes can be quite high in environmental disputes, as pollution causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each year, not to mention disability and diminished quality of life.5 Many abhor living in a polluted environment, and some pay with their lives. But mine-run environmental concerns “involve a host of policy choices that must be made by . . . elected representatives, rather than by federal judges interpreting the basic charter of government[.]” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 129 (1992). The perpetuity principle is not an environmental right at all, and it does not task the courts with determining the optimal level of environmental regulation; rather, it prohibits only the willful dissolution of the Republic.6

5 See, e.g., Andrew L. Goodkind et al., Fine-Scale Damage Estimates of Particulate Matter Air Pollution Reveal Opportunities for Location-Specific Mitigation of Emissions, in 116 Proceedings of the Na tiona l Aca demy of Sciences 8775, 8779 (2019) (estima ting tha t fine particulate matter caused 107,000 premature deaths in 2011).
6 Unwilling to a cknowledge tha t the very na ture of the clima te crisis places this case in a category of one, the government argues that “the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social and economic ill.” For support, the government cites Lindsey v. Normet,

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4411ooff9614

(41 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

41

That the principle is structural and implicit in our constitutional system does not render it any less enforceable. To the contrary, our Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]here are many [] constitutional doctrines that are not spelled out in the Constitution” but are nonetheless enforceable as “historically rooted principle[s] embedded in the text and structure of the Constitution.” Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485, 1498–99 (2019). For instance, the Constitution does not in express terms provide for judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176–77 (1803); sovereign immunity (outside of the Eleventh Amendment’s explicit restriction), Alden, 527 U.S. at 735– 36; the anticommandeering doctrine, Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1477 (2018); or the regimented tiers of scrutiny applicable to many constitutional rights, see, e.g., Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641–42 (1994). Yet these doctrines, as well as many other implicit principles, have become firmly entrenched in our constitutional landscape. And, in an otherwise justiciable case, a private litigant may seek to vindicate such structural principles, for they “protect the individual as well” as the Nation. See Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 222, 225–26 (2011); INS. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 935–36 (1983).
In Hyatt, for instance, the Supreme Court held that a state could not be sued in another state’s courts without its consent. Although nothing in the text of the Constitution expressly forbids such suits, the Court concluded that they

405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972), which held Oregon’s wrongful detainer statute governing landlord/tenant disputes constitutional. The perpetuity principle, however, cabins the right and avoids any slippery slope. While the principle’s goal is to preserve the most fundamental individual rights to life, liberty, and property, it is not triggered absent an existential threat to the country a rising from a “point of no return” tha t is, a t lea st in pa rt, of the government’s own making.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4422ooff9614

(42 of 91)

42

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

contravened “the ‘implicit ordering of relationships within the federal system necessary to make the Constitution a workable governing charter and to give each provision within that document the full effect intended by the Framers.’” Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. at 1492 (quoting Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 433 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). So too here.
Nor can the perpetuity principle be rejected simply because the Court has not yet had occasion to enforce it as a limitation on government conduct. Only over time, as the Nation confronts new challenges, are constitutional principles tested. For instance, courts did not recognize the anticommandeering doctrine until the 1970s because “[f]ederal commandeering of state governments [was] such a novel phenomenon.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997). And the Court did not recognize that cell-site data fell within the Fourth Amendment until 2018. In so holding, the Court rejected “a ‘mechanical interpretation’ of the Fourth Amendment” because “technology has enhanced the Government’s capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes[.]” Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2214 (2018). Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Constitution’s commitment to perpetuity only now faces judicial scrutiny, for never before has the United States confronted an existential threat that has not only gone unremedied but is actively backed by the government.
The mere fact that we have alternative means to enforce a principle, such as voting, does not diminish its constitutional stature. Americans can vindicate federalism, separation of powers, equal protection, and voting rights through the ballot box as well, but that does not mean these constitutional guarantees are not independently enforceable.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4433ooff9614

(43 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

43

By its very nature, the Constitution “withdraw[s] certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” Barnette, 319 U.S. at 638. When fundamental rights are at stake, individuals “need not await legislative action.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2605.
Indeed, in this sui generis circumstance, waiting is not an option. Those alive today are at perhaps the singular point in history where society (1) is scientifically aware of the impending climate crisis, and (2) can avoid the point of no return. And while democracy affords citizens the right “to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times[,]” id. (quoting Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291, 312 (2014)), that process cannot override the laws of nature. Or, more colloquially, we can’t shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
As the last fifty years have made clear, telling plaintiffs that they must vindicate their right to a habitable United States through the political branches will rightfully be perceived as telling them they have no recourse. The political branches must often realize constitutional principles, but in a justiciable case or controversy, courts serve as the ultimate backstop. To this issue, I turn next.
B.
Of course, “it is not the role of courts, but that of the political branches, to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). So federal courts are not free to address every grievance.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4444ooff9614

(44 of 91)

44

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

“Whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy is what has traditionally been referred to as the question of standing to sue.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731–32 (1972). Standing is “a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy,” developed to “ensure that federal courts do not exceed their authority as it has been traditionally understood.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).
A case is fit for judicial determination only if the plaintiff has: “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); then citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Serv. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000)). As to the first two elements, my colleagues and I agree: Plaintiffs present adequate evidence at this pre-trial stage to show particularized, concrete injuries to legally-protected interests, and they present further evidence to raise genuine disputes as to whether those injuries—at least in substantial part—are fairly traceable to the government’s conduct at issue. See Maj. Op. at 18–21. Because I find that plaintiffs have also established the third prong for standing, redressability, I conclude that plaintiffs’ legal stake in this action suffices to invoke the adjudicative powers of the federal bench.
1.
“Redressability” concerns whether a federal court is capable of vindicating a plaintiff’s legal rights. I agree with the majority that our ability to provide redress is animated by two inquiries, one of efficacy and one of power. Maj. Op. at 21 (citing M.S. v. Brown, 902 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4455ooff9614

(45 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

45

2018)). First, as a causal matter, is a court order likely to actually remediate the plaintiffs’ injury? If so, does the judiciary have the constitutional authority to levy such an order? Id.
Addressing the first question, my colleagues are skeptical that curtailing the government’s facilitation of fossil-fuel extraction and combustion will ameliorate the plaintiffs’ harms. See Maj. Op. at 22–25. I am not, as the nature of the injury at stake informs the effectiveness of the remedy. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 500.
As described above, the right at issue is not to be entirely free from any climate change. Rather, plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be free from irreversible and catastrophic climate change. Plaintiffs have begun to feel certain concrete manifestations of this violation, ripening their case for litigation, but such prefatory harms are just the first barbs of an ongoing injury flowing from an ongoing violation of plaintiffs’ rights. The bulk of the injury is yet to come. Therefore, practical redressability is not measured by our ability to stop climate change in its tracks and immediately undo the injuries that plaintiffs suffer today— an admittedly tall order; it is instead measured by our ability to curb by some meaningful degree what the record shows to be an otherwise inevitable march to the point of no return. Hence, the injury at issue is not climate change writ large; it is climate change beyond the threshold point of no return. As we approach that threshold, the significance of every emissions reduction is magnified.
The majority portrays any relief we can offer as just a drop in the bucket. See Maj. Op. at 22–25. In a previous generation, perhaps that characterization would carry the day and we would hold ourselves impotent to address plaintiffs’ injuries. But we are perilously close to an overflowing

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4466ooff9614

(46 of 91)

46

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

bucket. These final drops matter. A lot. Properly framed, a court order—even one that merely postpones the day when remedial measures become insufficiently effective—would likely have a real impact on preventing the impending cataclysm. Accordingly, I conclude that the court could do something to help the plaintiffs before us.
And “something” is all that standing requires. In Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court explicitly held that a non-negligible reduction in emissions—there, by regulating vehicles emissions— satisfied the redressability requirement of Article III standing:
While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reverse global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it. Because of the enormity of the potential consequences associated with manmade climate change, the fact that the effectiveness of a remedy might be delayed during the (relatively short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an older one is essentially irrelevant. Nor is it dispositive that developing countries such as China and India are poised to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the next century: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.
. . . .

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4477ooff9614

(47 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

47

. . . The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real.
Id. at 525–26 (internal citation omitted).
In other words, under Article III, a perceptible reduction in the advance of climate change is sufficient to redress a plaintiff’s climate change-induced harms. Full stop. The majority dismisses this precedent because Massachusetts v. EPA involved a procedural harm, whereas plaintiffs here assert a purely substantive right. Maj. Op. at 24. But this difference in posture does not affect the outcome.
While the redressability requirement is relaxed in the procedural context, that does not mean (1) we must engage in a similarly relaxed analysis whenever we invoke Massachusetts v. EPA or (2) we cannot rely on Massachusetts v. EPA’s substantive examination of the relationship between government action and the course of climate change. Accordingly, here, we do not consider the likelihood that plaintiffs will prevail in any newly-awarded agency procedure, nor whether granting access to that procedure will redress plaintiffs’ injury. Cf. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 517–18; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 572 n.7. Rather, we assume plaintiffs will prevail—removing the procedural link from the causal chain—and we resume our traditional analysis to determine whether the desired outcome would in fact redress plaintiffs’ harms.7 In

7 The presence of a procedural right is more critical when determining whether the first and second elements of standing are present. This is especially true where Congress has “define[d] injuries and articulate[d] chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before” by conferring procedura l rights tha t give certa in persons a “sta ke” in a n injury tha t is otherwise not their own. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 580

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4488ooff9614

(48 of 91)

48

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

Massachusetts v. EPA, the remaining substantive inquiry was whether reducing emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion would likely ameliorate climate change-induced injuries despite the global nature of climate change (regardless of whether renewed procedures were themselves
likely to mandate such lessening). The Supreme Court unambiguously answered that question in the affirmative. That holding squarely applies to the instant facts,8 rendering the absence of a procedural right here irrelevant.9

(Kennedy, J., concurring)). But who seeks to vindicate an injury is irrelevant to the question of whether a court has the tools to relieve that injury.
8 Indeed, the majority has already acknowledged as much in finding plaintiffs’ injuries traceable to the government’s misconduct because the tra cea bility a nd redressa bility inquiries a re la rgely coextensive. See Ma j. Op. at 19–21; see also Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1146 (2013) (“The Supreme Court has clarified that the ‘fairly traceable’ and ‘redressability’ components for standing overlap and are ‘two facets of a single causation requirement.’ The two are distinct insofar as causality examines the connection between the alleged misconduct and injury, whereas redressability analyzes the connection between the a lleged injury a nd requested judicia l relief.”) (interna l cita tion omitted). Here, where the requested relief is simply to stop the ongoing misconduct, the inquiries are nearly identical. Cf. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 753 n.19 (1984) (“[I]t is important to keep the inquiries separate” where “the relief requested goes well beyond the violation of law alleged.”), abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014); see also infra Part II.B.3.
9 Nor am I persuaded that Massachusetts v. EPA is distinguishable beca use of the rela xed sta nding requirements a nd “specia l solicitude” in cases brought by a state against the United States. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 517–20. When Massachusetts v. EPA was decided, more than a decade ago, there was uncertainty and skepticism as to whether an individual could state a sufficiently definite climate change-induced

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee4499ooff9614

(49 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

49

2.
The majority laments that it cannot step into the shoes of the political branches, see Maj. Op. at 32, but appears ready to yield even if those branches walk the Nation over a cliff. This deference-to-a-fault promotes separation of powers to the detriment of our countervailing constitutional mandate to intervene where the political branches run afoul of our foundationalprinciples. Our tripartite system of government is often and aptly described as one of “checks and balances.” The doctrine of standing preserves balance among the branches by keeping separate questions of general governance and those of specific legal entitlement. But the doctrine of judicial review compels federal courts to fashion and effectuate relief to right legal wrongs, even when—as frequently happens—it requires that we instruct the other branches as to the constitutional limitations on their power. Indeed, sometimes “the [judicial and governance] roles briefly and partially coincide when a court, in granting relief against actual harm that has been suffered, . . . orders the alteration of an institutional organization or procedure that causes the harm.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350; cf. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982) (“Proper regard for the

harm based on gradually warming air temperatures and rising seas. But the Supreme Court sidestepped such questions of the concreteness of the plaintiffs’ injuries by finding that “[Massachusetts’s] stake in the outcome of this case is sufficiently concrete to warrant the exercise of federal judicial power.” Id. at 519. Here and now, the plaintiffs submit undisputed scientific evidence that their distinct and discrete injuries are caused by climate change brought about by emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. They need not rely on the “special solicitude,” id. at 520, of a state to be heard. Regardless, any distinction would go to the concreteness or particularity of plaintiffs’ injuries and not to the issue of redressa bility.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5500ooff9614

(50 of 91)

50

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

complex nature of our constitutional structure requires neither that the Judicial Branch shrink from a confrontation with the other two coequal branches of the Federal Government, nor that it hospitably accept for adjudication claims of constitutional violation by other branches of government where the claimant has not suffered cognizable injury.”). In my view, this Court must confront and reconcile this tension before deciding that thorny questions of standing preclude review in this case. And faithful application of our history and precedents reveals that a failure to do so leads to the wrong result.
Taking the long (but essential) way around, I begin first by acknowledging explicitly what the majority does not mention: our history plainly establishes an ambient presumption of judicial review to which separation-ofpowers concerns provide a rebuttal under limited circumstances. Few would contest that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department” to curb acts of the political branches that contravene those fundamental tenets of American life so dear as to be constitutionalized and thus removed from political whims. See Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177–78. This presumptive authority entails commensurate power to grant appropriate redress, as recognized in Marbury, “which effectively place[s] upon those who would deny the existence of an effective legal remedy the burden of showing why their case was special.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1874 (2017) (Breyer, J., dissenting). That is, “there must be something ‘peculiar’ (i.e., special) about a case that warrants ‘excluding the injured party from legal redress and placing it within that class of cases which come under the description of damnum absque injuria—a loss without an injury.’” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Marbury, 5 U.S. at 163–64). In sum, although it is the plaintiffs’ burden to establish injury in fact, causation,

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5511ooff9614

(51 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

51

and redressability, it is the government’s burden to establish why this otherwise-justiciable controversy implicates grander separation-of-powers concerns not already captured by those requirements. We do not otherwise abdicate our duty to enforce constitutional rights.
Without explicitly laying this groundwork, the majority nonetheless suggests that this case is “special”—and beyond our redress—because plaintiffs’ requested relief requires (1) the messy business of evaluating competing policy considerations to steer the government away from fossil fuels and (2) the intimidating task of supervising implementation over many years, if not decades. See Maj. Op. at 25–27. I admit these are daunting tasks, but we are constitutionally empowered to undertake them. There is no justiciability exception for cases of great complexity and magnitude.
3.
I readily concede that courts must on occasion refrain from answering those questions that are truly reserved for the political branches, even where core constitutional precepts are implicated. This deference is known as the “political question doctrine,” and its applicability is governed by a well-worn multifactor test that counsels judicial deference where there is:
[1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5522ooff9614

(52 of 91)

52

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962); see also Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195–201 (2012) (discussing and applying Baker factors); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 277–90 (2004) (same); Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 228–38 (1993) (same); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940–43 (same).10 In some sense, these factors are frontloaded in significance. “We have characterized the first three factors as ‘constitutional limitations of a court’s jurisdiction’ and the other three factors as ‘prudential considerations.’” Republic of Marshall Islands v. United States, 865 F.3d 1187, 1200 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Corrie

10 The political question doctrine was first conceived in Marbury. See Marbury, 5 U.S. at 165–66 (“By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certa in importa nt politica l powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, a nd is a ccountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.”). The modern incarnation of the doctrine has existed relatively unaltered since its exposition in Baker in 1962. Although the majority disclaims the applicability of the political question doctrine, see Maj. Op. at 31, n.9, the opinion’s references to the lack of discernable standards and its reliance on Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019), as a basis for finding this case nonjusticiable blur any meaningful distinction between the doctrines of sta nding a nd politica l question.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5533ooff9614

(53 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

53

v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2007)).11 Moreover, “we have recognized that the first two are likely the most important.” Marshall Islands, 865 F.3d at 1200 (citing Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 545 (9th Cir. 2005)). Yet, we have also recognized that the inquiry is highly case-specific, the factors “often collaps[e] into one another[,]” and any one factor of sufficient weight is enough to render a case unfit for judicial determination. See Marshall Islands, 865 F.3d at 1200 (first alteration in original) (quoting Alperin, 410 F.3d at 544). Regardless of any intra-factor flexibility and flow, however, there is a clear mandate to apply the political question doctrine both shrewdly and sparingly.

Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non-justiciability on the ground of a political question’s presence. The doctrine of which we treat is one of ‘political questions,’ not one of ‘political cases.’ The courts cannot reject as ‘no law suit’ a bona fide controversy as to whether

11 The six Baker factors have been characterized as “reflect[ing] three distinct justifications for withholding judgment on the merits of a dispute.” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. at 203 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Under the first Baker factor, “abstention is warranted beca use the court la cks a uthority to resolve” “issue[s] whose resolution is textually committed to a coordinate political department[.]” Id. Under the second and third factors, abstention is warranted in “circumstances in which a dispute calls for decisionmaking beyond courts’ competence[.]” Id. Under the final three factors, abstention is warranted where “prudence . . . counsel[s] against a court’s resolution of an issue presented.” Id. a t 204.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5544ooff9614

(54 of 91)

54

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

some action denominated ‘political’ exceeds constitutional authority.

Baker, 369 U.S. at 217; see also Corrie, 503 F.3d at 982 (“We will not find a political question ‘merely because [a] decision may have significant political overtones.’”) (quoting Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478U.S. 221, 230 (1986)). Rather, when detecting the presence of a “political question,” courts must make a “discriminating inquiry into the precise facts and posture of the particular case” and refrain from “resolution by any semantic cataloguing.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 217.
Here, confronted by difficult questions on the constitutionality of policy, the majority creates a minefield of politics en route to concluding that we cannot adjudicate this suit. And the majority’s map for navigating that minefield is Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019), an inapposite case about gerrymandering. My colleagues conclude that climate change is too political for the judiciary to touch by likening it to the process of political representatives drawing political maps to elect other political representatives. I vehemently disagree.
The government does not address on appeal the district judge’s reasoning that the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth Baker factors do not apply here. Neither does the majority rely on any of these factors in its analysis. In relevant part, I find the opinion below both thorough and well-reasoned, and I adopt its conclusions. I note, however, that the absence of the first Baker factor—whether the Constitution textually delegates the relevant subject matter to another branch—is especially conspicuous. As the district judge described, courts invoke this factor only where the Constitution makes an unambiguous commitment of responsibility to one branch

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5555ooff9614

(55 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

55

of government. Very few cases turn on this factor, and almost all that do pertain to two areas of constitutional authority: foreign policy and legislative proceedings. See, e.g., Marshall Islands, 865 F.3d at 1200–01 (treaty enforcement); Corrie, 503 F.3d at 983 (military aid); Nixon, 506 U.S. at 234 (impeachment proceedings); see also Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 235 n.11 (1979) (“[J]udicial review of congressional employment decisions is constitutionally limited only by the reach of the Speech or Debate Clause[,] . . . [which is] a paradigm example of a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of [an] issue to a coordinate political department.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2086 (2015) (“The text and structure of the Constitution grant the President the power to recognize foreign nations and governments.”).
Since this matter has been under submission, the Supreme Court cordoned off an additionalarea from judicial review based in part on a textual commitment to another branch: partisan gerrymandering. See Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2494–96.12 Obviously, the Constitution does not explicitly address climate change. But neither does climate change implicitly fall within a recognized political-question area. As the district judge described, the questions of energy

12 Rucho does not turn exclusively on the first Baker factor and acknowledges that there are some areas of districting that courts may police, notwithstanding the Elections Clause’s “assign[ment] to state legislatures the power to prescribe the ‘Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections’ for Members of Congress, while giving Congress the power to ‘make or alter’ any such regulations.” Rucho, 139 S. Ct. a t 2495. Instea d, Rucho holds tha t a combina tion of the text (a s illuminated by historical practice) and absence of clear judicial standards precludes judicial review of excessively partisan gerrymanders. See infra Part II.B.4.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5566ooff9614

(56 of 91)

56

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

policy at stake here may have rippling effects on foreign policy considerations, but that is not enough to wholly exempt the subject matter from our review. See Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1238 (D. Or. 2016) (“[U]nlike the decisions to go to war, take action to keep a particular foreign leader in power, or give aid to another country, climate change policy is not inherently, or even primarily, a foreign policy decision.”); see also Baker, 369 U.S. at 211 (“[I]t is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.”).
Without endorsement from the constitutional text, the majority’s theory is grounded exclusively in the second Baker factor: a (supposed) lack of clear judicial standards for shaping relief. Relying heavily on Rucho, the majority contends that we cannot formulate standards (1) to determine what relief “is sufficient to remediate the claimed constitutional violation” or (2) to “supervise[] or enforce[]” such relief. Maj. Op. at 29.
The first point is a red herring. Plaintiffs submit ample evidence that there is a discernable “tipping point” at which the government’s conduct turns from facilitating mere pollution to inducing an unstoppable cataclysm in violation of plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the majority itself cites plaintiffs’ evidence that “atmospheric carbon levels of 350 parts per million are necessary to stabilize the climate.” Id. at 24. This clear line stands in stark contrast to Rucho, which held that—even assuming an excessively partisan gerrymander was unconstitutional—no standards exist by which to determine when a rights violation has even occurred. There, “[t]he central problem [wa]s not determining whether a jurisdiction has engaged in partisan gerrymandering. It [wa]s determining when political

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5577ooff9614

(57 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

57

gerrymandering has gone too far.” Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2497 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 2498 (“[T]he question is one of degree: How to provide a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 2499 (“If federal courts are to . . . adjudicat[e] partisan gerrymandering claims, they must be armed with a standard that can reliably differentiate unconstitutional from constitutional political gerrymandering.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, the right at issue is fundamentally one of a discernable standard: the amount of fossil-fuel emissions that will irreparably devastate our Nation. That amount can be established by scientific evidence like that proffered by the plaintiffs. Moreover, we need not definitively determine that standard today. Rather, we need conclude only that plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether such an amount can possibly be determined as a matter of scientific fact. Plaintiffs easily clear this bar. Of course, plaintiffs will have to carry their burden of proof to establish this fact in order to prevail at trial, but that issue is not before us. We must not get ahead of ourselves.
The procedural posture of this case also informs the question of oversight and enforcement. It appears the majority’s real concerns lie not in the judiciary’s ability to draw a line between lawful and unlawful conduct, but in our ability to equitably walk the government back from that line without wholly subverting the authority of our coequal branches. My colleagues take great issue with plaintiffs’ request for a “plan” to reduce fossil-fuel emissions. I am not so concerned. At this stage, we need not promise plaintiffs the moon (or, more apropos, the earth in a habitable state).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5588ooff9614

(58 of 91)

58

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

For purposes of standing, we need hold only that the trial court could fashion some sort of meaningful relief should plaintiffs prevail on the merits.13
Nor would any such remedial “plan” necessarily require the courts to muck around in policymaking to an impermissible degree; the scope and number of policies a court would have to reform to provide relief is irrelevant to the second Baker factor, which asks only if there are judicially discernable standards to guide that reformation. Indeed, our history is no stranger to widespread, programmatic changes in government functions ushered in by the judiciary’s commitment to requiring adherence to the Constitution. Upholding the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, for example, the Court ordered the overhaul of prisons in the Nation’s most populous state. See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011) (“Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.”) And in its finest hour, the Court mandated the racial integration of every public school—state and federal—in the Nation, vindicating the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.14 See Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483

13 It is possible, of course, tha t the district court ultima tely concludes that it is unable to provide meaningful redress based on the facts proved a t tria l, but tria l ha s not yet occurred. Our present occa sion is to decide only whether plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute as to the judiciary’s ability to provide meaningful redress under any subset of the facts at issue today. See Maj. Op. at 18 (citing Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002)).
14 In contrast, we are haunted by the days we declined to curtail the government’s a pprova l of invidious discrimina tion in public life, see Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting)

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee5599ooff9614

(59 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

59

(1954); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). In the school desegregation cases, the Supreme Court was explicitly unconcerned with the fact that crafting relief would require individualized review of thousands of state and local policies that facilitated segregation. Rather, a unanimous Court held that the judiciary could work to dissemble segregation over time while remaining cognizant of the many public interests at stake:
To effectuate [the plaintiffs’] interest[s] may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in [Brown I]. Courts of equity may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of such obstacles in a systematic and effective manner. But it should go without saying that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them.

. . . [T]he courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the

(“[T]he judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case.”), and neglected to free thousands of innocents prejudicially interned by their own government without cause, see Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2423 (2018) (“Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided[.]”).

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee6600ooff9614

(60 of 91)

60

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems.

Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294, 300–01 (1955).
As we are all too aware, it took decades to even partially realize Brown’s promise, but the slow churn of constitutional vindication did not dissuade the Brown Court, and it should not dissuade us here. Plaintiffs’ request for a “plan” is neither novel nor judicially incognizable. Rather, consistent with our historical practices, their request is a recognition that remedying decades of institutionalized violations may take some time. Here, too, decelerating from our path toward cataclysm will undoubtedly require “elimination of a variety of obstacles.” Those obstacles may be great in number, novelty, and magnitude, but there is no indication that they are devoid of discernable standards. Busing mandates, facilities allocation, and district-drawing were all “complex policy decisions” faced by post-Brown trial courts, see Maj. Op. at 25, and I have no doubt that disentangling the government from promotion of fossil fuels will take an equally deft judicial hand. Mere complexity, however, does not put the issue out of the courts’ reach. Neither the government nor the majority has articulated why

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee6611ooff9614

(61 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

61

the courts could not weigh scientific and prudential considerations—as we often do—to put the government on a path to constitutional compliance.
The majority also expresses concern that any remedial plan would require us to compel “the adoption of a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change[.]” Id. at 25. Even if the operative complaint is fairly read as requesting an affirmative scheme to address all drivers of climate change, however caused, see id. at 23 n.6., such an overbroad request does not doom our ability to redress those drivers implicated by the conduct at issue here. Courts routinely grant plaintiffs less than the full gamut of requested relief, and our inability to compel legislation that addresses emissions beyond the scope of this case—such as those purely in the private sphere or within the control of foreign governments—speaks nothing to our ability to enjoin the government from exercising its discretion in violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
4.
In sum, resolution of this action requires answers only to scientific questions, not political ones. And plaintiffs have put forth sufficient evidence demonstrating their entitlement to have those questions addressed at trial in a court of law.
As discussed above, the majority reaches the opposite conclusion not by marching purposefully through the Baker factors, which carve out a narrow set of nonjusticiable political cases, but instead by broadly invoking Rucho in a manner that would cull from our dockets any case that presents administrative issues “too difficult for the judiciary to manage.” Maj. Op. at 28. That simply is not the test. Difficult questions are not necessarily political questions and, beyond reaching the wrong conclusion in this case, the

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee6622ooff9614

(62 of 91)

62

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

majority’s application of Rucho threatens to eviscerate judicial review in a swath of complicated but plainly apolitical contexts.
Rucho’s limitations should be apparent on the face of that opinion. Rucho addresses the political process itself, namely whether the metastasis of partisan politics has unconstitutionally invaded the drawing of political districts within states. Indeed, the Rucho opinion characterizes the issue before it as a request for the Court to reallocate political power between the major parties. Rucho, 139 S. Ct. at 2502, 2507, 2508. Baker factors aside, Rucho surely confronts fundamentally “political” questions in the common sense of the term. Nothing about climate change, however, is inherently political. The majority is correct that redressing climate change will require consideration of scientific, economic, energy, and other policy factors. But that endeavor does not implicate the way we elect representatives, assign governmental powers, or otherwise structure our polity.
Regardless, we do not limit our jurisdiction based on common parlance. Instead, legal and constitutional principles define the ambit of our authority. In the present case, the Baker factors provide the relevant guide and further distinguish Rucho. As noted above, Rucho’s holding that policing partisan gerrymandering is beyond the courts’ competence rests heavily on the first Baker factor, i.e., the textual and historical delegation of electoral-district drawing to state legislatures. The Rucho Court decided it could not discern mathematical standards to navigate a way out of that particular political thicket. It did not, however, hold that mathematical (or scientific) difficulties in creating appropriate standards divest jurisdiction in any context.

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee6633ooff9614

(63 of 91)

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

63

Such an expansive reading of Rucho would permit the “political question” exception to swallow the rule.
Global warming is certainly an imposing conundrum, but so are diversity in higher education, the intersection between prenatal life and maternal health, the role of religion in civic society, and many other social concerns. Cf. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 360 (1978) (“[T]he line between honest and thoughtful appraisal of the effects of past discrimination and paternalistic stereotyping is not so clear[.]”); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 871 (1992) (stating that Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), involved the “difficult question” of determining the “weight to be given [the] state interest” in light of the “strength of the woman’s [privacy] interest”); Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n, 139 S. Ct. 2067, 2094 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (noting that determining the constitutionality of a large cross’s presence on public land was “difficult because it represents a clash of genuine and important interests”). These issues may not have been considered within the purview of the judicial branch had the Court imported wholesale Rucho’s “manageable standards” analysis even in the absence of Rucho’s inherently political underpinnings. Beyond the outcome of the instant case, I fear that the majority’s holding strikes a powerful blow to our ability to hear important cases of widespread concern.
III.
To be sure, unless there is a constitutional violation, courts should allow the democratic and political processes to perform their functions. And while all would now readily agree that the 91 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the decision in Brown v. Board was too long, determining when a court must step in to protect

CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-1,PPaaggee6644ooff9614

(64 of 91)

64

JULIANA V. UNITED STATES

fundamental rights is not an exact science. In this case, my colleagues say that time is “never”; I say it is now.
Were we addressing a matter of social injustice, one might sincerely lament any delay, but take solace that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”15 The denial of an individual, constitutional right— though grievous and harmful—can be corrected in the future, even if it takes 91 years. And that possibility provides hope for future generations.
Where is the hope in today’s decision? Plaintiffs’ claims are based on science, specifically, an impending point of no return. If plaintiffs’ fears, backed by the government’s own studies, prove true, history will not judge us kindly. When the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors, and storms ravage everything between, those remaining will ask: Why did so many do so little?
I would hold that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the government’s conduct, have articulated claims under the Constitution, and have presented sufficient evidence to press those claims at trial. I would therefore affirm the district court.
With respect, I dissent.

15 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution, Address at the National Cathedral, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 31, 1968). In coining this language, Dr. King was inspired by an 1853 sermon by abolitionist Theodore Parker. See Theodore Parker, Of Justice and the Conscience, in Ten Sermons of Religion 84–85 (Boston, Crosby, Nichols & Co. 1853).

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee615 ooff 2931
  
 
 
  
  


 
 
 
  



 
 






  



:2#:%2$

 

 
   
 
 

%""
#
$)$52
$
$
%""
 "
%
!,<  
36=6

02:):

( +
 ,<36=6

$:

 
 ! 
  "
  
 # !  
$" 
"   "
# 



%
 
&
""
 
     

   
  
 '   
!  
   
   
 
 
! 

 
  !    
$
  "
# 

 
!        
     


%
 
   "   
' 
 
"$
 !
      

  

" 

  ( 
"    
"
&    

 )  
 "
    

 
    
 
!   
 
"


 )

  
*   


!% :2)#)2($ %""
!$
 0$2 ,< 
36=6
 )$2

+
"

"%,-
 $  "


A$
$
%""



   
" ,)
  
 
No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020  '
*"
.'"$ 
" "
 
$
  
"   
 
"
    

 
! ) "
 
 ) *$ "

 
"
  
  "
. 
"
 !  
 "

"/ $
"" 

  
 0 
"
   
 (
 
    
 ) 
 
 "
 
1

)" 
 
 
 
$ "
 
 ! ) 
 
$ 

" 

"
%
!,<  
36=6!B
 !( 

!
 ,@!,-3@!
 8CC"


C
 C%""
C
-393,9-,9-,6<> 
8$#
" $
%""
!
 3,!6 36=6DED;3 36==!%#
'
# 
8

2
!)" /!   )

  
"   +
  )") 
  "" 
)
"

" 34
"

# 
  #!3@44!,6-E ,=F?

 51 '
 
$ 

     

 
 
/
+
     
" 
 
! 
  
  36 
" )   
"

 

 


    

7    
 !" 
 

 


)  
 
 
" 
 
 
  

"   (


 
 !
 
  
  
 "

"  

" 2 
 



"
)     
7 
" 


   "

 
"
" 

"
  
  

" "  

"
 


  
 !" 
!
 &  
 
   !  
" "

  

*

!!
 !    

"
 

#:220)(

%""
 
 
>= 
 36=6?
(2G$


 
 %""
>@0 36=6?

    
"
   
"
 ! 
   !

   
    

 

 8  

 

"  

$
9 
!  
7      3 
 
 2* 
   5    !     
":
 ,$
  
" 
  
 
 
 
  & "

! 
   
    
 "  ;$

"
 ""   
" ""  
" 
<$
7   

"    2
" 
7     "" $ 

"  
 "
 
""   
 
 
  
 
 * 

"  
 
 
    
"


 3 
 7 ! 
 
 
 
"

    

55


  %""
 


$" 
" 
7    2* !   & 
   

 
"
!
   
" 
9
   
  
 
" 
  
   
 

(65 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee626 ooff 2931  
"
9
 !
 

"
  !
  
 
""!
 
"
 !
 9 ! 
  
 

$ 
"
9
 " " 
  

:
   
" $

"
  

 
! 
 H 

 
H  2* 
"   H 
!
"7
 
 
"  
 
H
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
H

 

"  

!
 
" 

 
 
 
 
" 
   $ *   
  
  " 
 
   
  

""!"  
"  


H
 


 "" 
 
 )       
 !"
*!  &   !
 
      
9 !
"*)"

" " 

  
"
"9 
"
  
 ! 
" "   ! "
"" 
"   

 !
  *
" 2*  
   
   
    
 
" 
 
 
 
 " "
 
 
""! 
   
  
 " "
"   

"   
   
   
 

 ""
 "


  
   
 ! 
"
   
! ""
" 
   
 
"   ! 
 
"" 
""  
 
 
"  



 
& "
!
 
 
 
 
" 5 
"   H$& 

 
"
   "
 
   

""! 
 

 5 
  
   

""H 


""H 


""!"
 
" 


 " 
  
!

 "

  !  


" 
 !  

""
 "
 , * 
" 5 2* 
   
 
    

  

 "
 
"
 
 ; )     7  

  
 $
"
    

 
  
   H  " 
7  
 I"
  "
 ! < 
  


)"
  !  

" 
 ! & 
     " 
7  
 
 

"
  !   

" $"" 


 !3 

"
No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020 :  !, 2* !; 

 
"
 

!<   5  
 
" 
! 

 
 "



 
"
! 
    
"! !*"$ 

" 
  "   
 !"   

$

7 !   

"
 !  
 
 ! 
"! 
 "" " 
 "
  
 

"   I
"
" 
 
"5 
  
!   
  
"   !
"

   
   ! 4 
"
 
 
" 
!   8 7
  ""
 
   
   $& 
   
  (    
! "7  7
 )"
   



"

"  !)   


"*"
 7 >
     
3 
 
 
  
 !, 
    7   
 F 
"   
3. 
   

  !
 
  
"
)"
 
 
  
 !
 

   
!   
  " 
 
" 
  
 !     "

 

  6 )" 
" ' # 
 
 ! = "
 

"  2!  )     
  
  @ 

& 
 
!  
"   
 3-  
$  
"
 

 

  
   
"! 
  
" 
" 5
" 
  33 $ 
"   
 
  

"     !  
 
 

" 

 "  
  3, $
 
!
  
 
"#
!    
 J5$  
  
 
"  

  


" 

$
"  ( 
 $ 
 
"   
! "
" ! 

   
& 

! 
"
!  
""

 ! 
 ""  
  
   
"  !    " 
" 

  3; $2 
 * "    

"   
 !"0 !    
 !%   ! "
" 



" "
( 
! "
  
  
 

" !
 
    
  
  
 
 

 
 *
    2
 
"    
  
 !"
" 
 

  ! " 
" 
"""   !"
  
"  

"

   )     
   
"

"" !  "" 
 
)  "" 
 )  
3<

(66 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee637 ooff 2931
  
"" 
"!"! 3< 
"
"
"      
  
" "
   
K)
" 
      "
 34 ! " 

  
!
 ! 
 
" )
      
) "  
! 
 !  I
  
"      '
! 
"   
7 
"  
) 
   
$ 
    "
 
  
  3F $        
  ! 
 
   

"      $"
 
  
 
    
 !   
 
$# 

  "
    !

  
 $
" !
 
 
 ""  
   
 
 
" "
8.        !  
 
"  
" 
 !   
 
 
 

" ."   
"
  

 
 5 
"   !

 
"     ! 
 ! 
 
 
" 
   !    
 "
)
   
     
 
 *   

 !  

   36 
 
 
"*  7 


 )
   
" 
  "
 
 !   
  3= 
" 
 
" 
!! 
""
"" 
  
""   !
"
  7 
"   !&
* )
 "
  
  
" 
 
 
   
"*!
 "  "*  
 
"

 
! 
  
 
   
 
 K$
"  
  
 
"     
" "
 !  

 
"
  ! "

"
! 

 "(
  
  



      
 +  
7 
"5 
!  
   
 ! 

 
  2  
  2* !5 %
 ! 
 
 
 !
  
" 
""")    % 
 
    3@       
 ! 
" 
   $    

  
  
" ! 
No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020 
 
"  I        
 ! 
 

     
 %!      

  5  
"  
! 

  

%
 
" !   
"
!   
"
 
! ,   
   
  
*"

,
   
 
  
"   & 
  
 
  $  
"   
"   "
 

$7 
" 
"& 
"  
 
  " "
":) )

    "
 
 ,3 
  
 
   
 
 
! "
"
!  
  

 
    "
 &
" 
" 
 
   
7 "
 "
 

 

"
  !   " $   
!
 

" 
  
 "" 
  
"" " 
!  
 
" )7 "" " 
"  * !    
 
*  

 

 

   
$ 

!
 
 
   ) 
    ,,  
  
" 
      
 ! 
 "

  "   
 
  
" 7
 !   ,;  *       
 !  ""    "

" & 
 
!") 
 !"
   
":
 !

  
 
 
 


" 
   !   "

"
 !
 
""   
 
 
    * )   
 
"  
 

 7 $
 

 "
 0
!
!   
" 7
 ! 
   
  !

  
  "  
$"
 

 !   


  
 7

 
& 
"
  I        "  ,< .    ! 
 

$  
" 7
  
  
" 
 
I 


 



  


"  

"  7

 
 "  
I   ! 


 
  ""
  .
 
   

  ,4 

 
" 




" L)   !
 
  I      


 )L 
 !  


  

"
   "
  
  
 "
  
&" 
" &  ,F $ 

I 
 
I  ! 
  !   !"   $

(67 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee648 ooff 2931

 ,6  
 "" 
 

"""   
 
!
 
"" 
"

"" )  
 
    
! "
 ,=  "

  ""
 !

 

!
   
 
 
"
 



 

" 
 " 
 
    !
 
 

! 
" 
   
#

! 
  
  ,@  ""  )   
&  7
  

  !
"


! """ 
  
  "

 
 
  
7
  
 )" 
  
"  ;- 
   !  
"  
 "" 
 7
 
"  . 
 
 


 
!
 
 
!
 
K$ 
 
 3  
 
  

! 
  


"  
 ;3 $
 

  
"" 
" "2*
       "" 
! 

 

"!  
"
7
     
  )" "
  
"
   
   
I  

$
" 
 
 

" *8    
 
 ,: "
  $
 
 "
""  
 "
7 ! 
 ""

 
 
   
 
  ' " 


!   
" 7
 !   "* 
 

  
 ;:
$ ""
"   
 
 $
 
"
 ! 

 !  
 
"
 !   7

 
 
    
 

 !"

 
   
 .):
 
 !  "
  
"
 
  
"  '  
 
  
":
!          2 

   ! 
"  
  


   "
 )"   ""     
 I7
  ;,   

  
 

  "

 ;;  
 !   "

 !  7
    !  
"*   
 !  


  

   
 7
 
"  
7   ;< ) 
 ! 

 

   !  

    
" ! & 
 ;4  

No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020 "
!7
 
"  
$ & "
 
"
 
 
")"  "
7
   
 !
    
0 ! 
  *

" ! &" 
! 

!   
7 )  

     
 

  
"*   

 

 
 

"
    I
 

* 
"
  

""    


" 
       
$   
 !
 

" 
    ""    ""  
" 
  

 

 "
  
" 
 !   "" 
 
 "!"
     
  
"  
 )
 
! #  
  
 "" 
"7 ! "  ;F 
" 

 

)! 


 
"
"
"  
 !  
 ""    
   

 ) * :
"    ! 
 ;6  

    
"    !   ""    
 
 !"
    ? ;=
'
"
 
 
!)  
  
7 
 
! 7  
" ""   
"""  
"  
  

 "
 
 
 *
 

 !
 
 
 I
"

 ! 
 

" 
 
"
 
 &I
"
 &" 

" 
 !  * 

"*
 !
 "
 * 

"*
 
$  
   

 
 "*
 
 
" 
$
7 ! 
 ! "
  
" 
 
     
 $    
   & 
 !
 
 

"    
 
 I&   &
 $  
 
     
   
  "
 
   

  
 ! 
 
   I
&     

  
   
 

 
 
 
 
" 
 
    & 

"
!       

 
 


 
 
 L)  

 
 !   
  " 

""
   
)  
 
   
"
/ 
   . 
  "   
"0
"   
 

 "
 7
 $



 " 
  
   

  
"$ 
7 

" 
 
   
" 
 !
 
 
   #         
  

 
         
  
    


(68 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee659 ooff 2931 


 
       
  
   
 
" 

 
 
 
 ;@ 

  
 " 7*  
   

 
! 
" 
 
  

 "

  
   

"  
 7 
 
" #*

"    "
    
  
 
" !
 
  
  
/  "* 
 
 
  
 

" "

   
" '
": " 
7 

 
7 
 
    

"   
"2* 
 
 
    
H 
  
 
" %H 
 # # 
"  H 
 
" 
":  H 
   

       
*
 " 
 H
 
"
 
 
 
"  !7
 

"


 
7 
' 
   
"7 "" 
! 
"
!  

 <- 
   
 
 
""*!   
 $
 
"*   


    
 
! 
 
   
  
 
!
 *  

 
7  
  
   ( 

 !
 
 
" 
)
     
" 
 

   
     
    ! 
  
"   2* 
  
 I 
    

 
    * 
" 
   
$" 
   
  
 

  
  $5 
"(             " 
" 
 *! &"
'
 
 
 
 <3  $

 
 
  
 (
  

"
 
$5 
"    
  ! 
  
" 
  


   
  $
" 
:)
 $
   L
  
 )  

   


  $ 
  
  <,     $ 

" 7 
" 
  $  
  
"$

1    
 
 
 

!
 

 

 I 
  !
"   *(%  "" 
No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020 
"
 
" 
 
 
!
     # $ 
"#!  : ! M!
 
" 
 
   
 

" 
   
!   
  

 " 
 7  7 "
  7
    
 !  

 
!
 * 

"     
 "$

") "
  

 
 !!" ! 
"

"  
   
!  $
 
"' 
 
  !   
 ! " #

!! 
 
""
 
"
/  * " ) "
. 
  "

" 
  
"
*  !
 "
 
# 
 *" 
" !  
 
"   ) 

  ) 

"  ) 

 %!:5!0
5  
 

"
!#
 
:
 !
 
" % '
" 
 $    
 

 )  "
 "
 
"    
 

 
!      $
  
  "

 
 

   
 
"/ 
    
"


 
"

"     ! 
 
L
"

"  
   
! 
      ) 
 
!  (
 "

  *  
"/

   
  
! 
!  
 " <; 
 !
"  "

 !  

 ! 
 

"  
 *  <<
. "

"
  
!
""
   :50"
  
 )  " 
   


 

 
  
  "
 
7  

" 
   
   $ 

" "! "
  *
"
    !


" 

    
7 

"

$*  "" )

  
 
     

 
 

  

 
    "
(
 

"
!
  
  +

  "
  
 ""
 
""
""")    <4   
  !    
  
  <F    ! 
"        


2

 


 )    
    )  
 

    
"
 "
 
"  
 "
"
 8     

  
 
$*
"
"
0  

 
  

(69 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee760 ooff 2931


 $'
$
   
%!
  7 
"

 
 
"  
 "
 
""" 
 '
(

   ' )    

 
 
     
 
"
"     

   

 ! 

7  
 

"   
$ 
"1 
   "
   
!
  
! ! "!
 
 2
"
"  
)  
     
   
1 !
   
  
 
"3--!---
" 
" 

" 
 

"
 
   
( 2
! N
"
!  
 
"  
 

  (%
"
 
 


 !
 
  

"  "
 "


 
  
"
 7 
+
    "
 
"
'

  
"'
 /'
   
 
"
  
 
" 
   !    
  
  
$
 ) 
"#
 )   

" ! 

 
*
 


"  
+
 "

  )


 %
!
  
"  $JL! #L ! 
 

" 
7 
"   

$
 2   *  " 
  
"/$""""   
)

 
     
)/ 
  !    "
" : 
 $

"
 
 ))"   "
    )
 "
$

"$

   
 


 
"&  ! & "$
 
"   
* &  
&  
(
3


 <6 %
"
  
  !    $ 
  
 
 
$5 
"     
" 
 
 
 

 
 "
   
 
 $ 
"

 
 "

 
) "
"
:
    2 
9 "
 :


No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020  "

"0 !  !
 " ) 

&"" 
" 
" "
"
  
  
7
 
"  
L
 "

" ( 
   
$
" 
  )  
   
"   
     
  5  

 
  )7 "
  !(
! .(
! "
"! 
$!%
$
 %
"  
 * # 
$
 

 
" 

  
  
 
!  "
 

"  
  
       

 

."

          
     )$
"

 !   9  
! 
 
"
 " $
 
"$    ) 
   "
  
)

   "  
2 
$

" *
    

  
 
 
"
    

$ "   
 
    * 

"  "I *   
 "
. 
   
 
 
  
"/"
 * 
.  
 "" 
   )0+

"O  !
%0)(%
:P058$%#QI 
I  
" 

 
! 
 
"  
      
 

!  

" ! 
 <,<6
 !  
 "I
$
"2*  P058
 #QI
1! "
P
 ;=!
 Q$
" 2*  P/QI "

 
" * ! 
"(
#$ 8A
"
 
  
 P/%$O%:O%: Q(#$ 3R;<BI
 $ 


" "8A
%H ,<36=6$
$
%""
 
"
 
 
 ! 33=;<(#$ BP
 <<
 Q :
%53@036=62
8P3Q$A"
 
"
 '

B
 "
P$% 

!,-036=6QP,Q$ A/'
 B   * 
     
       

" 36=F! 
   * 
  


  
* I  
LL  
       
 *   '
"  P
 
$%!3436=6I
!/
,84-F! 
 QP;Q$A
"#>#?
 B   
3F36=F  
%1
;36=F
  
  
  I   
"

  
 
"   *   
  
$%P * 
"#1  %!GGG)!@;4E<=QP<Q$
 A   !B


(70 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee771 ooff 2931

 
  %
! #1 

 #
" 
   
 
 
!#!
 ,= 
"! 36=6!( +
!36=6P
 !(
;-3FQ
) 
 
  
"
  

 *  "
    
" 

  
2*  !    
$%1"     "     

  * 
"     
  
 "P
 <,<6!
 Q) 
! !  
 "
$% 
 *  
 
"     "
$"   *     
*   
" 
  

 
  
   " $%1 
3 # 
    
"
A 
"

 

!B  


 



, $ 
  " 
A&!B !  
 



;   
 
 8A  
"!B   
 
 



< #* 
 A 
 
  
B !  
  
 



4 #  
 !

 



F $ 
  " 
A 
"!B 

6 #  
 !
 



=   
 
 ! 
 

!  
 A B

@ $
2*  A
 B

3-   
 
   
A!B  
 



33   
 
 ! 
 

8A
   
    >K?  B

3, $ 
  
!A7 
!B 

 



3; $ 
    
"
A !B  
 
 



3< $
2*  A
 B
No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020 34$ 
!!  " 
 
3F $ 
 
  ! 
 

!"
 A 
 B
36 $ 
 
  !
 !"
A B
3= $ 
 ! 
 

!   
"
 A
 "" !B 
3@   
 
 ! 
 

!  
 AB

,- $ 
 
  !
 

!"
   
A B

,3   
 
 ! 
 

!A  B

,, $ 
 
 !
 

!   
"
 A  " !B 

,; $ 
 !

 

!   
"
 A!B 

,< $
2*  8AS         "B

,4 $ 
 !

 

!   
"
 A
 !B 

,F #" 
 ! !   
"
A   !B 

,6 $
8A$ !B   
  ! 
 

! 



,= $ 
 
 ! 
 

!   
"
 A
 !B 

,@ $ 
  " 
A !B !  
 



;- # 
 ! 
 

!    
"
A  !B 

;3 $ 
  

   A
 B
A7
 !B   

 



;, $ 
 
 ! 
 

!   
"
 A 
  !B 

;; $ 
 
  !
 

!"
 AB

;< #"
 
 !
 



;4 $   2

 A   B

(71 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee782 ooff 2931
;4 $
2*  8A
 
B
;F   
 
 A!B 
 


;6 $ 
 
 ! 
 

!   
"
 A 
 
"  
B
;= $ *    PQ
     

" 2*   
1! !
 ! "

  

  8A2*  
"  
%H
 ,<36=6H   
 
 
"   3 
 
 
 
 ,  7    
B
;@   
   
A
 B ! 
 


<- $ 
 ! !   
"
A
7 
!B 
<3 $ 
  
A
 !B  


 


<, 5 "
   
  A(+
B
<; $ 
  
A
""!B  
   
 
 


<< $ * 
" $ 2*  !     
"   PA+
     
" 
 
SBOQ!   
 
<4 $&  
   
 
  $%$2 
"
!

(
@
<F 
 
 A6<!B 

"
A
 !B $%
  A
   !B 

"
  A6;B
<6 5 "
    
  
 A#B  

 

#2:5)(T . 1 K  8CC"

C
 C%""
C-393,9-,9-,6<
(
 8$
  
 
 
 !
 
 

  ! 
 U# 
 # 
' 
 


No. 18-360ci8te2dairnchJiuvleiadnoanvJ. aUnSuAary 14, 2020 $( 
 
# 
:


P(#:Q 
" ( 
$
   
! (#:
  
"   
!!
  
"
 
!  
  

"    !
 
7  
  

 
 



""  


" 
 !  

( 






:


  



 (#:!    

 
"/#! 
 

  

$# $#
"'7 $#
"* 
 $#
"$
%""
 $#
"%
 $#
"
. 



  ( 
 ( 
##
   

")"
 
 (
2: 0 

(72 of 91)

CCaassee:61:185-3-c6v0-8021,50117/-1A7A/202D0o,cIDum: 1e1n5t 64558904,FDilekdtE0n1tr/y1:71/2503-2,PPaaggee793 ooff 2931

(73 of 91)

 

 
  
 
   

 
 
 !"###
$ %&  
  %'" ( %"%$  %$ %% ( $ # 

   
'%#)   *  

   %$&$ +"  %#, &     $  )&  & %%&+ %   %
$++ %       %  %#     
'%#)%#)& ( &&$ % +" %% (  )  %  
     #,$ %%%"  
  %% % "  
 ++$#  
 %     
 *     %%%  #-%  &
  (  %  $$ 
++!0#,#

#(%
$/#
&$%+
#N##+o-.1(8-
360c%i8(t$-e2(da$(i%rnc%%hJ"iuv$leia%d$n%
$oan&vJ.$a#U)(nS+uA$a##%r0y%%1++%4,"(20$
20
.,%.
$&1#
(%% 
 % $  %$  %%& -%%% $
 % &%$- .+ # % % 
)& 
(   %(   
  2(  
3  %1&(  
  (   (%  
$
 4& %   #  + %
  
  $%   5 % & 
6#)%     #  (  &   &#-+%$  ++ 
 #27"-
  $ ( ++   # & 
 (  - &$++%$# +% (% 
 8$%+  -% 
4&   -%%(  ++$
 &#!6++%  %%-
  %$( % #-%% " %   (  +   %
#/
 $&-  ( $
(
 9 
/&#(:7 ,# %  % %&     %$  4&#
! %%    (   %
 )(    %% 
6 +  #-"  % $
"&  ( ;   %%  %+" +%  
 $%  ++ #


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee7140ooff9213

(74 of 91)

-++       
 )(   +  (  2
 6 #++  &&    
(
+
 8+   )
   #
- &  %%$&  ; 
 2%   $$$  
  ++% 

  
(  &6 #/(%$ ( 
  
  %% $%%   % (  + 
#/+%(  %
( %$ (    + 
%(%(  *%%    &%$   $
%$
 .&  &  %    %& (%  
 &% 3(  #
0      % ( 
&(    
+ & 6 %+     (  (%+& <    &  ++% ++
 +  #
& " &% & ;  +     %(   # ++   &$ 8. ( ++ %$ : &%(  +      % 
= +%3(  ## % 
 " 
%+

(+%%((&(#
$6
3%N%(

o&.$
1+%83-3(60c&%i8%t6e2da
irn
c(#&h
J8
iuv$lei+adn
o+anv".J.aU*n
SuA
;ar2y

%
%
$1&4#%,/#+2#02&%&0+;+$%%%#>#&
  %( $
+%% +%  ; +%    & 
 % %$+ (%  % % #
 

  ;  +  8. (  + %%$ &# *    %
&% + +%%$
      
++  

   & 
+   
%&%$    "+% # +%%$
   
%%$
 ( #3( =%+   
 #  
++ ++   ($ + +% %& ?$ %   $ + +% ?$ 8. ( 
 6 ?$ )&  + 
 & ;%%
  0 ?  +  %%%% &   &(    ? 
 ( % $ 0  
  %  $  #6 ( % 
   #   .+  % &+   &( + $&  %
   # / 

 
  %( + 
    && (?  %   %(    $ 

 % (%$


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee7151ooff9213

(75 of 91)

+  %  % #- &    %&  ( $ 
 .+%   * + + % %&%$  +$
  %  % 
. #-
(
 
+  &  & 
&%  &  $
  % 
  
%
    $    
(%  

 
+$  ++   +   .  
  8. ( $#       ++ 
  $  & %&  &
  
+& 

 
%"  $ ++%(  

%& 
  + 
 &     ++  %% (%  


%&(   %  
+& +   
  
  
 %&
  +  %   

  

   + 
+%    % %& *
 (    $$ %  
 : &% 
  &&   #? *  &  & 
+   
%$ ++ 

  % : &% #/% ++ %% 

 ? 

 ?

 
  % 
+ 
+#      
%  &(  %$+%  
  &+   $

 &(   
. 
 : &%( 8. ( + #  %    ($+ 
-((
+
%&$%6%&
N%(o.18&-
360ci8te0$2da+irnc(h
J#(i>uvl-ei%a3dn##?oa(nvJ.aUn
S%u$Aa
r&y1*4;,2020;+$$@

 
;  %$  
++  
#  

   ++   #$ 0 
= +  ( #$ 8. (  >$ %  $ + +% 
 ++ #$ 6 : &% # +
 ++   
& (
$ &      
  ( .
( $ #  % 
  

     %
     %#
  ;   +
+    3  %%%3(   + +
%%  

%#/
   
  %

6 @6 
 
 + 
: &% )&   &(  %  
 6  
+   &( 9 
% + 
 % &%  &( < ;$
%%$
% +    &( # *   &  &(    +  

%%$ ;  $ ;$#/-
 %$ $$+
(
 &  - %%" 
 .+%&$ %
 ; #A6 "  6 ++    $#+ (    3  %$ #+ ( %$;  % &%B
 6 #


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee7162ooff9213

(76 of 91)

#1 "  % (  +$ (%(   (%
+  + #-
+% + $      $ ( $6 $ %&+ % $  &  %$$  
  &
 
   $  % $    
    #-
 + $
 ,'%    $   
 $
8+  ( -"
 $% &( C  *(% % $
 $  %   $ #  
 +( (  %   )
       
  #
 :$)
  $%%  " #
 /+$ %%" (     
%%   % %   (   $ $ +  
 %%(  
  %$#   ($   $
'%$   & /D: & # 0 %( 6$  %$
  $ & $$+ %  &
+#  
 2   %+# $
6%  
%  
& $    *  +  +  
& &  & 

 &+  

    $   
 &  %$& 
  %  $
 +(%
+(+6+
&$#%&>%&N+3.o+.(%1
8$(-386%0c+i8$t%e2
da+irnc%
hJ&iuvleiad

n%oa.
n%vJ.+%aU5% n%S#u/Aa
%0ry%14+,&+2$%0#62+#08%%

(
&



   


  6 
& +
 $
+%%$ #- $   )
 

  ++%  %%(  

  + #- 

     %#-+   +  
 
 %$ 
 +%
+ $  
)
  $
  +  6 #/   +&  ( 
 
 %)E -%%
 %&&%      
 9  % 
%($ &   $  $  
 #-   +     "% (      #- 
 % $  (  &&%   +  @(&+%$+$ 
    & ,
%%+%$  % +; 
+#- / ) &  %$ %%  ( 
 %$
   #B 6   %% +   6   +%%+$  0  %% +   + +% 
 6  (% +$# 
  %% %      %  + # '  % ( ++ 
 6  + %%$%  # +   
 3  % %% 


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee7173ooff9213

(77 of 91)

  

 %%$& % &$&   
 
 < 1% %    + ( % %% %%$ % 
 &  
 +  % $      +
#1 
  +  ( 
 + : &% 
 6   + 
  && &    ( $ %%( 
  )  %  
 #- $   "  + + %% . %3(  ++ $ 
 . &; +#- %$ & 

 &  
    +%$
(& + 
% &%  
 


  $ 

     ( 
&$ ;& 
 +% *   .+  - 
#$%%& &( 
+%$#0 %&" 
. + 
 %$$ 
.  % &%( + 
 +&+   +%  E % 
    + 
 &%& 
 & (  

      
%   

  % %$ 
% #   (   +% +% #!    (  $(   ; 
: &%  $( %      %%   & 
"(++&

6$&#
8
(+%N#@o-.18&$%-+$36+0c(i%8"%te2%da+irnchJi+uvle%ia(8dn.%%$(+oa+n%%v$J.(aU+nS:+uA%a&$r&y%1
(
4,$%2%0&20(&&$($
+%%%%C#
(% $ % ++++ %&6  +  $6   %(%  : &%( &
 2 % ( $ $ $%  ++
    
 
  ( 
    %   $ (%   )  .% 
+% #
#/)% &(  % 
 6   *%%$  $  (%&   &# %$
 % 
 6  
   (%# ; 
  
 * 
%& %  

 
= +%#-+  - $&   (%&
        +   )( + +  +%
&  % 
    %   
  *$
 )
     ; #/ 
  
   " +(
+( &   %%$ 
 ( #  &++  (%
  

 #6++&   

 %
 $& $  
 "#-; $  

  $
 
% &%(  .+  


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee7184ooff9213

(78 of 91)

   + .%$ % $ +(   %%    ( # +%+( ++  +  %% ( # -$ "  +( & %%      3+
 3  %3(    6 3(    $ 
    +%++%   
  %    %%
 ;$  &  >$  .    $ %%+  $$ % 

     #/
%%
*  %
-" 
%   ++% 
= +%3(  +(    +
  %  

3(    

 ++  +   %% . ( +  #- %%  
    (   ; #   
+% 5 $+  +% $   
 ;$+ &  % ++   %&  
# $
  &    + +% +& 6 $ ;$%$ *%$
+%%&@ $ ( %%+  %$      
 %& ( $ + #1    %$    & % %( #   
 ;$ % 
 $%@  %%$  + & &
  % 
  ;(  %  
  @ %% +  ( %  %$%%   +%

 %$
3(%&
%()#1F&"(%#3#-/(No@.%1*((8-&3%
660c
i+8t%e2d+6airnc
$$h#J-iu$v*lei9a%d%%n(o+a(&
+n%vFJ.#aUBn6SuAa(ry$1+%4%,20%2
0@+&(@


&  #  % $& ( & 

   +


  %&

   
   

 #-  %
% 
%% 
  %

   +%% %& +   + 
% &(%#0 (   %  &
 
$++   %&  6    (% +%+  %"
"    6  '%+ 
%% ( C 

  %&#-    *     ;$(&$  
 %&$+ %%


  (   
++ & $#/(% ( %%  ;&  (     #-
 (%   
   > $& &
 % % (  
 %$ 
    ;$
  #1%% (% % +++      E ( %$   ##/+  &+( +%&  %%$(%(   &  %+  &
  % #>& 

 



CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee7195ooff9213

(79 of 91)

 %
#8.+    (  %%  

 (%+ +%%%  %% 
(%% 
%%;$  +%$  #-
 
   $
&  $  +%$@ % #  $
 +  (  
 .<  ( +% ## = + 
 #( 


  (%
 ; %  

$++   (  +   % #,   
   +%+ 
 ;$ 
. $      $#>#= %&#  

$ 
 (% %%" # 
 ( $++% %$&  & 
 %&  (%;    &     % (%
++   + %$  % #1 - = %&"%  
 %" 
 +   $ $+$
% #, %$ +$ 
 = %& %% %%%$   +%    %#8( %    
  ( ++  
#-
    

    + 6 $@;$>   $   +   
++ &>> $    $ 
 +%3(      ;$% %$   
&(& . +    +
6&%%;$%$
"
%$+(%++%%%"N%#%-$#
#o5.(1;8"-
3$6%0c
i8t+e2d
airn$chJ%i$u*vlei+ad;noa*nv$J.aUnS.u
>+Aa9(r%;y1
4%+$"(+,%2%$02$
#0>-
%%&&$%%
*%
 %$+%$$  +%   ;++% #-   (  (  %$% +  
 
. #/%%+  ++ ( $  %$
 &   " +$@ . (   
 (  $     

%& ++ 
     # &    3(  
$ (  &$$ 

 %$  %  

  +
 6 $% +
(& & 
    

 %$%  %

 &+   (  
   6 $#-%   ' $ % %$  % 

  % 
; $
  >B++ 
%% + %( #-%% +% (  & %%% 
 
 
   6 $

 %$ %  + +&#-  .  = +%
 2 6  3  %3(  >
%%+ $ ( %    + 
+%6     

 %$  $ +    $
 $& &  %  #G>


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8106ooff9213

(80 of 91)

, &&&+
  & -  ;  (    ; 
 

    


  +
 ) #6   
% + (  %& .+ %% +( %(  %% +@ 
+ +(    
 
0    * @ 
*%

  +   . +
 .+%(  
 . +
 .+ %$#  %  )#6#)%3 &  
% .%  +
 %( #
  &;      &  %
  
  )( %%  +&  # %% 6   & 
*%$ % +% %
 6 3(  % " +% @  *%$ 6   *# %& 6    &   3(     ++%%$
 + +%   %$ +   %$  6 @ * %$  6  %% +   ++  + 
  (%$+%    *
)&    $  +  0 % ++ F #-   +  $ %% ( $ 

 ( %  

-13$
%$%%&;+6%$$N#o
.#18-3360c(i8te2da
irnch
J%$iu%v
lei)a$d##n%5#oa4nv&J.#aU;n)Su%Aa
&ry%1

4,2)30+2(0(#/+##+##%%$
 % 
 &  %+    %    '   6  #0    +%% ++  6   % $ && %  %%%  
   &  % )(  >C+  +%
& ;&  .+  #0   (   ++&  
% + $  %%&  %
 % $ &(  $
 %&  ; #)%#% 
'%# . &%% #/ 
%%  &+
 +   + (%   % 
  +   $#0   4& 
. + + (  +
 +%
+% #0    
,%%
=& 
%; #0 ;   
 6  +% 
 8. ( )% + (  $? + 
 $?  ( '   & '  
 6  ? %% 
  
 = +  ( ?   6   & .+
% ? 
%%+%$ + 
 &%& $;$%$
 0 #0   %  ; #, &     $
;
$& 
% &  %%
   ( $+%  #0&( & &


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8117ooff9213

(81 of 91)

 )$

.+%%$  
/% .#0 % $  +  / %$ %%&)(  %%+%$     +  )(   +$ .+ #0 ;  &  % + (   %3(   
# -  +    
 + %( +(  $ # 0 " % & +% &(  6 %  ++ 
 6 8. ( & &  @++  +% %    .+    %  
 +     #
 
%  +  %% &( $ + +% %& ++ 6$  $    # : &% 
#0+  &    6   %%+%   #/
   
 + +%     .+    *%%$
(% #, % &# +  $$ " #$+
++( ++  # : &% 
6  &&    
 + +% %&  %% +%&  % %  $# ++  $
=# -%% #  +$F %%$ #-+& &)  %" %$ ( $ $#    % & $
  # 
 ;  
   ++ # ++%
+H++"(%#+(&"#'
N
o
.#+138%%-+
3%60c(i8%t$e2#da+#i+%rnc+3hJ.iu&v()leiad$+n%)oa
#n'v+7#J.++%aUnSu$#A$ar#+y6"+1=4+,2
0%
2
@0)+&($
% %
%  " $   )$ %%++ #/%"$
   ;    %$; 
 % ;   +%%$ ++$ %&  . 
+$$    ( 
%#  ( 
$%- 
+ $&$
   % &%$
(
 )##)   $  
 ,%     +   %$  %%"% 
  $##' %%+%$ %%$ +%
) #$

 4&$  .  %$+ 
 #-( %  
3 %#1& + " 
(%$
 +  % 
  .  
) %% ' %   .+  
%% + 
 +% ++%$
 #-%%-%% +
#- ++ %  #    #=#0#: 5#:   
 ##'& &= +
 & ,
 &  %)# +  #0 $ %%" "   # %% + #-" 
& 
 ( $
   %  ++%%" %%   #    + (  
($++# 6 6 
4&&  #/  +
6#)% 
 




CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8128ooff9213

(82 of 91)

 &   (   %$F %
(
 )+% 6  %% %$  #-% +% # )% %%
%%   .+% % 
4&% % #2+
% %& +% %% 
%%$>" 
%%$ % 
  %  ++  +  & ++&  %+
  +%%(   %% .+  #
1  +%  
 )& 
 ( $  

  $ =#0#: #5 
# #- 
  )&  %++ %$&( $+(      
;  ( 
 )   $ #&
"
%& 
 & % &   .+  $
 & +%    ++  
  +&  ; 
)%##
.+  %%%  

 #-  ( $   $   %( $   #
#/  ( +   "
 ( #+(  
++%$&+% " +&+$ +    #! ++  
 $  %% 
 
 

 
#/

#-    &( 
&
&(%&&#8(&$#+%&+
No%.&21##68)#+-3%6#0c-i8te2
dairnc#hJ
iu+v(le(iadn+o&an<vJ.aU-nSu%Aa%r"(y$1%4",2&020$+%

%%(%"
  .& 
 
5)      $ )&   $,# +&+$%%  #$ ;  
++%$&%0%% & 
 +$  
 &

    
   , $(%  # +$   #,-( %%   ++ %% + #6  ++ 

%  + $ % ( %%%    %+%$ ;   +
+     +# % 
#/7%%
%%   
    0%% %%     %%
   (  8+ 

  #-$ %%      +  3(   " +%( 7  &$ %%   $ " +% #
2+ 
/ 
 ( $ %
 2#6#(  + 
+  " #( %%
( $ (  %$+( #8&% )+$
%%+  +$    ++%
 +%   #/ & %$%  #  $)+$
 %%  %"      )+$
)$

%%#)%#


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8139ooff9213

(83 of 91)

)&   
%%$; #

! %%  (      

/% ,   
# ," #/% 4&#,%% + #6$% (&  
$   
 0 % & %   % &(  #  ++ -+ 
#)#'# ++  #-+  + 
  $ %$%(  ++ %$
.+ "
+%#! %%
%& ++% ++  $)   + + 
  3 % # D &F '%#3F   %%&( $% %  
 ; 
+    #

  + 8 % 6 (   .  %$+% 
%#

6 
4&# $

 

  +% #  % -"  $

 &#-4& & +    +%%$  

 
%%
 =(  # )+
) &  %%&%$#

-& -
   %%  %$  
 #-(  


/% % # +
  ( $    + $&+
*$

 *%$%%$
 # +
    %&  % . %% *%$

:&+(#%%%%#)%$%
%%*#++N#o.$1#8(-3%6%$0c(i8t+e2$&d
"+airnc
hJ+iu6vl%eiad%n/oa)nvJ.(
aUn(SuA$)ar#y%(14,2+02%"0(%++(
#

 

3 &   
(% +#-
 
= 

8% % 
 = ( ) + + $
%%0 
5 % &  %%

6   
$#-+ (%$ *% 

 +&
%% &



 % 
 )$ % #/( $  ;$
 / %$

F %
(
  )#  
 )$%& #-++ 

 ( (%
&  &   : &% 

++ #/%  -;( 
#/#6 #0 $3 %# %1#

 % 
%$
) %6#3 & " $% & 
 3  %

) . +'#)&#  ++    
%%  

   &(  &( 

 )    #/%%

&  +%  )( #

1  
3 &6     &    ) " -# %
  % % +%  $  + &

$ (   
6(#     -  (  (  %%  
 6+ &#-(%



CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8240ooff9213

(84 of 91)

+%% 
&( %(   & $8%# +%$
 .+% $++&  &   3 &

 %    6+ #
   
 6  +    %%((   .+
 
  % $ @ .  %$   )&  %%& 
 #1 ( $       ++ 
4&
  .$ #
1 

   - 5 6#! 
 I (
##
=)J5:)<'+ K@+%$ @  
 %  
    %     ( %$  + %$ 
    %   % %$ $% %
 @  #
8.J5:)<'+ K@7&%$ ( 

J  > % K#
8.J42K@

 . 
%'# <L)+ 
 &%+ %% J4###I)##=#I##=#&K$#'## ##M>N@  $( 
%% 
<L ?##  

 #)+ 
 &%+ %% ##>##'##NJ6

L++4%F&F%/#%,&%%.%K"#,=No%%.N1+8(-636:0ci8%te2daNi
r%n(c%hJ&iuvleCiJ%ad5n((oan#vJ."aUnS#u8+Aa$r
%y.14#,5.2<J0B.2#K0,%L%K&#@J
K%
 
%$ $ J 9 #@ %4%#<9B K#J>K L+  
#)#'#A)% '" $G ++ N  %(  B/&# B $7+ >/&#B  & 6+@ +   
$)&   
  +  .  J .
'" $7+ + ...C>9OK#JK  L+ + $  & % N%%$ %  $  '" $7 (  '%
3(      %)( '% %+  
$ !"J#>BK#
-"   
 ++    .
%     (  
   %  8. +%$ &7%
  #) %$  &
 %  $&   %  $  .
 %   " (    % %
 J   % K#-+%  (   % ( 
"   .%&
  %   
 # 
   .  $% .+% $%  
  " +$& ++ %&     ( 
 7 #


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8251ooff9213

(85 of 91)

#'  & (   % 
L&  
+  N% +%$  + %$#
#   % %%$+ 
   L * N %   ( %$  + %$#
>#/+ %  % %%$<L  %( + 
  N%  ( %$  + %$#
#'  &.  % L   N %  %  ( %$   + %$#
9#'  & &  % +%$ + %$#
B#   % %%$+ 
   L% 
N %  #
#'  &   % + + + %$#
#/+ %   ( %$ + %$  L %$#N
C# 8. L+ &( #N
###// ++$AN+o(.18-%% 3EG60ci8te2#(Nda+irnch%J$iuLv+leiadLn;oan+vJ.%$aUNnSu(AaNry%$1<%$L4+,20 20+%$($%$#
 + %$#
>#  % 
L% &% N% + +  + %$#
# 8. L%% #N
9# ( %  &% 
&$(   % #
B# %  $(  & ( %$ + %$
L$#N
# %  $(  &+%$% 
L %%#N
#  %  ( %$ + %$
L+%$ 

%$N %  #
C#/+ %  % %%$ ( %$ + %$   L+  ( #N


CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8262ooff9213

(86 of 91)

# %  $(  &+ + + %$
 ++   L #N

#/+ %  % %%$ ( %$ + %$L&    #N

#     % + + + %$
L +% +( 
N %  #

>#  % +%$ + %$
L++%%$N  %  #

# 8. <LP $( +  %$%% +       
 %&#N

9#  % +%$ + %$
L3(  N  %  #

B#'  &
(   % + +% 
L+( &N  %  #

#+& %  $( 
#     %  #

N&&o.%(%1$%8-36%$<0cL(i8te2dair%n$c+%hJiuvleiadnoa+%%n%v$&J.aUnSuAa%r$y14(,(20#2$0N
L

 N

C#   % %%$+ 
   LN %   ( %$ + %$#

>#'  & (   %  ( %$ + %$
 L (    N %  #

>#   (  $ L(  &$NL;$N%    + %$#

>#     %  ( %$ + %$
L + +$N %  #

>># %  $(  &+ + + %$
L++ &#N

>#'  &
  % + + + %$#

>9# 8. <L#N

>B#/+ %  L&  %N ( %$ + %$#



CCaassee: 61:81-53-6c0v8-021, 50117/1-A7/A202D0,oIcDu:m1e1n5t64558904, FDilketdEn0t1ry/1: 71/5230-2,PPaaggee8273ooff9213

(87 of 91)

>#     %  ( %$ + %$
L$ 
  % #N
>#  . " J++% K   % 
 8.7   ( (  
%% &++ &   <L8.
 %  #? ###?/ &(  3  %3(  % 
  6   $#+ (   3  %3(  ##%$ ;  % &%#N
>C#/+  L+ N %   ( %$ + %$#
#  % + +% 
L; N %  #
#   ( L+&N% +%$ + #
#: %
 +%  "+ % L#!"#N
>#   ( L

%%$N%  +%$ + #
#  .
 8.  &  +&+
 %  JL! %%
L9B$###8(&N*LN(oN.(1%8
-
3$60ci8)t$e%2
d%a(irnc%h
J&iuvlLePiadNn+Ioa%LnK($v>J.#N&aUNn)SuAary1#+4C,#20# 20 % %%$
#: %
 + "+  L'%N &++ #


 +<
 #( #&(  

 
  $   %  +$&Q' 2( $' #/%%&  ( #
 % 

%  
 2#6#&(    $ %/( = / & 0'=)+ +  2( $
4&'  &   #



CCaassee6: :1185--3c6v0-08125, 1071-/A17A/20D20o,cIuDm: e1n1t546559804F, iDlekdtE0n1t/r1y7: /12503-3P, aPgaege881ooff941

(88 of 91)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Office of the Clerk 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings

Judgment •

This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case. Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached decision because all of the dates described below run from that date, not from the date you receive this notice.

Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2) • The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper.

Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1) Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)

(1) A. Purpose (Panel Rehearing): • A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist: ► A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision; ► A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or ► An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not addressed in the opinion. • Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.

B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc) • A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2018

1

CCaassee6: :1185--3c6v0-08125, 1071-/A17A/20D20o,cIuDm: e1n1t546559804F, iDlekdtE0n1t/r1y7: /12503-3P, aPgaege892ooff941

(89 of 91)

► Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
► The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or ► The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another
court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.
(2) Deadlines for Filing: • A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case, the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). • If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate. • See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the due date). • An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2.
(3) Statement of Counsel • A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsel’s judgment, one or more of the situations described in the “purpose” section above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly.
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)) • The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text. • The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being challenged. • An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length limitations as the petition. • If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2018

2

CCaassee6: :1185--3c6v0-08125, 1071-/A17A/20D20o,cIuDm: e1n1t546559804F, iDlekdtE0n1t/r1y7: /12503-3P, aPgaege903ooff941

(90 of 91)

• The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance

found at Form 11, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under

Forms.

• You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No paper copies are

required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a pro se litigant or an attorney

exempted from using the appellate ECF system, file one original petition on paper. No

additional paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise.

Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1) • The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. • See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms.

Attorneys Fees • Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys fees applications. • All relevant forms are available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms or by telephoning (415) 355-7806.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari • Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at www.supremecourt.gov

Counsel Listing in Published Opinions • Please check counsel listing on the attached decision. • If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in writing within 10 days to: ► Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526; Eagan, MN 55123 (Attn: Jean Green, Senior Publications Coordinator); ► and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF system by using “File Correspondence to Court,” or if you are an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the Court one copy of the letter.

Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2018

3

CCaassee6: :1185--3c6v0-08125, 1071-/A17A/20D20o,cIuDm: e1n1t546559804F, iDlekdtE0n1t/r1y7: /12503-3P, aPgaege914ooff941

(91 of 91)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Form 10. Bill of Costs
Instructions for this form: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form10instructions.pdf
9th Cir. Case Number(s)
Case Name The Clerk is requested to award costs to (party name(s)):

I swear under penalty of perjury that the copies for which costs are requested were actually and necessarily produced, and that the requested costs were actually expended.

Signature

Date

(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents)

COST TAXABLE DOCUMENTS / FEE PAID

REQUESTED (each column must be completed)

No. of Copies

Pages per Copy

Cost per Page

TOTAL COST

Excerpts of Record*

$

$

Principal Brief(s) (Opening Brief; Answering
Brief; 1st, 2nd , and/or 3rd Brief on Cross-Appeal; Intervenor Brief)

$

$

Reply Brief / Cross-Appeal Reply Brief

$

$

Supplemental Brief(s)

$

$

Petition for Review Docket Fee / Petition for Writ of Mandamus Docket Fee $

TOTAL: $

*Example: Calculate 4 copies of 3 volumes of excerpts of record that total 500 pages [Vol. 1 (10 pgs.) + Vol. 2 (250 pgs.) + Vol. 3 (240 pgs.)] as: No. of Copies: 4; Pages per Copy: 500; Cost per Page: $.10 (or actual cost IF less than $.10); TOTAL: 4 x 500 x $.10 = $200.
Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at forms@ca9.uscourts.gov

Form 10

Rev. 12/01/2018