Page 1 – OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

____________________________________

AIKEN, District Judge:

Before the Court is defendants’ motion to stay proceedings while their petition 

for writ of mandamus is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF No. 571 

(motion for stay); ECF No. 585 (notice of petition for writ of mandamus filed in the 

Ninth Circuit). For the reasons explained, defendants’ motion for stay, ECF No. 571, 

is DENIED. 

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE 

JULIANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Civ. No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA

OPINION & ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 – OPINION & ORDER

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Twenty-one youth plaintiffs filed this case nearly a decade ago. ECF No. 1 

(August 12, 2015). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing, failure to state a 

cognizable constitutional claim, and failure to state a claim on a public trust theory. 

ECF No. 27. This Court denied that motion in November 2016. See Nov. 10, 2016 

Op. & Order, ECF No. 83. Defendants also moved for judgment on the pleadings and 

summary judgment. ECF Nos. 195, 207. For the most part, this Court denied those 

motions.

When this Court denied defendants’ motions to certify its dispositive orders for 

interlocutory appeal, defendants petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of 

mandamus, ECF No. 390-1, and to stay proceedings, ECF No. 391-1, both which were 

denied. Defendants asked the district court to reconsider certifying its orders for 

interlocutory appeal, and, that time, the Ninth Circuit invited the district court to do 

so. See Nov. 21, 2018 Order, ECF Nos. 444, 445. Defendants then sought permission 

to appeal, which the Ninth Circuit granted. Filed Ord., Juliana v. United States, No. 

18-36082 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2018). 

On January 17, 2020, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a decision 

reversing the district court’s certified orders and remanding the case with 

instructions to dismiss. Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d at 1159, 1175 (9th Cir. 

2020). The appellate court determined that plaintiffs had not proved whether their

injuries were redressable by an Article III court. Id. at 1169. “Reluctantly,” the panel 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 – OPINION & ORDER

found that the injunctive relief plaintiffs sought was “beyond [the district court’s] 

constitutional power” to award. Id. at 1165. The Ninth Circuit “reverse[d] the 

certified orders of the district court and remand[ed]” the case “with instructions to 

dismiss for lack of Article III standing.” Id. at 1175. 

Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint, removing from their prayer for 

relief the injunction that the Ninth Circuit had found objectionable. ECF No. 462. 

This Court granted plaintiffs’ motion because (1) the Ninth Circuit did not foreclose 

the possibility of amendment when it mandated dismissal; (2) plaintiffs had notified 

the Court of a Supreme Court case providing a new and more expansive 

interpretation of declaratory judgments; and (3) plaintiffs’ proposed complaint 

narrowed the scope of the injunctive relief it had initially requested. See Juliana v. 

United States, No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2023 WL 3750334 (D. Or. June 1, 2023).

Defendants moved this Court to dismiss the second amended complaint, certify 

this Court’s orders for interlocutory appeal, and to stay litigation. ECF Nos. 547, 551, 

552. This Court issued a 50-page opinion largely denying defendants’ motions, 

Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-CV-01517-AA, 2023 WL 9023339 (D. Or. Dec. 29, 

2023), finding that there was no need to step outside its prescribed constitutional role 

to decide this case: “[a]t its heart, this lawsuit asks the Court to determine whether 

defendants have violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. That question is squarely 

within the purview of the judiciary.” Id. at *15.

As before, defendants immediately moved for a stay of litigation and petitioned 

for mandamus with the Ninth Circuit. In their petition, defendants assert that this 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 – OPINION & ORDER

Court violated the Ninth Circuit’s mandate to dismiss the case and challenge the 

merits of plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants maintain that the Ninth Circuit should stay 

proceedings of the trial court pending resolution of their petition. See generally ECF 

No. 585. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“[S]tays will be granted only if a party shows the necessity for a stay.” In re 

Bel Air Chateau Hosp., Inc., 611 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1979). A stay represents 

an “intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review” and, 

as a result, is “not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result 

. . .” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (quotations and citations omitted). 

Whether to issue a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion . . . to be guided by sound 

legal principles,” id. at 434 (internal citations omitted), based on the following factors: 

(1) the applicant’s likely success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the applicant 

absent a stay; (3) substantial injury to the other parties; and (4) the public interest. 

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); see Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 

962, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing 

that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 433-

34. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants have moved to stay litigation several times and have filed multiple 

petitions for writ of mandamus. ECF Nos. 177, 308, 365, 390, 420, 585. In this 

iteration, defendants maintain that the case must be stayed because there is a 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 – OPINION & ORDER

substantial likelihood that the Ninth Circuit will grant their petition. Mot. at 5-6. 

Defendants maintain that the government will be prejudiced by the number of hours 

expended on litigation if the case is allowed to proceed while its mandamus petition 

is pending, id. at 6, and that plaintiffs will not be appreciably harmed, id. at 7. The 

public interest, in defendants’ view, favors a stay to allow for the “orderly—and 

authoritative—resolution of this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction, before going 

forward with a far-reaching and unprecedent trial.” Id. at 8.

I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

Defendants assert that their likelihood of success on the merits of their petition 

arises from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion mandating this Court to dismiss the case for 

lack of redressability by an Article III court. Id. at 6. On review of the Ninth Circuit’s 

mandate, as noted above, this Court determined that the mandate did not foreclose 

plaintiff’s leave to amend their complaint to demonstrate redressability. Accordingly, 

this Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for to amend and denied defendants’ motion to 

dismiss the newly amended complaint. Because of those rulings, defendants assert

that the District Court violated the Ninth Circuit’s mandate of dismissal, and that 

Ninth Circuit will likely issue a writ of mandamus “to confine [this Court] to a lawful 

exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 

542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). 

Plaintiffs respond that defendants cannot show that they will prevail on the 

merits of the petition, explaining that the writ of mandamus is “a drastic and 

extraordinary remedy” where only exceptional circumstances amounting to a clear 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 – OPINION & ORDER

abuse of discretion will “justify the invocation” of such a remedy. Resp. at 11-12, ECF 

No. 586. Plaintiffs point out that defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus 

challenges the merits of plaintiffs’ claims—challenges identical to those raised in and 

rejected by the District Court—and contend that the government will have “full 

opportunity to appeal every aspect” of this Court’s decision after a final judgment, 

which weighs against granting a writ of mandamus. Id. at 12. 

This Court has stated that it does not take lightly its responsibility under rule 

of mandate, and has addressed, at length, why its orders do not violate the rule.

Juliana, 2023 WL 3750334, at *4-5; Juliana, 2023 WL 9023339, at *7-8. Also, in 

considering whether to grant a writ of mandamus, when there is no final judgment 

to enforce, the Ninth Circuit is guided by the five factors identified in Bauman v. U.S. 

Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977): “(1) whether the petitioner has no other means, 

such as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be 

damaged or prejudiced in any way not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district 

court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether the district court’s 

order is an oft repeated error or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; 

and (5) whether the district court’s order raises new and important problems or issues 

of first impression.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Bauman, 557 F.2d at 654–55).

First, this Court has deliberately considered all motions brought by the parties,

and its decisions are accessible for appellate scrutiny in due course of litigation. Trial 

courts across the country address complex cases involving similar jurisdictional, 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 – OPINION & ORDER

evidentiary, and legal questions as those presented here without resorting to 

interlocutory appeal or petitioning for a writ of mandamus. As Justice Stewart noted, 

“the proper place for the trial is in the trial court, not here.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 

186, 266 (1962) (Stewart, J., concurring.) Defendants therefore have other means, 

such as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief. This factor weighs against 

defendants’ claim that they are likely to succeed on the merits of its petition for writ 

of mandamus.

Second, defendants claim that, absent a writ of mandamus, “the government 

will be irreparably harmed if it is forced to expend substantial public resources.” Mot. 

at 7. Defendants must show that they are damaged in a way that is not correctable 

on appeal: that requires showing something more than “the mere cost and delay that 

are the regrettable, yet normal, features of our imperfect legal system.” DeGeorge v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct., 219 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2000). Defendants do not address that their 

own conduct delayed the normal course of litigation—including the now fourteen 

motions to stay. See Juliana, 949 F.3d 1125, 1127 n.1 (9th Cir. 2018) (Friedland, J., 

dissenting) (“If anything has wasted judicial resources in this case, it was” 

defendants’ requests for interlocutory appeal and mandamus relief.). Defendants’ 

pending request for a stay will only lead to more judicial waste by further delaying 

the fact-finding process, and precluding comprehensive appellate review, which 

would be aided by a trial record. This factor weighs against defendants’ claim that 

they are likely to succeed on the merits of its petition for writ of mandamus.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 – OPINION & ORDER

Third and fourth, defendants have not shown that the District Court was 

erroneous, and that it committed an “oft repeated error” manifesting a persistent 

disregard of the federal rules. Bauman, 557 F.2d at 654-55. As stated above, this

Court diligently scrutinized its responsibility under the rule of mandate and federal 

rules when it granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Juliana 2023 WL 

3750334, at *4-5. 

On defendants’ motion to dismiss, this Court again assessed the government’s 

claim that it had violated the rule of mandate. This Court relied on authority in the 

Ninth Circuit that, when the mandate in the prior appeal does not expressly address 

the possibility of amendment and does not indicate a clear intent to deny amendment 

seeking to raise new issues not decided, that mandate does not purport “to shut the 

courthouse doors.” Juliana, 2023 WL 9023339, at *8 (citing S.F. Herring Ass'n v. 

Dep't of the Interior, 946 F.3d 564, 574 (9th Cir. 2019)). This Court found that the 

Ninth Circuit did not instruct it to dismiss without leave to amend, and therefore, the 

appellate court’s mandate to dismiss did not foreclose that opportunity. Juliana, 

2023 WL 9023339, at *8 (citing Creech v. Tewalt, 84 F.4th 777, 783 (9th Cir. 2023) 

(where appellate court remanded and stated that plaintiff should have leave to 

amend, district court did not violate rule of mandate by dismissing without leave to 

amend, because appellate court did not expressly foreclose that option). These factors 

weigh against defendants’ claim that they are likely to succeed on the merits of its 

petition for writ of mandamus.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 – OPINION & ORDER

Finally, defendants do not identify any novel issues of first impression here,

where this Court’s orders concerned the propriety of granting leave to amend and the 

availability of declaratory relief to provide partial redress. The only “novel” issue 

cited by defendants relates to the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, which 

this Court has not yet decided on final judgment. This factor weighs against 

defendants’ claim that the Ninth Circuit is likely to grant the petition for mandamus. 

In sum, defendants have not met their burden to show a likelihood of success on the 

merits, necessary to support their motion for a stay.

II. Irreparable Injury Absent a Stay 

Defendants point to litigation costs and speculate about potential, intrusive 

discovery that treads on separation of powers grounds, asserting that litigation costs 

and unduly intrusive discovery will irreparably injure the government if a stay is not 

granted to resolve “threshold” jurisdictional issues. Mot. at 6-7. 

An applicant for a stay must show that an irreparable injury is the more 

probably or likely outcome if the stay is not granted. Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 968. It 

is a “bedrock requirement that stays must be denied to all petitioners who did not 

meet the applicable irreparable harm threshold, regardless of their showing on the 

other stay factors.” Id. at 965. Mere litigation expense, even substantial and 

unrecoupable cost, is not irreparable injury. Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft 

Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974). “The key word in this consideration is irreparable. 

Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily 

expended . . . are not enough” to show irreparable harm. Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 – OPINION & ORDER

F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 2020) (ellipsis in original) (quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 

U.S. 61, 90 (1974)). 

The Ninth Circuit has denied defendants’ prior mandamus petitions in this 

case. In re United States, 884 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2018); In re United States, 895 F.3d 

1101 (9th Cir. 2018); In re United States, No. 18-72776, Dkt. 5 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018). 

In 2018, the appellate court ruled: 

The government has made no showing that it would be 

meaningfully prejudiced by engaging in discovery or trial. This 

distinguishes this case from others in which we have granted mandamus 

relief . . . The government also argues that proceeding with discovery 

and trial will violate the separation of powers. The government made 

this argument in its first mandamus petition, and we rejected it. In re 

United States, 884 F.3d at 836. As we stated in our prior opinion, 

allowing the usual legal processes to go forward will not threaten the 

separation of powers in any way not correctable on appeal. Id. No new 

circumstances disturb that conclusion. 

In re United States, 895 F.3d at 1105-06. Here, this Court finds that there are no 

unresolved jurisdictional issues, and that the same holds true now as it did before: 

that defendants have not met their burden to show that it would be meaningfully 

prejudiced in engaging in discovery and preparation for trial. Thus, this factor weighs

against granting a stay.

III. Substantial Injury to Other Parties

Plaintiffs provide substantial evidence of tangible, irreparable injury brought 

about by defendants’ repeated delays. Expert and plaintiff declarations filed with 

plaintiffs’ response establish an ever-worsening climate crisis and with it, risks to 

plaintiffs’ health, their future, and their constitutional due process rights as the 

result of Defendants’ ongoing actions. Resp. at 18-23. 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 – OPINION & ORDER

Defendants assert that, during the pendency of the mandamus petition, a stay 

will not appreciably harm plaintiffs. Mot. at 7. In defendants’ view, “nothing has 

changed since this case was filed that would now require the Court to proceed 

urgently toward trial.” Id. Defendants’ assertion that plaintiffs will be not 

appreciably harmed by yet another delay fails to consider that the government’s 

serial motions for stays, petitions for mandamus, and requests for interlocutory 

appeal, have, in great part, been the cause of a nearly ten-year delay since these youth 

plaintiffs filed their case.

“‘[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to 

someone else,’ the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving party 

of ‘hardship or inequity.’” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins., 498 F.3d 

1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs have produced 

expert and personal testimony of extensive irreparable harm from every day of delay

unlike defendants’ declaration explaining litigation costs and time. This factor 

weighs against granting a stay.

IV. Public Interest

Defendants acknowledge that “climate change poses a serious threat,” and that 

“addressing climate change requires the active involvement of the federal 

government.” Id. But defendants assert that the public interest favors a stay because 

“observance of constitutional requirements—and constitutional boundaries—is also 

a paramount value in a democratic republic.” Mot. at 8. Defendants maintain that 

this Court’s orders have usurped separation of powers principles and that a stay 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 11 of 13
Page 12 – OPINION & ORDER

would serve the public interest in the judiciary’s observation of its constitutional 

limits. Id. 

Defendants’ argument is based on defendants’ view that this Court was 

required to dismiss the case. Yet as explained above, defendants have not shown that 

the orders of the District Court were clearly erroneous. Although unnecessary to 

address, given the findings above, this Court doubts whether there is any public 

interest in delaying the case further. The public also has an interest in the function 

of trial courts in our judicial system, which is to initially consider the myriad of 

evidence and legal issues offered by the parties and then refine them to their most 

essential form, rendering judgment and relief as the law allows. Our judicial system 

affords district courts the respect of operating under an assumption that such courts 

do not “insulate hotly contested decisions from [ ] review simply by fast-tracking those 

decisions and excluding them from its published determination.” Indep. Producers 

Group v. Libr. of Cong., 792 F.3d 132, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

As explained above, defendants have repeatedly delayed the case from 

reaching the evidentiary phase for nearly ten years. Staying this case will only add

to this delay. This Court cannot discern any public interest in such delay.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 12 of 13
Page 13 – OPINION & ORDER

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained, defendants’ motion for a stay, ECF No. 571, is 

DENIED. This Court shall address defendants’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus with 

this order. 

It is so ORDERED and DATED this _____ day of April 2024. 

_______________________ 

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge

19th

/s/Ann Aiken

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 598 Filed 04/19/24 Page 13 of 13