MOT. TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 1

JEFFREY H. WOOD

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

LISA LYNNE RUSSELL

Chief

GUILLERMO A. MONTERO

Assistant Chief

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131)

Trial Attorney

Natural Resources Section

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 305-0445

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Federal Defendants.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 

Expedited Hearing Requested

MOTION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the United States respectfully moves the Court to certify 

its Opinion and Order of November 10, 2016 (“November Order”) to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory appeal. Specifically, Federal Defendants request 

that the Court certify the following questions for interlocutory appeal:

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 120 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 3
MOT. TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 2

1. Did Plaintiffs adequately allege the invasion of a legally protected and judiciallycognizable interest in maintaining “a climate system capable of sustaining human life,” 

when the alleged injury is widely shared by essentially every member of society?

2. Did Plaintiffs adequately plead the causation element of standing by alleging that the 

Defendant agencies have jurisdiction over various aspects of the production, 

transportation, and consumption of fossil fuels, and that the aggregate effect of all 

emissions within their jurisdiction over decades has caused alleged climate-related 

injuries, without alleging that the agencies failed to comply with some specific legal duty 

imposed by statute or that such specific failure caused the climate injuries they assert? 

3. Did Plaintiffs adequately plead the redressability element of standing by simply 

alleging that the Court can redress their injuries with an order directing the Federal 

Defendants to do whatever is necessary to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere 

to a level that will avoid climate-related harms, without specifying particular wrongful 

government actions or inactions whose correction by the Court would likely result in 

lessening the Plaintiffs’ injuries, and without alleging that Defendants are authorized by 

statute to carry out the relief they seek?

4. Do Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected fundamental life, liberty, or property 

interest in a “climate system” with a particular atmospheric level of CO2, and if so, do 

federal agencies have a duty to protect that fundamental interest by taking actions that 

would sharply reduce CO2 emissions, even if those actions would not be based in, or 

would otherwise contravene, existing statutes and regulations pertaining to, inter alia, the 

development, transportation and consumption of fossil fuels?

5. Do Plaintiffs have a cognizable claim under the public trust doctrine for protection of 

the atmosphere or coastal areas from CO2 emissions that may result from actions or nonactions of federal agencies? 

In addition, given the significance of the issues raised and the burden that discovery is 

likely to impose, Federal Defendants respectfully request an expedited determination on this 

motion, and specifically ask for a determination by April 10, 2017.1

 To assist in having this 

motion promptly briefed, Federal Defendants will file their reply within seven days after service 

of the response.

 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(a), the parties conferred on this motion and the request for 

expedition. Plaintiffs oppose this motion and the request for expedited consideration. 

Intervenor-Defendants do not oppose this motion nor the request for expedited consideration.

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 120 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 3
MOT. TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 3

As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, certification for interlocutory review is 

appropriate because the November Order addresses several controlling questions of law as to 

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal 

may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 

Dated: March 7, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY H. WOOD

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

LISA LYNNE RUSSELL

GUILLERMO A. MONTERO

SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131)

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section

601 D Street NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: (202) 305-0445

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 7, 2017 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court via 

the CM/ECF system, which will provide service to all attorneys of record.

/s/ Sean C. Duffy

Sean C. Duffy

Attorney for Federal Defendants

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 120 Filed 03/07/17 Page 3 of 3