There's no shortage of lofty expressions in either the majority opinion or the dissent. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the topic.
First off, Judge Hurwitz's take for the majority:
"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."
And, with similar, but more alarming, sentiment, the dissent by Judge Staton, sitting by designation from the Central District of California:
"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. 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."
Important principles -- and issues -- all around.
