Background
Plaintiffs, a group of children and young adults, challenged three executive orders signed by President Trump that set broad directives for federal energy policy. They appealed the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for lack of Article III standing and the denial of leave to amend their complaint.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that the link between the executive orders and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was too speculative to support Article III standing. The court further determined that the requested injunctive relief was neither substantially likely to redress the injuries nor within the district court’s power to award. Issuing such an injunction would effectively place one federal district court in charge of executive branch energy policy, an extraordinary role for the judiciary. The court also rejected the argument that declaratory relief alone would redress the injuries, citing prior precedent.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for establishing standing in climate change litigation and limits the ability of federal courts to issue broad injunctions against executive branch energy policy.