In 2015, a group of nearly 20 young Americans initiated legal action against the federal government, claiming that the U.S. infringed upon their constitutional rights by endorsing fossil fuel use and allowing greenhouse gas emissions to escalate to perilous levels. This case, termed Juliana v. U.S., faced dismissals in federal courts but sparked a wave of youth-led climate lawsuits, including notable victories in Montana and Hawai’i.
Currently, 15 plaintiffs from the Juliana case, four of whom identify as Indigenous, are pursuing their claims on an international stage, aiming to galvanize global advocacy for urgent U.S. government action.
Recently, they submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a seven-member body that has tackled human rights violations across 35 nations in the Americas for many years. Kelly Matheson, an attorney from Our Children’s Trust who contributed to the petition, emphasized that the case highlights the “U.S. government’s unwavering support of a fossil fuel energy framework, fully aware for over 50 years that fossil fuel emissions pose catastrophic risks to human rights.”
The petition includes testimonies from individuals like Jaime Butler, who was compelled to leave her home on the Navajo Nation’s reservation in 2011 due to severe drought and water shortages. By 2014, she had to flee her home in Flagstaff, Arizona, because of the Oak Creek Canyon wildfire.
“She recalls a time when the reservation had sufficient water for farming and livestock, but now the springs they relied on have almost dried up, making traditional agricultural practices impossible,” the petition states. “She worries about her family, all living on the reservation, who may also face displacement, further damaging her culture, community ties, and family connections.”
The Navajo Nation declared a drought emergency in June, and conditions are projected to deteriorate further.
The petition references a recent ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirming that the climate crisis jeopardizes the rights of Indigenous peoples, including their cultural rights, and points out several Indigenous plaintiffs, such as Butler, whose environments have been adversely affected by climate change. “These examples illustrate the widespread violations of cultural rights faced by Indigenous youth across the U.S. due to its fossil fuel-dependent energy system and the pollution it results in,” the petition asserts.
The Juliana plaintiffs request the commission not only to determine if the youths’ rights have been compromised but also to offer recommendations to the U.S. on addressing climate change.
Maria Antonia Tigre, the director of global climate change litigation at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, noted that rulings from the commission can take years to materialize. Nonetheless, she stressed the importance of this case, as the commission is the only international platform available to challenge the U.S. regarding its climate actions. “This contributes to ongoing discussions and demonstrates that accountability exists, even if it takes time,” she commented.
Several international judicial bodies, such as the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, have ruled that nations bear the responsibility to mitigate climate change. However, the U.S. has continuously rejected these jurisdictions.
During his initial eight months in office, former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from multiple climate-related United Nations agreements and organizations, stopped funding for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and abandoned the 2015 Paris Agreement, a pivotal climate treaty aiming to mitigate global warming’s severity. Nonetheless, the U.S. remains a member of the Organization of American States, established in 1948 to foster peace, democracy, and development among 35 nations in the Americas. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where the Juliana plaintiffs filed their petition, was created as part of this framework to safeguard human rights.
Furthermore, the Trump administration sought to halt data collection on greenhouse gases, reduce funding for domestic climate research, and propagate climate denialism.
At a recent United Nations event, Trump characterized climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” He stated, “All these predictions made by the United Nations and others were wrong. Those who made them were foolish and have led their countries to ruin.” He suggested that nations must move away from what he called a “green scam” to avoid failure.
Contrarily, the global community largely recognizes the consensus among scientists that climate change is driven by fossil fuel consumption and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vital to combat global warming. “Climate change poses an extraordinary challenge of civilizational size,” emphasized a U.N. General Assembly resolution endorsed by over 100 countries two years prior. “Our immediate and decisive action is critical for the well-being of present and future generations.”
A favorable decision from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights could set a precedent reaching from Canada to Patagonia, according to Matheson, and contribute to an accumulating agreement in international courts that nations have a legal duty to address climate change.
“Are we aware that the Trump administration may not regard this seriously? Certainly. Are we aware that they might dismiss the recommendations of these international bodies? Absolutely, but future administrations may take them into account,” Matheson noted.
“In the long run, it could prove beneficial for the U.S. Regardless, it will have global implications,” she added.
