PORTLAND, Ore. — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a petition filed by young climate activists who argued that the federal government's role in climate change violated their constitutional rights, ending a decadelong legal battle that saw many of the plaintiffs grow from children and teenagers into adults.
The landmark case was filed in 2015 by 21 plaintiffs, the youngest 8 years old. They claimed the U.S. government's actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy violated their right to a life-sustaining climate.
Kelsey Juliana, of Eugene, Ore., greets climate supporters outside a federal courthouse June 4, 2019, in Portland, Ore.
The case — called Juliana v. United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana — was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued it sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of the political process.
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children's Trust, the nonprofit law firm that represented the plaintiffs, said the impact of the lawsuit “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”
“Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow," Olson said in a statement this past week. “It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future. We’ve already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward.”
The plaintiffs wanted the court to hold a trial on whether the U.S. government was violating their fundamental rights to life and liberty by operating a fossil-fuel based energy system.
The case wound its way through the legal system for years. At one point in 2018, a trial was halted by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts just days before it was to begin. The high court declined to hear the petition Monday.
In 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case dismissed, saying the job of determining the nation’s climate policies should fall to politicians, not judges. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, instead allowed the activists to amend their lawsuit and ruled the case could go to trial.
Last year, acting on a request from the Biden administration, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued an order requiring Aiken to dismiss the case, and she did. The plaintiffs then sought, unsuccessfully, to revive the lawsuit through their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our Children's Trust, responding to new developments at the federal level, is now preparing a new federal action that is “rooted in the same constitutional principles that guided the Juliana case," Olson said.
The plaintiffs now range from 17 to 29 years old and have continued their climate advocacy to various degrees, Olson said, adding that some are still in college. About half are from hometowns in Oregon, according to Our Children's Trust's website.
“They all have incredible stories,” Olson said. “They're all doing incredible work.”
Juliana, who is now 29, became a primary school teacher in Oregon, said Helen Britto, associate communications director for Our Children's Trust. Other plaintiffs include Alex Loznak, who became a lawyer focused on environmental and immigration work, and Nathan Baring, who now serves as the program director of a reindeer herding association in Alaska.
“We’re part of a wave, so this is not the end of the road by any means,” Baring said of the high court's move.
Miko Vergun, who was born in the Marshall Islands and grew up in Beaverton, Oregon, is fighting for a future where the Pacific island nation can stay above sea level, according to Our Children's Trust's website. She recently graduated from Oregon State University with a degree in cultural anthropology, Britto said.
In Monday's statement, Vergun said the U.S. Supreme Court decision wasn’t what the plaintiffs had hoped for, but there had been “many wins along the way.”
“For almost 10 years, we’ve stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we cannot only survive, but thrive," she said. "All great movements have faced obstacles, but what sets them apart is the perseverance of the people behind them. We’ve shown the world that young people will not be ignored, and I’m incredibly proud of the impact Juliana v. United States has made.”
Our Children's Trust has filed climate legal actions on behalf of young people in all 50 states, including active cases in Florida, Utah and Alaska.
In a Montana case, the state Supreme Court in December upheld a landmark climate ruling that said the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming, and that regulators must consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing permits for fossil fuel development.
The case, brought by 16 youth plaintiffs, had gone to trial in state district court in 2023. The Montana Constitution requires agencies to “maintain and improve” a clean environment.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which issues permits for fossil fuel projects, has to abide by the state Supreme Court decision, Olson said, adding that Our Children's Trust will seek to enforce the ruling in the event it is violated.
In a Hawaii case brought by 13 youth over the threat of climate change, both sides reached a settlement last year that requires the state government to achieve zero emissions in its transportation system by 2045. The settlement agreement applies to ground transportation, as well as sea and air transportation between islands. The court will supervise the implementation of the agreement for the next 20 years.
Internationally, the Oregon case has inspired over 60 youth-led climate lawsuits across the world, according to Our Children's Trust.
Is the US becoming uninsurable? How climate change affects insurance costs
Is the US becoming uninsurable? How climate change affects insurance costs
Updated
As Southern California still reels from January's catastrophic wildfires, the economic damage has surged to $250 billion, far exceeding initial estimates. But that figure doesn't account for damage incurred by residents whose homes and businesses were reduced to rubble and ash.
The Palisades and Eaton fires alone will result in up to $45 billion in insurance payouts to homeowners and businesses, according to data analytics firm CoreLogic. Of course, that only applies to residents who had insurance in the first place.
In the wake of an extreme weather event, residents typically can rely on insurance claims to repair damaged property —but the increasing frequency and severity of fires, storms, floods, and other occurrences complicate coverage.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2023 documented 28 separate billion-dollar climate and weather disasters across the U.S., a number that outpaced any prior year on record. Climate change is the main culprit fueling these disasters' increasing frequency and intensity. By September 2023, NOAA reported that the U.S. had already racked up a staggering $57.6 billion in damages for that year.
Insurance companies have responded with higher rates to cover costs, culminating in overall higher insurance fees for customers. In June, the Bipartisan Policy Center reported that property insurance rates have increased every quarter since the end of 2017. And car insurance isn't faring any better, either: According to the Washington Post, blizzards, tornadoes, and hailstorms led to a 52% increase in auto insurance premiums in Colorado from 2013 to 2023, and hurricanes are responsible for an 88% jump in Florida over the same period.
CheapInsurance.com used data from NOAA to analyze the rising number of billion-dollar disasters and their implications for the insurance marketplace in the U.S.
Some insurers have begun leaving states altogether to ensure profit margins, particularly in coastal areas. Notably, Allstate and State Farm halted new policy sales in 2023 for property and casualty coverage in California due to wildfire costs. Many insurers have abandoned Louisiana and Florida residents as hurricane risk intensifies.
Annual home insurance rates average $2,258 as of February 2025—a slight dip from last year. Costs vary widely based on a home's size, age, and location. Nebraska, Florida, and Oklahoma have the highest rates in the nation.
Severe storms cause the most damage nationally each year
Updated
Droughts, storms, and floods were nearly unrelenting throughout 2023. In August, Hurricane Idalia brought storm surge, heavy rains, and flooding to Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, causing $3.5 billion in damages. 2024 didn't offer much of a break, either. The year began with tornadoes and high winds across the entire East Coast, racking up $1.8 billion in damages, and ended with back-to-back catastrophic hurricanes, Helene and Milton. Together, they caused an estimated $300 billion in damages and killed 250 people in Florida and other southeastern states.
With severe weather disasters becoming more common, the market for insurance has become more limited—especially in disaster-prone states. In Florida and California, for instance, some big-name insurers have stopped providing services altogether. To counter this, Florida implemented the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, both of which subsidize home insurance.
California, on the other hand, regulates insurer rates by only allowing them to evaluate based on the past 20 years, not just the current conditions. Both methods are imperfect: Florida's subsidy funds are draining quickly, and many insurers refuse to operate in California.
It's important to note that insurance alone is just treating the symptom of a larger issue: In addition to reevaluating home and auto insurance policies, states need to examine how they brace for—and recover from—natural disasters overall. As storms grow and insurance vanishes, they can't afford not to.
A mutually beneficial option might be for insurers and clients to engage in more transparent negotiations. In wildfire-riddled Oregon, for example, new legislation is attempting to encourage insurers to work with citizens to identify and increase coverage for mitigation measures.
Story editing by Nicole Caldwell and Alizah Salario. Additional editing by Kelly Glass and Elisa Huang. Copy editing by Tim Bruns and Kristen Wegrzyn.
This story originally appeared on CheapInsurance.com and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
