In a divided panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found that 21 young people who sued the federal government claiming that it has failed to address climate change do not have standing to pursue their case in federal court.

"We do not dispute that the broad judicial relief the plaintiffs seek could well goad the political branches into action," wrote Judge Andrew Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an opinion joined by Judge Mary Murguia. "We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs' case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box."

Although panel majority found that U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken of the District of Oregon had correctly found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged concrete harms from climate change and causation that federal policies had been a "substantial factor" to those harms, the court held that it was beyond the scope of an Article III court to order, design and implement the plaintiffs plans to address it.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, who sat on the panel by designation, wrote a dissent equating the government's inaction on climate issues to a scenario where an asteroid is heading toward the planet "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," Staton wrote. "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 single-handedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists."

Staton wrote that the federal court's inability to address the totality of climate change does not mean that this particular case does not present a claim suitable for resolution by the court.

Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a prepared statement that her clients intend to seek en banc review of the decision. "The majority opinion ignores the fact that we have yet to go to trial on the issue of redressability," she said.

Assistant attorney general Jeffrey Bossert Clark argued on behalf of the federal government agencies and officials, including President Donald Trump, the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Read the opinion:

Read more: