18 CALIFORNIA CHILDREN FILED A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE EPA!
GENESIS V. EPA
On the Road to Justice
On December 10, 2023, 18 children from across the state of California, ranging from ages 8 to 17, filed their constitutional climate lawsuit Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); its administrator, Michael Regan; and the United States federal government. On May 20, the young plaintiffs added the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its director, Shalanda Young, as defendants.
The plaintiffs claim the EPA has discriminated against them as children by discounting the economic value of their lives and their future when it decides whether and how much climate pollution to allow. They also assert the EPA intentionally allows discriminatory and life-threatening climate pollution, which is emitted by the fossil fuel sources of greenhouse gases it regulates, harming children’s health and welfare.
The United States Constitution protects their rights to equal protection of the law, life, and a life-sustaining climate.
WHAT ARE THE YOUTH’S CLAIMS?
These 18 children filed their lawsuit because they are experiencing harmful discrimination by their government and life-threatening climate change injuries, such as the loss of homes from wildfire, adverse health effects, displacement from floods, and being exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution, with lifelong consequences.
Here are just a few of the young plaintiffs in this case - and the climate harms they are experiencing:
GENESIS
Extreme heat days are increasing in California and, without air conditioning, Genesis must keep the windows in her house open in the summer, exposing her to ash from wildfire smoke and more pollen, which worsens her allergies and results in frequent runny noses, coughing, and congestion.
ZUBAYR AND MUAAWIYAH
Zubayr and Muaawiyah are brothers who live near several oil and gas wells. About 5 miles from their home is one of their favorite parks, which is next to an oil field which has experienced a spill. As they try to enjoy the outdoors, their health and safety is threatened by climate pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure.
MAYA W.
Maya suffers from bronchospasms and, given her asthma, experiences chest pains and severe headaches due to increasing wildfire smoke, driven by the climate crisis. Maya loves to play soccer but is unable to compete as competitively as she would like due to these impacts.
NOAH
Noah has spent significant portions of their childhood running from fires. The 2017 Tubbs Fire, 2018 Campfire, and the 2019 Kincaid Fires caused Noah’s family to evacuate, preventing Noah from going to school several days at a time. After the 2020 Walbridge Fire, Noah’s family decided to relocate, but they still face heat, fire, and smoke.
WHAT ARE THE YOUNG PLAINTIFFS ASKING FOR?
The children who filed Genesis v. EPA are asking the federal court to hear and weigh their evidence, then ultimately issue a declaratory judgment that the EPA has violated their fundamental constitutional rights to equal protection of the law and their fundamental rights to life.
The plaintiffs also ask, for the first time, for the federal courts to clarify the standard of judicial review to protect the equal protection rights of children as a unique and protected class that is different from adults.
Ultimately, the children of California seek to stop EPA from continuing to allow life-threatening levels of fossil fuel climate pollution and do what scientists say is necessary—phase out fossil fuel pollution no later than 2050.
The young plaintiffs are represented by Julia Olson and Andrea Rodgers, of Our Children’s Trust; Catherine Smith, Of Counsel to Our Children’s Trust; Philip Gregory, Gregory Law Group; Paul Hoffman, Director of Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, UC Irvine School of Law; and John Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.
Current Status
On February 11, 2025, Judge Fitzgerald granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, disregarding key evidence showing the harmful effects of the EPA’s policies and the unique vulnerability of children’s bodies to climate pollution. By dismissing the case without allowing the plaintiffs to present their evidence, Judge Fitzgerald has essentially decided that the government’s policies—policies that are contributing to the climate crisis—are beyond judicial review, despite the overwhelming evidence of harm.
In response to Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling, the youth plaintiffs filed an opening brief on July 2, 2025, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to reinstate their case and affirm that courts have a duty to hear constitutional claims brought by children whose lives and rights are imperiled by government policies. The youth plaintiffs now await a reply brief from the defendants.
major moments timeline
The following is a timeline of major moments, filings, and rulings in this case, from December 2023 to today:
Friday, December 8
December 10, 2023: Case Filed
Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Friday, December 8
MARCH 15, 2024: U.S. Department of Justice Files Motion to Dismiss
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case.
Tuesday, March 19
April 8, 2024: Attorneys for the Young Plaintiffs File Opposition
The attorneys for the young plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the EPA’s discriminatory conduct prioritizes the interests of the fossil fuel industry and corporations over children’s health and welfare, and therefore, the case should be permitted to move forward.
Tuesday, April 9
April 29, 2024: Young Plaintiffs and Their Attorneys Appeared in Court for Oral Arguments
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs presented oral arguments before Federal District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald in the Central District of California advocating for the plaintiff’s right to proceed to trial.
In her oral argument, Julia Olson, attorney for the young plaintiffs said, “When the EPA gives more weight to the lives of adults—because they vote, for instance, or have sway in our economy—they are discriminating against children. The EPA literally controls the safety of our air. By saying with their standards that it’s okay to poison that air, they’re setting these plaintiffs and all American children up for a lifetime of health problems.”
The plaintiffs will prove specific past injuries as well as prospective harms if the EPA does not change practices. This is about the EPA no longer being allowed to act with immunity and impunity,” she said.
Read the press release here.
Tuesday, April 30
May 3, 2024: Attorneys for Young Plaintiffs File Notice of Supplemental Authority
The attorneys for the young plaintiffs filed their response to the defendants’ notice of supplemental authority explaining the several reasons why the writ of mandamus granted by the Ninth Circuit in Juliana v. U.S. on May 1, 2024, does not control the redressability analysis on the Genesis v. EPA plaintiffs’ ongoing and prospective injuries and claims for relief.
Tuesday, May 7
May 8, 2024: Judge Grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
U.S. District Court Judge Fitzgerald granted the U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case and granted the youth plaintiffs’ request for permission to amend their complaint.
Friday, May 10
May 20, 2024: Attorneys for Youth Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
The attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Tuesday, May 21
July 22, 2024: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss
The defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, stating the plaintiffs lack Article III standing, ripeness, and claim to which the Court can grant relief.
Wednesday, July 24
August 12, 2024: Attorneys for Youth Plaintiffs File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
The attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss arguing that the “EPA’s actions constitutionally injure Children, a disenfranchised group with less political power than adults, warranting judicial intervention, not dismissal.”
Tuesday, August 13
September 30, 2024: Parties Present Oral Arguments
Attorneys for the young plaintiffs argued before Judge Fitzgerald as to why the case should proceed to trial. They argued that the EPA’s discriminatory practices prioritize adults’ interests over children’s health and futures, violating equal protection by subjecting children, a constitutionally protected group, to lifelong harm.
Monday, September 30
January 10, 2025: Plaintiffs File Notice of Supplemental Authority
The young plaintiffs submitted the Montana Supreme Court’s opinion in Held v. State of Montana as persuasive supplemental authority on the issue of Article III standing. In Held, the court affirmed standing of youth plaintiffs in a state constitutional climate case involving injuries caused by government policies.
The Montana Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that cases involving climate injuries are not shielded from constitutional challenges and upheld the district court’s detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which established that the plaintiffs had standing. The Montana Supreme Court’s reasoning offers robust and persuasive support for the Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding their own standing in Genesis.
Monday, January 13
February 11, 2025: Judge Grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Judge Fitzgerald granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, disregarding key evidence, ignoring climate evidence, and testimony from a Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz who clearly stated that the government’s discounting practices—policies that devalue the future health and well-being of young people—are exacerbating the climate crisis and disproportionately harming children.
Fitzgerald’s ruling also ignored expert testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Pinsky, who told the court that, “Though both adults and children can be affected by climate change, children are distinctly more vulnerable to life-long consequences for their physical and mental health in terms of both severity and duration. . . . The collective adult abdication of responsibility for their well-being inflicts a unique injury during this period of immaturity.”
Read the press release here.
Tuesday, February 11
April 10, 2025: Youth Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal
In response to Judge Fitzgerald’s case dismissal, the youth plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Friday, April 11
July 2, 2025: Youth Plaintiffs File Opening Brief at Ninth Circuit
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed an opening brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to reverse the lower court’s dismissal of their constitutional claims on the basis of standing.
The plaintiffs’ brief says the district court judge erred in closing the courthouse doors, to children, citing two major U.S. Supreme Court rulings on standing issued in June 2025—Gutierrez v. Saenz and Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA—which Plaintiffs’ lawyers say make this an open and shut case that the children can be heard. In their brief, they point to the children’s economic, physical and mental health injuries and the unequal treatment of them in EPA’s regulatory programs.
In Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a presumption that government policies do what they say they do and that plaintiffs who can show injuries from a policy, even amounting to just one dollar ($1) of loss, have standing to be heard on claims seeking to invalidate those policies.
In a similar vein, in Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Supreme Court ruled that when a plaintiff seeks “‘a change in [the] legal status’ of the parties” that is sufficient for standing. The Court made it clear that when a plaintiff seeks the end of a government policy that is a barrier to them in protecting their interests, that is good enough for standing.
Wednesday, July 2
TODAY: Awaiting Reply Brief
The youth plaintiffs now await a reply brief on their appeal from the defendants.
power forward together
The world’s only non-profit public interest law firm dedicated exclusively to securing the legal rights of youth to a healthy atmosphere and safe climate, based on the best available science.