The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a bid by 21 young people to revive a novel lawsuit claiming the U.S. government’s energy policies violate their rights to be protected from climate change.

The justices denied a request by the youth activists to hear their appeal of a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directing a federal judge in Oregon to dismiss the case after holding they lacked legal standing to sue.

The decision marks the end of Juliana v. United States, one of the longest-running climate change cases that youth activists have filed nationwide and one that the plaintiffs’ lawyers say helped sparked a broader youth-led movement for climate rights.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is not the end of the road and the impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone,” Julia Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Our Children’s Trust, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The legal group and its youth clients have filed a series of lawsuits accusing state and federal governments of exacerbating climate change by adopting policies that encourage or allow the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in violation of their rights.

While some cases have faltered, the Montana Supreme Court in December held that the state’s constitution guarantees a right to a stable climate system. Hawaii in June agreed to a first-in-the-nation settlement with young people to take action to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045.

In Monday’s case, the youth plaintiffs had alleged the U.S. government has permitted, authorized and subsidized fossil fuel extraction and consumption despite knowing those actions cause catastrophic global warming.

By contributing to climate change, the plaintiffs said U.S. energy policies violate their rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

But in a 2020 ruling, the 9th Circuit held it was beyond the power of the courts to order and supervise remedies designed to address climate change and that such complex policy decisions were better left to Congress and the executive branch.

The court sent the case back to the Oregon judge with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken instead allowed the plaintiffs to try to amend their complaint to keep it going, citing a change in the law.

A three-judge 9th Circuit panel in May 2024 said the 2020 ruling left no room to amend the complaint and directed Aiken to dismiss the case.