67 Am. U. L. Rev. F. 49 (2018).

*Jane M.G. Foster Professor and Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, Cornell University.

The following Response addresses the difficult issues that the case of Julianna v. United States raises.  The issues are not just difficult legal questions, but at a deep level, the case implicates core issues of legitimacy.  While phrased in the language of separation of powers or justiciability, the heart of the political question doctrine, as this case has revealed, is what the proper obligation of the state to the people in whose name it purports to govern is.  While this inquiry presents a complex legal question about institutional competencies, it also an important political philosophical question.  One of the characteristics of constitutional adjudication is its capacity to redefine the boundaries of our constitutional commitments.  Julianna is one such case.  Blumm and Wood recognize this and lay out the case for finding a federal public trust duty.  This Response is phrased as a comment on Blumm and Wood and extends and highlights how they have identified just what is at stake.