G.B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

── G.B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT G.B., a minor, by and through her No. 25-2473 Guardian, G.P.; M.W., a minor, by and D.C. No. through her Guardian R.W.; M.A., a 2:23-cv-10345- minor, by and through her Guardian MWF-AGR M.T.; Z.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian S.W.; M.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian S.W.; D.R., a OPINION minor, by and through her Guardian A.P.; M.R., a minor, by and through their Guardian M.R.; M.D., a minor, by and through her Guardian S.A.; N.C., a minor, by and through their Guardian N.M.; I.W., a minor, by and through her Guardian C.W.; A.S., a minor, by and through his Guardian P.S.; A.L., a minor, by and through her Guardian E.L.; H.A., a minor, by and through his Guardian R.A.; N.R., a minor, by and through their Guardian S.R.; E.W., a minor, by and through her Guardian S.W.; A.J., a minor, by and through their Guardian A.J.; L.H., a minor, by and through her Guardian R.H.; D.S., a minor, by and through his Guardian R.K., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2 G.B. V. USEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LEE ZELDIN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; RUSSELL VOUGHT, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 5, 2026 San Francisco, California Filed April 9, 2026 Before: RONALD M. GOULD, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., and RYAN D. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.  G.B. V. USEPA 3 SUMMARY * Environmental Law The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing an action brought by eighteen minors against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal entities and officials (collectively, the Government) challenging the policy and practice of promulgating rules regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in reliance on cost-benefit analyses that “discount” the value of future costs and benefits. Plaintiffs alleged that the EPA’s use of discounting discriminates against children like them in violation of their constitutional rights because it favors present-day consumption over future consumption, thereby advantaging adults at the expense of minors. They further alleged that GHG regulations predicated on discounted future costs and benefits harm the environment because they allow greater GHG emissions, ultimately harming Plaintiffs. The panel agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain their suit. Plaintiffs’ discrimination theory failed to state a viable injury-in-fact to their equal protection rights. Plaintiffs’ alleged environmental harms were not fairly traceable to the Government’s discounting policies. Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that the Government’s discounting policies violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment was * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 G.B. V. USEPA foreclosed by circuit precedent because declaratory relief was unlikely to remedy Plaintiffs’ asserted injuries. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiffs further leave to amend their complaint because further amendment wou