In the case of In re United States, 2017, a group of young plaintiffs sued the federal government for failing to adequately address climate change. They argued that this failure violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. The U.S. Government requested a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court - an order compelling lower courts to dismiss the case as it was based on an unprecedented expansion of due process and endangering separation of powers doctrine. However, in July 2018, while acknowledging its breadth and noting that some claims may be grounded more in policy than law, SCOTUS denied this request without prejudice allowing for other avenues like trial or interlocutory appeal after discovery is completed at district court level.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re United States, 2017 argued that the majority's decision to allow a lawsuit brought by young people against the federal government over climate change to proceed was misguided. The dissenters believed that this case presented political questions which are not within the purview of judicial power and should be resolved through legislative or executive branches instead. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts could be used as tools for policy-making on complex issues like global warming, which they believe is beyond their constitutional role and expertise. Furthermore, they disagreed with allowing such broad claims without specific legal rights being violated or concrete harms suffered by plaintiffs. Lastly, they warned about potential separation-of-powers problems if courts were allowed to oversee extensive litigation potentially interfering with governmental functions.