A federal appeals court struck down the landmark Juliana v. United States environmental lawsuit Friday, saying that the judicial branch does not have the constitutional authority to design and implement the plaintiffs’ complex policy plan to remedy the consequences of climate change.

The three-judge panel recognized that “the record left little basis for denying that climate change was occurring at an increasingly rapid pace” and that it “conclusively established that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions,” wrote Judge Andrew Hurwitz in a 32-page opinion. However, the panel ruled that the courts did not have the constitutional power to provide proper redress for climate change’s consequences.

“Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power,” Hurwitz wrote. “Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.”

The lawsuit, originally filed in a Eugene district court on behalf of 21 young plaintiffs in 2015, included six Eugene residents, including 23-year-old Kelsey Juliana, a University of Oregon graduate. Their initial 100-page complaint argued, in part, that the government’s willful ignorance of the dangers of climate change constituted a violation of the public trust doctrine.

“These rights protect the rights of present and future generations to those essential natural resources that are of public concern to the citizens of our nation,” the complaint states.

Photos: Hundreds attend the Eugene rally for Juliana v. United States climate change lawsuit

Judge Josephine Staton, in a dissenting opinion from the appeals court, wrote that a federal court does not need to “manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief.”