Protesters attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court held by the group Our Children's Trust Oct. 29, 2018 in Washington, DC. The group and the plaintiffs have vowed to keep fighting and to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review Friday's decision to toss the lawsuit. Win McNamee / Getty Images
An appeals court tossed out the landmark youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States Friday, arguing that the courts are not the place to resolve the climate crisis.
<p>The three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the 21 young plaintiffs that the U.S. government had actively contributed to climate change by supporting a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil-fuel</a> based economy and that the young people had been injured by its actions, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/17/climate-change-lawsuit-activists-lose-appeal-sue-us-" target="_blank">The Guardian explained</a>. However, the majority ruled that the courts did not have the power to order a plan for government action to address the crisis, as the 12-to-23-year-old plaintiffs had requested.</p><p>"Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power," Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote in the court's <a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/01/17/18-36082.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>. "Rather, the plaintiffs' impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government."</p>
<div id="eb833" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="97NZ941579533272"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1218285927920881664" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">THIS ISN’T OVER! BREAKING: Today, a divided Court recognized the gravity of the evidence on the youth plaintiffs’ i… https://t.co/KDJl6uKpuu</div> — Our Children's Trust (@Our Children's Trust)<a href="https://twitter.com/youthvgov/statuses/1218285927920881664">1579296974.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The decision raises the question of where young people can turn to ensure their futures are protected.</p><p>"The idea that their only recourse is to go to the very branches of government that are violating their rights when half of them can't even vote is a preposterous notion," the young people's lead lawyer Julia Olson told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/climate/juliana-climate-case.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>In her dissent, Judge Josephine L. Staton agreed, criticizing her colleagues for "throw[ing] up their hands."</p><p>"Where is the hope in today's decision?" she wrote. "Plaintiffs' claims are based on science, specifically, an impending point of no return. If plaintiffs' fears, backed by the government's own studies, prove true, history will not judge us kindly. When the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors, and storms ravage everything between, those remaining will ask: Why did so many do so little?"</p><p>The lawsuit was filed in 2015 by the 21 plaintiffs with the support of the nonprofit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/our-childrens-trust" target="_self">Our Children's Trust</a>, according to <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2020/01/17/juliana-ninth-circuit-youth-climate-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Climate Liability News</a>. It argues that by supporting a fossil-fuel based economy despite evidence it was contributing to climate change, the federal government violated the public trust and the young plaintiffs' constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.</p><p>For example, plaintiff Levi Draheim, 12, has had to repeatedly evacuate his home in Satellite Beach, Florida because of more extreme storms, according to The Guardian. Jaime Butler, 19, has been separated from her home and relatives in Navajo Nation because of water insecurity.</p>
<p>The federal government has tried to dismiss the case several times since it was filed, according to Climate Liability News. And Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark told The New York Times that the government was "pleased with the outcome" of Friday's decision.</p><p>However, Our Children's Trust and the plaintiffs have vowed to keep fighting and to ask the full Ninth Circuit to review the decision, the group announced in a <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5e22508873d1bc4c30fad90d/1579307146820/Juliana+Press+Release+1-17-20.pdf" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>"We will continue this case because only the courts can help us," Draheim said. "We brought this lawsuit to secure our liberties and protect our lives and our homes. Much like the civil rights cases, we firmly believe the courts can vindicate our constitutional rights and we will not stop until we get a decision that says so."</p><p>If the full Ninth Circle refuses to hear the case, the group would then have to appeal to the Supreme Court, Climate Liability News explained.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Young people sue government over climate change.
During last week's Fridays for Future school strike, 15 Canadian kids ranging in age from 10-19 stood on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery to announce that they filed suit against the Canadian government for injuries they allege stem from the climate crisis, according the Vancouver Sun.
<p>The <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5db33d55a621353113c8e4e9/1572027734325/Statement+of+Claim+2019+10+25+FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">suit</a>, called <em>La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen, </em>claims the Canadian government has violated their constitutional right to "life, liberty, and security of the person" by permitting, promoting and enabling fossil fuel development in spite of knowing the risks associated with climate change, as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03253-5" target="_blank">Nature</a> reported. The plaintiffs argue that the government's championing of fossil fuels infringes on their rights under the <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html" target="_blank">Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</a> and is violating the public trust doctrine, as <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/10/25/canada-government-youth-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Climate Liability News reported</a>.</p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="34a38973cf8c032db845500c6cbc8dde"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/DavidSuzukiFoundation/videos/528313044405773/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div><p>The lawsuit also states that the climate crisis will interfere with basic equality rights, since the most severe effects of will mostly affect future generations who will be disproportionally harmed by current environmental degradation.</p><p>"Basically, what we're arguing is that the courts must hold this generation to account for harms that are being done to the next," said Chris Tollefson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and a specialist in environmental law at the University of Victoria in Canada, as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03253-5" target="_blank">Nature reported</a>.</p><p>"We want to stand up now and say that our future matters to us," said 17-year-old Sierra Robinson, one of the plaintiffs, as <a href="https://grist.org/beacon/another-kids-climate-lawsuit-eh/" target="_blank">Grist</a> reported. "We want our voices to be heard, and we want our climate to be protected for us in the future."</p><p>The plaintiffs have asked the court to order the federal government to develop and to implement an enforceable plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions "in a manner consistent with what best available science indicates is needed for the federal government to protect young Canadians, do its fair share to stabilize the climate system and avert the catastrophic consequences of climate change," <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5db33d55a621353113c8e4e9/1572027734325/Statement+of+Claim+2019+10+25+FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">court documents read</a>.</p><p>Hiroki Masuzumi, a 19-year-old plaintiff from the remote town of Fort Good Hope in the Northwest Territory, told the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nwt-teen-suing-canadian-government-climate-change-1.5336582" target="_blank">CBC</a> that the evidence of the climate crisis is apparent where she lives on the banks of the Mackenzie River.</p>
<p>"The weather patterns are changing drastically and the ecosystems are also changing. Warmer weather, warmer winters," Masuzumi said. "It's a little bit worrying. It's kind of scary once you notice this stuff happening."</p><p>The plaintiffs are represented by Arvay Finlay and Tollefson Law Corporation, with additional support from Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation (CELL), David Suzuki Foundation and Our Children's Trust, which is leading the landmark American youth climate case <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us" target="_blank"><em>Juliana v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/10/25/canada-government-youth-lawsuit/" target="_blank">according to Climate Liability News</a>.</p><p>Besides the U.S. and Canada, similar cases have been filed by youth in the Netherlands, Norway, Colombia, New Zealand and Pakistan. Only the Netherlands' case has been successful so far, according to <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/youth-to-sue-canadian-government-for-climate-change-harms-discrimination-1.4654147" target="_blank">CTV News</a>.</p><p>The Dutch case, which was filed on behalf of 900 citizens, ordered the government to cut the cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels, as <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/youth-to-sue-canadian-government-for-climate-change-harms-discrimination-1.4654147" target="_blank">CTV News reported</a>.</p><p>The case in Canada was filed just days after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won reelection, though his government lost its parliamentary majority. The case hangs on an untested legal theory since the Canadian constitution does not name a healthy environment as a right. Therefore, the plaintiffs need to make the case that the adverse effects of the climate crisis will threaten other fundamental rights, as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03253-5" target="_blank">Nature reported</a>.</p><p>It also offers minors, who have no voice in elections, a chance to have their say in future policy. "This lawsuit is helping me express my anger and my fear," said Ira Reinhart-Smith, a 15-year-old plaintiff, as <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03253-5" target="_blank">Nature</a> reported. "My generation and generations to come are going to be exposed to things that the world has never been exposed to before."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Canada's Starving Grizzlies Mean Low Salmon Stock - EcoWatch ›
- Canada Passes 'Free Willy' Bill Banning Whale and Dolphin Captivity ›
- Canada Tells Flood Victims It's Time to Move - EcoWatch ›
- We Can't Close Our Eyes to Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Andrea Rodgers, second from the right, takes notes during a hearing in the Juliana v. U.S. case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, Oregon on June 4. Colleague Elizabeth Brown sits to her left, while colleague Julia Olson sits on her right, with co-council Philip Gregory on Julia's right. Robin Loznak / Our Children's Trust
By Fran Korten
On June 4, Andrea Rodgers was in the front row of attorneys sitting before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court. The court session, held in Portland, Oregon, was to determine whether the climate change lawsuit (Juliana v. United States) brought by 21 young plaintiffs should be dismissed, as requested by the U.S. government, or go on to trial.
<p>It's the latest of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/11/2/18029146/climate-change-lawsuit-children-scotus-supreme-court-juliana" target="_blank">many delays</a> for the lawsuit, which was first filed in 2015 by the then-youth plaintiffs. The judges' decision on this most recent request to dismiss the case is expected sometime in the next few months.</p>
<p>Rodgers is a senior attorney for Our Children's Trust, the nonprofit based in Eugene, Oregon, that is supporting the young plaintiffs — the eldest of whom are now young adults while the youngest is 11 — in making their case.</p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/climate/climate-lawsuit-juliana.html" target="_blank">They're suing the U.S. government</a> for endangering their future by supporting a fossil fuel-based energy system, despite knowledge of how that would contribute to the current climate disaster. Rodgers is also the lead attorney for climate-related suits on behalf of children in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-lawsuit/us-youth-activists-will-appeal-setback-to-climate-lawsuit-lawyer-says-idUSKBN1L02BD" target="_blank">states of Washington and Florida</a>.</p><p>I spoke with Rodgers about the lawsuit, the youth movements erupting around the world in response to governments' inaction on climate change, and about preparing her own children for a future marked by the climate disaster.</p><p><em>This interview has been edited for clarity and length, and Andrea Rodgers reviewed the edits for accuracy.</em></p>
<p>Fran Korten: In the 9th Circuit hearing on June 4, Judge Andrew Hurwitz remarked that with this suit you are asking the court to break new ground. Are you?</p><p>Andrea Rodgers: We are not breaking ground with respect to our claims that the government's conduct is violating the youth's constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and equal protection of the law.</p><p>Where we're breaking new legal ground is with respect to a new fundamental right—the right to a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties. The scale of the <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/after-40-years-of-government-inaction-on-climate-have-we-finally-turned-a-corner-20190222" target="_blank">government misconduct</a> in this case is quite unprecedented. Never before has there been this kind of government-created public health disaster at such a large scale.</p><p>Korten: This case has been stalled for more than four years by the government's motions to dismiss. How are the plaintiffs in this case reacting to all this delay?</p><p>Rodgers: Many of these kids have been engaged in this litigation for a fifth or more of their lives. They're ready to get their evidence presented to a court. So it's frustrating. But they're also confident that they're going to get their stories told and that justice will be done. They're just unfortunately seeing that sometimes justice is not swift.</p><p>Korten: What gives them the confidence that they will be heard?</p><p>Rodgers: They know that they have constitutional rights. They've read the Constitution. They see that they have the right to life and liberty. And they understand the science and how their rights are being infringed upon. Under our system of government, you can go to court to get redress. So they are confident that the courts will appropriately apply the law to protect them.</p>
<p>Korten: How do you see this youth-based lawsuit relating to other youth-led movements like the Sunrise movement, Zero Hour, Extinction Rebellion and the worldwide Friday strikes led by Greta Thunberg in Sweden?</p><p>Rodgers: It's really exciting to see these other youth movements develop. I think a lot of people were inspired by these young plaintiffs who, back in 2010, decided to bring their cases to court. Youth today are so aware of what other youth are doing that these movements build off of one another—the students fighting gun violence and [racism] and so much more. They're having these conversations about the world that they want to live in and that they believe that they're entitled to as a matter of law. So it's exciting to see that. As an adult, you want kids who are active in the democratic process. And this is such an important part of that.</p><p>Korten: Do you think the activism among the youth will have any effect on the courts' decisions in this case?</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTYxNDc3MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTcxODc4NX0.yJ12PfIPG3krkpZJNcL04r1quu4vV9y336567YFcn68/img.jpg?width=980" id="5e309" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="804df6ea80a2dd508654281dc15d3fda" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Left to right, attorney Andrea Rodgers, Juliana youth plaintiff Aji Piper, lead counsel Julia Olson and Juliana youth plaintiff Hazel Van Ummersen, walk to a court hearing in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, Oregon on June 4.
Robin Loznak / Our Children's Trust
<p>Rodgers: The court doesn't look to what's going on outside the courtroom in order to render a legal decision. But the courts are also made up of judges who are human and aware of the world around them. They understand when there is societal change going on. You see that with the gay marriage decision. I don't think that decision would have happened without the "Love Is Love" and other campaigns. Same thing with Brown v. Board of Education and the bus boycotts. So the movements outside of the courtroom are critical. We have three branches of government, and they all know what the other is doing. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the courts are influenced directly. It's really much more indirect, long term and bigger picture.</p><p><span></span>Korten: If you do go to trial, you will bring testimony from many experts. But much of that information is already in the news, in academic papers and reviewed in governmental panels. Is there any special value to having it aired in court?</p><p>Rodgers: Absolutely. Because in court, it's sworn testimony under oath. Scientific testimony has to go through a very rigorous process to be admissible in a court of law. Junk science is thrown out or considered unreliable. There are scientific standards for what's admissible in a court of law. The person delivering testimony has to be considered an expert in the fields in which they're testifying. There's no fake news in the court because that's considered perjury. And then the witness is cross-examined. So it gives the other side an opportunity to poke holes in their testimony and to bring in other conflicting information.</p><p>We have 23 expert witnesses. People like James Hansen, Joseph Stiglitz, Frank Ackerman, Harold Wanless, Steve Running, Hugh Goldberg, Pete Erickson and [James Gustave] Speth, all of whom are the top experts in their fields. It'll be the trial of the century.</p><p>Korten: What is the best outcome you could imagine from this suit?</p><p>Rodgers: A court order recognizing that these youth have constitutional rights and that the government is violating those constitutional rights. And then a court order directing the defendants—the government agencies—to come up with a plan to bring the energy system into constitutional compliance.</p><p>While the courts can order the government to make a plan, they don't write policies. That's why things like the Green New Deal and other climate change policies are so critical. We have to have the policies ready because our government is not going to be quick to develop a remedial plan.</p><p>Korten: What can ordinary citizens do to support this case?</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTYxNDc2Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDI3NTA4M30.BYJz_MxI9PYc-7U0VzmZHiABMzAwzZfkzK3tT7eHddc/img.jpg?width=980" id="4a4f0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e5e47d603b8733915594e565e6fb6cfb" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Attorney Andrea Rodgers being interviewed at a press conference on the steps of the Miami Dade County Courthouse in 2018. Rodgers was representing Florida youth in a climate change lawsuit against the state of Florida.
Robin Loznak / Our Children's Trust
<p>Rodgers: On the Our Children's Trust website, there are toolkits so that supporters can get engaged and support the youth plaintiffs. You can teach young people about the suit and their constitutional rights in school. There are ways to utilize the litigation to galvanize members of the community in support of science-based climate action. There are people getting congressional and other elected leaders to recognize that there's a fundamental right to a stable climate system.</p><p>Korten: You recently spoke at the Bainbridge Island Climate and Energy Forum in Washington state. How do you see the value of local actions such as that one?</p><p>Rodgers: Local action is the primary way that people in the community are learning about climate change. This kind of local forum can keep people aware of policy efforts and making phone calls on legislation or learning about election issues. The other thing a local forum does is to bind us together as a community. Climate change is a very difficult issue. It's easy to throw up your hands and give up. When you're working on this issue within a community, that's so much more powerful. It keeps you going <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/5-ways-communities-are-coping-with-climate-anxiety-20180822" target="_blank">when you feel frustrated or disheartened</a>. You have that community to lean on.</p><p>Korten: You are a mother. How do you <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/talking-to-kids-climate-change-advice-20190307" target="_blank">help your children understand</a>what you're fighting for without scaring them?</p><p>Rodgers: It's really hard. My daughter is 8, and my son 11. You don't want them to think that there is no future for the planet. But at the same time I want them to recognize the reality of what's going on and what the scientists say. This is going to be the issue they will work on because it's going to affect their world in every way imaginable. So they need to be prepared for that.</p><p>I try to engender within them a love and appreciation for the natural world and then the understanding that they're going to need to fight to protect it. It shouldn't have to be a fight, but it really is. We saw that in court. The government's lawyer was advocating that there shouldn't be a right to a stable climate system even though his children and his grandchildren are dependent upon that for their lives. But there he was making those arguments, as scary as that is. So my own children are going to need to know the reality and carry the fight forward.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/youth-climate-movement-lawsuit-activists-20190620" target="_blank">YES! Magazine</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/core/dashboard/editor/2638943359?#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Emma Bray of Denver, a plaintiff on the youth-led climate lawsuit, Martinez v. COGCC. @youthvgov / Twitter
Colorado's oil and gas industry breathed a sigh of relief on Monday after the state's highest court overturned a lower court decision that said state regulators must consider public health and the environment in permitting oil and gas production.
The unanimous ruling was a disappointment for the teenage plaintiffs, including high-profile climate activist Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, who led the closely watched lawsuit against the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC).
<p>
"To know that the judges in the highest court of my state believe that the interests of the oil and gas industry come before the public health, safety and welfare of my fellow Coloradans is shameful," the 18-year-old from Boulder said in a
<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/01/14/co-supreme-court-hands-another-victory-oil-and-gas-industry" target="_blank">press release</a>.
</p><p>
"But," Martinez added, "I want you all to know that this fight for climate justice is far from over. My fellow plaintiffs, youth around the world, and I will continue to stand up for our right to a healthy future."
</p><p>
<span></span>The lawsuit—backed by <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a>, the same non-profit supporting the young plaintiffs in the landmark federal lawsuit <em><a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit" target="_blank">Juliana v. United States</a></em>—was originally filed in November 2013 on behalf of seven young Coloradans who are all members of the Boulder-based youth group <a href="https://www.earthguardians.org/" target="_blank">Earth Guardians</a>.
</p><p>
They demanded that the COGCC refuse oil and gas development permits "unless the best available science demonstrates, and an independent, third-party organization confirms, that drilling can occur in a manner that does not cumulatively, with other actions, impair Colorado's atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land resources, does not adversely impact human health, and does not contribute to
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/6-colorado-teenagers-file-appeal-in-fracking-and-climate-lawsuit-1891078043.html" target="_blank">climate change</a>."
</p><p>
Ultimately, as
<a href="https://coloradosun.com/2019/01/15/colorado-supreme-court-martinez-oil-gas-explained/" target="_blank">the Colorado Sun</a> noted, the activists were hoping to stamp out Colorado's oil and gas activities and prompt a "state-wide ban on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking">fracking</a>," as then-13-year-old Martinez <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsEhlK2tccE&feature=youtu.be&t=46" target="_blank">explained</a>.</p><p>
Instead, Justice Richard Gabriel ruled Monday that
<a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-34/oil-and-natural-gas/article-60/section-34-60-102/" target="_blank">current state law</a> requires <span></span>regulators to balance oil and gas development with protecting public health, the environment and wildlife.
</p><p>
The decision states:
</p><blockquote>
"[T]he pertinent provisions make clear that the Commission is required (1) to foster the development of oil and gas resources, protecting and enforcing the rights of owners and producers, and (2) in doing so, to prevent and mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts to the extent necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, but only after taking into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility."
</blockquote><p>
Basically, the ruling upholds the "Colorado way of doing business," Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said as quoted by <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/14/colorado-supreme-court-oil-gas-martinez-decision/" target="_blank">The Denver Post</a>.
</p><p>
He added that under state law, the COGCC's regulations for the oil and natural gas industry are the most extensive and stringent in the country.
</p><p>
For fracking opponents, it's the law itself that's the problem. Julia Olson, the executive director of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/01/14/co-supreme-court-hands-another-victory-oil-and-gas-industry" target="_blank">stated</a> that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Act makes it clear that the rule should be "amended or set aside as unconstitutional" as it allows "unfettered discretion to promote Colorado's dangerous and pervasive oil and gas development at the expense of the people."
</p><p>
Undeterred by the ruling, State House Speaker KC Becker said she will work to change Colorado law so the fossil fuel industry will do more to protect public health and the environment, as reported by <a href="https://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-supreme-court-finds-for-state-regulators-in-martinez-oil-and-gas-case" target="_blank">Colorado Public Radio</a>.
</p><p>
"It puts the decision back into the hands of lawmakers to take action and we are committed to addressing this concern this legislative session," <a href="https://twitter.com/kcbecker/status/1084900168061804544" target="_blank">Becker</a> also tweeted.
</p><p>
In an online <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/gov-polis-responds-colorado-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-decision" target="_blank">statement</a>, new Gov. Jared Polis—who <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/colorado-governor-polis-renewable-energy-2618515156.html">wants to</a> transition Colorado to 100 percent <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy" target="_self">renewable energy</a> by 2040—said he was "disappointed" by the court's ruling.
</p><p>
He noted, "it only highlights the need to work with the Legislature and the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission to more safely develop our state's natural resources and protect our citizens from harm."
</p><p>
The plaintiffs also remain optimistic.
</p><p>
<span></span>"The last couple years have proven that youth have the opportunity to be heard in the courts and the community. Not a single person, company or corporation can silence the young generation's voices," Emma Bray, 19-year-old plaintiff from Denver, said in a press release. "We will continue the fight for our Earth and our future, despite the mountains we need to climb and the setbacks that we will overcome. Regardless of the court's decision in our case, the fight will continue."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="7cd5b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EUZQL11576662586"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="857744933872185349" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">3,000 Wells Shut Down in Colorado After Fatal House Explosion https://t.co/1itEkcKDEX @EcoWatch</div> — DeSmogBlog (@DeSmogBlog)<a href="https://twitter.com/DeSmogBlog/statuses/857744933872185349">1493337303.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Supporters of the youth climate lawsuit rally outside the Supreme Court. Win McNamee / Getty Images
It was a good weekend for justice in America, which isn't something we get to say very often these days. That's because Friday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court kicked it off with a hopeful decision: The Trump administration can't stop the historic youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States from going to trial.
<p><a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a>, the organization supporting the young people behind the case, summed up the mood with a tweet featuring a quote from 22-year-old plaintiff Kelsey Juliana: "Stay with us, in hope and in the pursuit of justice."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="59dda" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KB59PV1576663237"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1058522079912488960" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: United States Supreme Court Denies Trump Administration’s Request for Stay - Juliana v. United States… https://t.co/rXT8Bxz75v</div> — Our Children's Trust (@Our Children's Trust)<a href="https://twitter.com/youthvgov/statuses/1058522079912488960">1541206304.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>The lawsuit was first filed back in 2015 on behalf of 21 young people who argue that their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property have been violated by the government's scandalous inaction on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>. In a year of historic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_self">wildfires</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricanes" target="_self">hurricanes</a>, it's pretty easy to see where they're coming from. It's also easy to see their argument had first the Obama administration and now the Trump administration spooked. Both administrations tried multiple times to stop the case from going to trial.<br></p><p>"We've been confident throughout this case that we would get to trial, and I believe we will get to trial," Our Children's Trust executive director and attorney in the case Julia Olson told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-kids-climate-lawsuit-against-us-government/2018/11/02/34bd7ee6-d7af-11e8-83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html?utm_term=.2b7c584d0e89" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. "We have overcome everything the government has thrown at us. It is not luck. It is the strength of the case and the strength of the evidence and the strength of the legal arguments we are making." </p><p>This most recent attempt by the Trump administration to block the case was a nail-biter, though, because the Supreme Court actually delayed the start of the trial, which had been set for Oct. 29, while they considered it. </p><p>This was alarming because the Supreme Court had <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/supreme-court-youth-climate-case-2591440617.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&share_id=3811309&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=EcoWatch" target="_self">rejected</a> a similar bid by the administration to block the case in July. But between July and October one important thing had changed. Justice Anthony Roberts had retired and Justice Brett Kavanaugh had taken his place. </p><p>EcoWatch <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/youth-climate-lawsuit-supreme-court-2614235440.html" target="_blank">explained at the time</a> why this was troubling: </p><blockquote>Kennedy was a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kennedy-supreme-court-environmental-laws-2582036709.html" target="_self">swing voter</a> on environmental issues who sometimes ruled in favor of increased regulations despite his conservative credentials. Kavanaugh's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kavanaugh-supreme-court-environment-epa-2585783500.html" target="_self">record is much more consistently anti-regulation</a> when it comes to environmental cases. He also lied during the confirmation hearings, presenting his past rulings as more environmentally friendly than others familiar with the cases said they were. After Kennedy announced his retirement, Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus worried a more conservative court might make it harder for private citizens to sue the government over climate change.</blockquote><p>But for now it is unknown how Kavanaugh's presence on the court impacted its decision to let the case proceed. Justice Clarence Thomas and Trump's other appointee Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have sided with the administration and blocked the case, but the others kept mum on how they voted. </p><p>The Supreme Court isn't necessarily gung-ho about the legal arguments made in <em>Juliana v. United States</em>. It acknowledged that the case was "based on an assortment of unprecedented legal theories," but ultimately ruled that government should seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first. </p><p>However, in good news for the young plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also denied the administration's attempt to stop the case on Friday. The plaintiffs immediately filed a request in the District Courts to begin the process of getting the trial back on schedule, and hopefully they will get their day in court soon.</p><p>In a full quote from the Our Children's Trust <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5bdd0596f950b72a53011c0c/1541211544365/2018.11.02+SCOTUS+Decision+x539.pdf" target="_blank">press release</a>, Kelsey Juliana expressed both the frustration and worry caused by the constant delays, as well as the admirable persistence she and the other plaintiffs demonstrate as the fight for a better future for all of us:</p><blockquote>Today we move forward. I want to trust that we are truly on track for trial without having further delays, but these defendants are treating this case, our democracy, and the security of mine and future generations like it's a game. I'm tired of playing this game. These petitions for stay and dismissal are exhausting. To everyone who has invested in this case, to those who've followed along our journey for the past three years and counting: stay with us, in hope and in the pursuit of justice.</blockquote><p>Fight on, Kelsey! We'll stay with you! </p>
Read More
Show Less
Youth plaintiff Levi Draheim. Robin Loznak
Monday was set to be the first day of a landmark youth climate trial against the federal government over climate change, three years after the lawsuit was first filed.
But last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a temporary stay as it considers a last-ditch attempt by the Trump administration to throw out the case from proceeding to trial.
<p>
In response, the 21 youth plaintiffs of
<em><a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/" target="_blank">Juliana v. United States</a></em>, their attorneys and thousands of supporters <a href="https://www.youthvgov.org/trial" target="_blank">rallied around the nation</a> on Sunday and Monday to demand that the kids have their day in court.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="8cb7e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2D2KAZ1576662656"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1056929138920120320" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I stand in solidarity with @youthvgov today as they coordinate rallies across the nation to keep our government acc… https://t.co/8Nzxwk1ypy</div> — Leonardo DiCaprio (@Leonardo DiCaprio)<a href="https://twitter.com/LeoDiCaprio/statuses/1056929138920120320">1540826518.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>More than <a href="https://twitter.com/350/status/1056940442342907906" target="_blank">90 scheduled events</a> were organized across 41 states, with key rallies in San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Portland, Washington, DC, Seattle, Colorado Springs and St. Paul.<br></p><p>The central rally was held Monday on the steps of the Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, where the trial was supposed to take place.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b69e8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2UDPVM1576662656"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1056942451376586752" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">There are 100 people rallying with @youthvgov in DC right now demanding that young people be heard! The US governme… https://t.co/h1LXSGRxL2</div> — Karina Gonzalez (@Karina Gonzalez)<a href="https://twitter.com/Karinabgonzalez/statuses/1056942451376586752">1540829692.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>A "huge spirited" crowd of 1,500 people—including 500 students who walked out of local high schools and the University of Oregon—braved occasional rains to attend the event, according to <a href="https://twitter.com/350/status/1056955688805634049" target="_blank">organizers</a>.<br></p><p>
<a href="http://world.350.org/eugene/" target="_blank">350 Eugene</a> director Patty Hine, Oregon State Senator James Manning, the youth plaintiffs and their attorneys gave speeches.
</p><p>
"The power of the people is more powerful than the people in power," 18-year-old plaintiff and hip-hop artist Xiuhtezcatl Martinez rapped in a stirring speech at the rally. "This is a movement founded in love."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="bf62b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="PEO0RN1576662657"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1056952850947825664" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Hundreds of students and community members attend #LetTheYouthBeHeard rally in Eugene, Ore. in support of the Julia… https://t.co/43P6K6NmzY</div> — Sarah Northrop (@Sarah Northrop)<a href="https://twitter.com/SARTAKESPICS/statuses/1056952850947825664">1540832171.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
The historic lawsuit was initiated by a group of teenagers and young adults against the U.S. government. They claim the government violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by enacting policies that encourage climate change. The lawsuit was filed during the Obama administration and has survived multiple attempts by both administrations to halt the case. That was until Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court.
</p><p>
"Our constitutional democracy allows us to protect our liberty without declaring independence from our government, so long as those who govern assent to review by our courts and let the facts be told," Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of
<a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a> and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said in a <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases/" target="_blank">press release</a>. "These young people deserve that chance to present their case against those who govern and let the light fall where it may."
</p><p>
Kiran Oommen, a 21-year-old plaintiff, added in the press release, "On Monday, we rally for our right as American citizens to a fair trial. No matter how much the federal government might try to deny us that right, we will have our day in court. "
</p><p>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/youthvgov/videos/185501559040585/" target="_blank">Watch here</a> for a Facebook Live of the Oregon rally.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="33bb2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="31WCGD1576662657"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1054409396149764096" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Supreme Court Puts Historic Youth Climate Lawsuit on Hold @youthvgov #youthclimatecase #julianavus… https://t.co/FZgME1aEg8</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1054409396149764096">1540225764.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Some of the young plaintiffs in landmark climate case Juliana v. United States. Our Children's Trust
The U.S. Supreme Court put a landmark climate case on pause Friday while it considers a last-ditch attempt by the Trump administration to stop it from proceeding to trial, Climate Liability News reported.
<p><a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit" target="_blank"><em>Juliana v. United States</em></a> is a historic lawsuit brought by 21 young people against the U.S. government, arguing that it has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by enacting policies that encourage <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>. It was filed during the Obama administration and has so far survived attempts by both administrations to toss it. But that was before Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court.</p><div>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="f82a6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="NDYZ9F1576663329"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1053424874880827392" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered an administrative stay on Juliana v. U.S.</div> — Our Children's Trust (@Our Children's Trust)<a href="https://twitter.com/youthvgov/statuses/1053424874880827392">1539991036.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>The Trump administration is asking for something called a "writ of mandamus," an unusual type of appeal in which a higher court overturns a lower court before a verdict has even been reached. The administration had asked both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop <em>Juliana v. United States</em> using this mechanism various times. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused twice, and the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/supreme-court-youth-climate-case-2591440617.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&share_id=3811309&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=EcoWatch" target="_self">already refused once in July</a>.<br></p><p>Julia Olsen, co-lead counsel for the case and executive director of <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a>, the non-profit supporting the young plaintiffs, remained confident the Supreme Court would ultimately make the same decision it did this summer.</p><p>"We are confident once Chief Justice Roberts and the full Court receive the youth plaintiffs' response to defendants' mischaracterization of their case, the trial will proceed," Olsen said via Our Children's Trust's <a href="https://twitter.com/youthvgov/status/1053424874880827392" target="_blank">Twitter feed</a>. "As the Supreme Court has recognized in innumerable cases, review of constitutional questions is better done on a full record where the evidence is presented and weighed by the trier of fact. This case is about already recognized fundamental rights and children's rights of equal protection under the law."</p><p>Of course, between July and now, Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired and Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed to take his place. Kennedy was a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kennedy-supreme-court-environmental-laws-2582036709.html" target="_self">swing voter</a> on environmental issues who sometimes ruled in favor of increased regulations despite his conservative credentials. Kavanaugh's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kavanaugh-supreme-court-environment-epa-2585783500.html" target="_blank">record is much more consistently anti-regulation</a> when it comes to environmental cases. He also lied during the confirmation hearings, presenting his past rulings as more environmentally friendly than others familiar with the cases said they were. After Kennedy announced his retirement, Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus worried a more conservative court might make it harder for private citizens to sue the government over climate change.<br></p><p>The Supreme Court has now asked the young plaintiffs to respond to the government's appeal by Wednesday, Oct. 24. The trial was originally set to begin in Eugene, Oregon on Oct. 29.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="ed5eb" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="LWBHMS1576663329"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1048220559786561536" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Kavanaugh Also Lied About His #Environmental Record #KavenaughInvestigation #ChristineBlasleyFord https://t.co/Iv4EnOcLW6</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1048220559786561536">1538750231.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><br></p></div>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Fossil-fueled power plant. glasseyes view...up&away / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0
Once again, the Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a groundbreaking constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, just over a week before the case heads to trial in Eugene, Oregon.
On Thursday, the Department of Justice filed a second "writ of mandamus" petition— an uncommonly used legal maneuver—and application for stay with the high court.
<p>
Department of Justice attorneys <a href="https://t.co/xkuBsSHPqo" target="_blank" title="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18A410.pdf">described</a> the "impending harm" to the defendants as follows:
</p><blockquote>
"Absent relief from this Court, the government imminently will be forced to participate in a 50-day trial that would violate bedrock requirements for agency decisionmaking and judicial review imposed by the [Administrative Procedure Act] and the separation of powers."
</blockquote><p>
In July,
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/supreme-court-youth-climate-case-2591440617.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&share_id=3811309&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=EcoWatch" target="_self">the Supreme Court ruled</a> that the Trump administration's motion to dismiss the case was "premature." However, that order was issued before <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kavanaughs-environmental-record-2610220986.html">Justice Brett Kavanaugh</a>'s confirmation.
</p><p>
<em><a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit" target="_blank">Juliana v. United States</a></em><a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit" target="_blank"></a>, originally filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, targets the government for creating policies that encouraged climate change, and for violating the country's youngest citizens their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, as well as failing to protect essential public trust resources. The Trump administration inherited the case and both administrations have tried to throw out it out.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="710f2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3MS0KM1576662668"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1052990402188509196" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: United States Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Stop Children’s Constitutional Case on the Eve of Trial.… https://t.co/wPvb0Qx6ZZ</div> — Our Children's Trust (@Our Children's Trust)<a href="https://twitter.com/youthvgov/statuses/1052990402188509196">1539887450.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
"We are 6 business days from a trial we have been preparing for for three years," Vic Barrett, a 19-year-old plaintiff from White Plains, New York, said in a <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases/">press release</a> in response to the government's petition. "The lengths my own government is going to to get this case thrown out and avoid trial is absurd and offensive."
</p><p>
<span></span>A federal judge on Monday issued another ruling that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/youth-climate-case-2612598943.html">preserved the trial's start date</a> on Oct. 29, unless the Supreme Court or the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit intervenes.
</p><p>
In the 62-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken largely rejected the government's arguments to stop the case <em></em>but granted a motion to dismiss President Donald Trump as a defendant.
</p><p>
<span></span>On Friday, government attorneys filed a third writ of mandamus petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay district court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision on those filings, according to <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a>, the non-profit group supporting the youth plaintiffs. Judges with the Ninth Circuit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kids-climate-lawsuit-trial-2544414443.html" target="_self">denied</a> the first two petitions, saying the petitions were not justified.
</p><p>
"If the United States Supreme Court allows the federal branch of government to act in this manner, stops this case and denies us our right as young people to be heard in a court of law, the institutional legitimacy of this highest court will be harmed," Aji Piper, an 18-year-old plaintiff from Seattle, added in the press release. "At this moment in our country's history when we are so divided, it is more important than ever that the judicial branch of our government maintains the trust and respect of the American public. There is nothing great about a country that abandons its children and future generations."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="9ad04" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2LQ8QW1576662668"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1051936802070831105" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Groundbreaking Youth Climate Lawsuit Against U.S. Government Can Proceed #OurChildrensTrust #youthvgov… https://t.co/wNHdcR5RQc</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1051936802070831105">1539636252.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Robin Loznak
A federal judge on Monday rejected the Trump administration's last-ditch efforts to derail a landmark constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, preserving the trial start date of Oct. 29 in Eugene, Oregon.
In a 62-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken denied yet another attempt from the federal government to throw out Juliana v. United States, which was first filed in 2015.
<p>The judge largely rejected the government's arguments
<em> </em>but granted the administration's motion to dismiss President Donald Trump as a defendant.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="6233b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1PQU091576662674"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1051866288748933120" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">A federal judge has rejected most of the Trump administration's arguments attempting to stop the national children'… https://t.co/BaP2R3s0UQ</div> — InsideClimate News (@InsideClimate News)<a href="https://twitter.com/insideclimate/statuses/1051866288748933120">1539619440.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style="">
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-15/teens-climate-change-suit-against-u-s-proceeds-without-trump" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported:
</p><blockquote>
The judge said the students can get what they want by suing officials below the president, but she left the door open for Trump to be reinstated as a defendant in the case, if necessary.<br>
<br>
Lawyers for the teens had argued the president shouldn't be excused for failing in his official capacity to protect the environment from rising global temperatures while subsidizing fossil fuel-dependent industries.
</blockquote><p style="">
The groundbreaking lawsuit targets the government for creating policies that encouraged climate change, and for violating the country's youngest citizens their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, as well as failing to protect essential public trust resources.
</p><p>
On Friday, government attorneys filed a <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5bc0da1024a694ece9fed03a/1539365392650/Juliana+v+US+--+9th+circuit+stay+request.pdf" target="_blank">third writ of mandamus petition</a>, a rarely used legal maneuver, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay district court proceedings, according to <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a>, the non-profit group supporting the youth plaintiffs. Judges with the Ninth Circuit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kids-climate-lawsuit-trial-2544414443.html" target="_blank">denied</a> the first two petitions, saying the petitions were not justified.
</p><p>
"To suggest that our government suffers harm greater than its citizens by having to participate in a trial when its youngest citizens bring legitimate claims of constitutional harm before our Article III courts flies in the face of democratic principles," Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, said in a press release Friday. "We are going to trial on October 29th."
</p><p>
The Department of Justice also plans to file a second writ of mandamus petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 17, the press release said. In July, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/supreme-court-youth-climate-case-2591440617.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&share_id=3811309&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=EcoWatch">the high court ruled</a> that the administration's motion to dismiss the case was "premature."
</p><p style="">
<span></span>As the scheduled trial date approaches, Our Children's Trust has <a href="https://www.youthvgov.org/trial" target="_blank">organized rallies across the country</a> on Oct. 28-29 to rally support for the plaintiffs.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="1273c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="N881NP1576662674"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1025336019212808192" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Supreme Court Rules Trump Administration Can’t Stop #Youth Climate Case @youthvgov #youthvgov @350eugene https://t.co/fHsVgHBGcZ</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1025336019212808192">1533294131.0</a></blockquote></div>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption..."> <a href="http://bit.ly/2vAapZ1" target="_blank"></a></small>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Our Children's Trust
In a glimmer of hope for climate change litigation, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to block a ground-breaking lawsuit brought by 21 young people against the U.S. government for crafting policies that support climate-changing fossil fuels, The Huffington Post reported.
<p>The high court ruled that the administration's motion to dismiss the case was "premature." </p><p>"This decision should give young people courage and hope that their third branch of government, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has given them the greenlight to go to trial in this critical case on their inalienable rights," <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a> Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel Julia Olsen said in a statement reported by The Huffington Post.</p><p>Our Children's Trust is the non-profit that helped the young people behind the case file the suit. </p><p>The ruling comes as historic cases around the country are determining what role the courts can play in responding to the climate crisis. </p><p>In the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-liability-lawsuit-new-york-2588447153.html" target="_self">past two months</a>, federal judges in New York and San Francisco have dismissed cases brought by cities suing oil companies for the cost of adapting to climate change. </p><p>In dismissing the cities' cases, the judges argued that the executive and legislative branches should determine climate policy, not the courts. </p><p>The children's lawsuit, <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/" target="_blank"><em>Juliana v. United States</em></a>, is different from the cities' suits in that it targets the government, not oil companies, for creating policies that encouraged climate change.</p><p>However, the government's lawyers have argued that it goes beyond the scope of the courts. </p><p>The administration argued that the trial judge who had permitted the case to proceed had acknowledged "a never-before-recognized fundamental right to a particular climate system that lacks any support in the Constitution, this court's precedents, or this nation's history and tradition," <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/u-s-supreme-court-won-t-halt-teenagers-climate-change-lawsuit" target="_blank">Bloomberg reported</a>.</p><p>The young people's lawyers, in contrast, say the changes to the climate violate rights that are enshrined in the Constitution, since those changes "threaten the very foundation of life, including the personal security, liberties, and property," according to The Huffington Post.</p><p>The Supreme Court did caution in its ruling that the breadth of the lawsuit was "striking" and that the question of whether the matters it raised belonged in the courts "presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion," Bloomberg reported. The court also urged the trial judge to respond promptly to other government attempts to halt the case's progress. </p><p>As of now, though, the Supreme Court's ruling means the trial will still begin in U.S. District Court on October 29, 2018, something for which the young plaintiffs are grateful.</p><p>"The constitutional rights of my fellow plaintiffs and I are at stake in this case, and I am glad that the Supreme Court of the United States agrees that those rights should be evaluated at trial," 19-year-old plaintiff Victoria B. said in an <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5b5f750303ce644ee2813b89/1532982531627/2018.07.30+SCOTUS+decision+on+defendants+application+for+stay.pdf" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust press release</a>. "This lawsuit becomes more urgent every day as climate change increasingly harms us. I have reaffirmed confidence now that all levels of the federal judiciary have ruled in our favor that there should be no more delay in getting to our trial."</p><p>The case was first filed in Oregon in 2015. The Obama administration moved to dismiss it in 2016, and the decision of an Oregon U.S. District Court judge to deny that motion is one the Trump administration continued to challenge, leading to Monday's Supreme Court ruling, <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/the-supreme-court-refuses-to-halt-a-climate-change-lawsuit-brought-by-children-and-teenagers" target="_blank">Pacific Standard reported</a>.</p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Native Alaskan village of Kivalina is especially vulnerable to climate change. ShoreZone / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Alaska has voted for a Republican for president in every U.S. election since 1964, according to the Anchorage Daily News. Given the growing partisan divide on climate change, one would not expect the state to take action on climate change, let alone acknowledge that it is a problem.
<p style="">But Alaska is also uniquely impacted by the effects of climate change. Scientists have called this year's loss of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-ice" target="_self">sea ice</a> on the Bering Sea a "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bering-sea-ice-2566745144.html" target="_self">natural disaster</a>" for Alaskan communities that rely on the ice pack to facilitate transportation and hunting, and to protect their homes from winter storms. The Native Alaskan village of Kivalina, located on a barrier island, even took a leading role in seeking damages for climate change when it sued fossil fuel companies in 2008 over the impacts of erosion and flooding from coastal storms due to sea-ice loss, though the suit was unsuccessful. </p><p style="">Now impacts are building up to the point where state politicians have no choice but to take action and are developing a plan to that end, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/climate/alaska-climate-change.html">The New York Times reported Tuesday</a>. </p><p style="">"The change has been so real and so widespread that it's become impossible to ignore," Democratic Lieutenant Gov. Byron Mallott told The New York Times. "Folks are realizing that it's something we have to deal with," he said. </p><p style="">Mallott is in charge of a task force initiated by Independent Gov. Bill Walker in October 2017 that is due to propose policy recommendations to reduce the state's emissions and mitigate the impacts of warming by September. </p><p style="">The most <a href="http://climatechange.gov.alaska.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/05/Climate-Policy-Public-Comment.pdf" target="_blank">recent draft</a>, dated April 25, calls on Alaska to get 50 percent of its electricity from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> by 2025 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third below 2005 emissions by the same date.</p><p style="">However, as The New York Times pointed out, Alaska's major contribution to global emissions comes in the form of the oil and gas exported by the state to the rest of the country.</p><p style="">Alaska gets 85 percent of its budget from oil production, and its leaders are averse to directly challenging the source of their funding.</p><p style="">The most recent draft of the climate action plan took out a line from an earlier draft saying "There is an economic and ethical imperative to pursue a transition away from a global dependence on fossil fuels," and both Walker and Mallott support drilling in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/anwr" target="_self">Arctic National Wildlife Refuge</a>. </p><p style="">Not all Alaskans agree with this pro-oil outlook. 16 young Alaskans, represented by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/community/our_childrens_trust" target="_blank">Our Children's Trust</a>, have sued the state for actions contributing to climate change, as <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052018/children-climate-change-lawsuit-alaska-arctic-oil-drilling-revenue-global-warming-impact-sea-ice-permafrost" target="_blank">Inside Climate News</a> outlined in May. </p><p style="">"We're talking about climate change and we're seeing all these impacts, but at the same time we're continuing to pursue activities that create climate change," one of the young people named in the case, Tasha Elizarde, said. "I hope that this pushes the Walker administration and future administrations to look at this case and understand what a big problem climate change can be."</p>
Read More
Show Less