#juliana v united states

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dharna Noor at The Guardian:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday evening granted the Biden administration’s request to strike down a landmark federal youth climate case, outraging climate advocates. “This is a tragic and unjust ruling,” said Julia Olson, attorney and founder of Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit law firm that brought the suit. The lawsuit, Juliana v United States, was filed by 21 young people from Oregon who alleged the federal government’s role in fueling the climate crisis violates their constitutional rights.

The Wednesday order from a panel of three Trump-appointed judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals will require a US district court judge to dismiss the case for lack of standing, with no opening to amend the complaint. The decision affirmed an emergency petition filed by the justice department in February arguing that “the government will be irreparably harmed” if it is forced to spend time and resources litigating the Juliana case. It’s a measure the justice department should never have taken, said Olson. “The Biden administration was wrong to use an emergency measure to stop youth plaintiffs from having their day in court,” she said in a statement. “The real emergency is the climate emergency.”

The lawsuit has faced numerous obstacles since it was first filed in 2015. A different panel of judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals previously ordered the case to be dismissed in 2020, on the grounds that the climate crisis must be addressed with policy, not litigation. But a US district court judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit, and last year ruled the case could go to trial. Olson said the fight for the Juliana plaintiffs is “not over”.

A 3-judge Trump-appointed panel on the 9th Circuit struck down the Juliana v. United States youth climate crisis lawsuit. The case can still be ruled by the full 9th.

[rjzimmerman]

Climate Lawsuits Are Exploding. Are Homicide Charges Next? (New York Times)

Excerpt from this New York Times story:

Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over climate change are piling up. Legislators and activists are pushing prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. Children are suing governments, arguing that their right to a healthy environment is being trampled on.

Welcome to the new universe of climate litigation, where the courts have become one of the most important battlegrounds in the fight over the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet.

Around the world, both innovative and old-school legal arguments are being used to go after companies and governments to seek redress or forestall future harms. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry and its allies have powerful new legal grounds at their disposal to challenge climate rules. A number of cases could be taken up by the highest courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and The Hague.

There are myriad lawsuits, which fit into several important categories. Here’s what to watch in the coming months.

Lawsuits against oil giants are spreading.

At least 86 lawsuits have been filed globally against the world’s biggest oil, gas and coal producers, according to a report published Thursday by the advocacy and research groups Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics. The vast majority of those were filed in just the past nine years since the signing of the 2015 Paris accord, the landmark agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Cities and states are among the plaintiffs.

In the United States, more than two dozen of the lawsuits against oil companies have been filed by state and local governments.

Many argue that the oil companies knew about the dangers of climate change for years, but concealed that information. The approach is similar to those of past lawsuits that led to landmark settlements with tobacco and opioid companies.

Should there be criminal charges?

There are growing calls for prosecutors to consider criminal charges related to climate change. This year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, both Democrats, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate oil companies for what they called a “decades-long disinformation campaign” about the effects of fossil fuels. In a recent paper in The Harvard Environmental Law Review, David Arkush, of the advocacy group Public Citizen, and Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University, argued that in the United States, fossil fuel companies could be charged with types of homicide short of first-degree murder based on claims of deception about climate change.

Young people push for ‘climate rights.’

The nonprofit law center Our Children’s Trust says it has filed climate lawsuits and legal actions in all 50 states. Its most well-known case is Juliana v. United States, in which 21 young people argue that the government violated their constitutional rights by failing to protect the environment. It’s become a model for similar cases abroad, including a recent victory for environmentalists in South Korea. The Juliana case has been wending its way through the courts for nearly a decade. In 2020, an appeals court threw it out entirely, concluding that the courts were not the right venue for the grievances. But on Thursday, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court to send the case back to trial.

[anarchywoofwoof]

A federal appeals court on Wednesday evening granted the Biden administration’s request to strike down a landmark federal youth climate case, outraging climate advocates.

“This is a tragic and unjust ruling,” said Julia Olson, attorney and founder of Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit law firm that brought the suit.

The lawsuit, Juliana v United States, was filed by 21 young people from Oregon who alleged the federal government’s role in fueling the climate crisis violates their constitutional rights.

The Wednesday order from a panel of three Trump-appointed judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals will require a US district court judge to dismiss the case for lack of standing, with no opening to amend the complaint.

The decision affirmed an emergency petition filed by the justice department in February arguing that “the government will be irreparably harmed” if it is forced to spend time and resources litigating the Juliana case. It’s a measure the justice department should never have taken, said Olson.

“The Biden administration was wrong to use an emergency measure to stop youth plaintiffs from having their day in court,” she said in a statement. “The real emergency is the climate emergency.”

The lawsuit has faced numerous obstacles since it was first filed in 2015. A different panel of judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals previously ordered the case to be dismissed in 2020, on the grounds that the climate crisis must be addressed with policy, not litigation. But a US district court judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit, and last year ruled the case could go to trial.

Olson said the fight for the Juliana plaintiffs is “not over”.

“President Biden can still make this right by coming to the settlement table,” she said. “And the full ninth circuit can correct this mistake.” The Biden administration has not indicated it will come to the settlement table.

Litigation filed by Our Children’s Trust has seen success elsewhere. Earlier this year, Montana’s supreme court upheld upheld a groundbreaking decision requiring state regulations to consider the climate crisis before approving permits for fossil fuel development. Youth plaintiffs have similar pending lawsuits in Hawaii – which will go to trial in June – as well Florida, Utah and Virginia.

In December, Our Children’s Trust filed another federal lawsuit on behalf of a group of California youths, targeting the Environmental Protection Agency.

[climatecalling]

In a groundbreaking legal decision, a Montana judge last week ruled in favor of young people who had accused state officials of violating their constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuels. ... Even before the judge’s verdict, the Held v Montana case made history when it became the first-ever constitutional climate case in US history to go to trial. Soon, similar cases will probably have the same opportunity. ... ”The trial in Montana was everything,” said Nathan Baring, a 23-year-old plaintiff in the 2015 federal lawsuit Juliana v United States. “The science was actually put on the stand, and youth constitutional climate rights were actually considered in court.” Trials, he said, provide the opportunity to contest contentious claims made by government actors. “Without [a trial], justice can’t be done because you can’t establish a factual record and you can’t call out sometimes blatant falsehoods that the government is sharing,” he said. “It’s necessary.” ... But the Montana ruling did not merely affirm that climate change is real or human-caused: it specifically confirmed it is caused by fossil fuel usage and that every additional ton of greenhouse gas pollution warms the planet. The strength of the order could make it the “final nail in the coffin of any efforts to advance climate denial in the courtroom”.

[gillm120]

Climate Warrior Girls

PART 1: Leah Pennima

1. What challenges did Leah Penniman overcome to become a leader?

As a Black woman in a predominantly white agricultural sector, Penniman has navigated systemic racism and discrimination. She has worked to address and dismantle these barriers within the farming community. For example, gaining access to land for farming can be particularly difficult for marginalized groups. Penniman has advocated for equitable land access and worked to create pathways for Black and brown farmers to own land.

Furthermore, securing funding and resources for initiatives aimed at supporting underrepresented farmers has been a significant challenge. Penniman has had to be resourceful in seeking grants, partnerships, and donations to sustain her work.

2. What is unique about her career path and offerings?

Leah Penniman's career path and offerings are unique due to several factors that intertwine her personal experiences with broader social and environmental goals. Penniman emphasizes a holistic approach to farming that integrates sustainable practices, ecological stewardship, and social justice. Her work at Soul Fire Farm reflects a commitment not just to growing food but also to cultivating community resilience and empowerment. Penniman offers educational programs that empower individuals and communities, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, to reclaim their ancestral knowledge and engage in sustainable farming practices. This includes workshops, training, and resources aimed at fostering self-sufficiency.

Something I found particularly unique was her background as a writer and artist. Penniman often uses storytelling, poetry, and creative expression to communicate the importance of food justice and connect with diverse audiences. By utilizing storytelling and creative expression, Penniman raises awareness about food justice issues and the experiences of marginalized farmers. This innovative approach helps bridge gaps between diverse communities and fosters a deeper understanding of systemic inequities.

3. What solutions and innovations does she offer?

At Soul Fire Farm, Penniman implements regenerative agricultural practices that restore soil health and biodiversity. This model serves as a blueprint for sustainable farming, focusing on ecological balance and resilience.

4. Why do you think so many women are leading the charge on climate?

The growing leadership of women in the fight against climate change is driven by several interrelated factors. Women, particularly in marginalized communities, have historically faced the brunt of climate impacts, such as food insecurity and displacement, which often propels them into advocacy roles. Their strong community connections, particularly in areas like agriculture and resource management, position them as effective advocates for sustainable practices.

Women also approach climate action through an intersectional lens, recognizing the interconnectedness of social justice, economic inequality, and environmental sustainability. Increased access to education and empowerment initiatives has further elevated their roles in climate activism. The visibility of influential women leaders and the formation of global networks enhance their effectiveness and amplify their voices. Ultimately, women view climate action as a responsibility to future generations, advocating for sustainable solutions that benefit their communities and create a more equitable world. This rise in female leadership reflects a broader trend toward inclusivity in environmental movements, emphasizing that effective solutions require the participation and leadership of all sectors of society.

PART 2: Juliana vs The United States

What legal precedents have been set by this Historic Environmental Lawsuit launched by a group of teenagers, named for Kelsey Juliana, youth activist since age 10?

The Juliana v. United States lawsuit, launched by a group of teenagers including Kelsey Juliana, really marks a significant turning point in both environmental law and youth activism. One of the most impactful aspects of this case is that it establishes legal standing for young people, asserting their constitutional right to a stable climate. This is crucial because it recognizes that young people are particularly vulnerable to the long-term effects of climate change. By framing climate change not just as an environmental issue but also as a constitutional one linked to rights like life, liberty, and property, the lawsuit pushes the government to acknowledge its legal and moral responsibilities to protect the environment.

Additionally, the lawsuit introduces the idea of intergenerational equity, which holds that the government must consider the impact of its actions on future generations. This sets an important precedent for holding governments and corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the case in 2020, its influence continues to resonate, inspiring a wave of youth-led climate movements and innovative legal strategies around the world. In the end, the legacy of Juliana v. United States empowers future generations to advocate for climate justice, showing that the voices of young people are absolutely essential in shaping effective environmental policy.

How did this case set the stage for the recent win for youth climate activists in Montana?

Legal Precedent: Juliana v. United States established critical legal precedents regarding the standing of youth in climate lawsuits. By asserting that young people have a constitutional right to a stable climate, it laid the groundwork for future cases, including Held v. Montana, where youth plaintiffs could similarly claim their rights were being violated by government inaction on climate change.

PART 3: Held v Montana

Pull a key quote from the piece and discuss the groundbreaking implications of the Montana legal case

“As fires rage in the west, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a gamechanger that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.”

The implications of this ruling are indeed groundbreaking, as it marks the first time a court has recognized that government policies promoting fossil fuels violate young people's constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment. This decision sets a powerful precedent for future climate litigation, particularly for youth-led initiatives. It emphasizes that state governments must account for their contributions to climate change and the resulting harm to citizens. The ruling not only empowers young activists in Montana but also serves as a model for similar legal actions across the United States and around the world. By affirming the importance of constitutional protections in environmental law, the Montana case could inspire a wave of litigation that challenges fossil fuel policies, ultimately leading to more robust climate action and accountability from governments.

What aspect of the state constitution sealed their argument?

In the landmark case Held v. Montana, the plaintiffs effectively leveraged a specific aspect of the Montana Constitution that guarantees citizens a “clean and healthful environment.” This provision became a cornerstone of their argument against state policies that promoted fossil fuel development while actively prohibiting the consideration of climate impacts in environmental reviews. Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that these policies were unconstitutional because they violated the plaintiffs’ rights by ignoring how greenhouse gas emissions and climate change would affect the environment.

Why do you think so many young women are taking the lead on climate?

I believe that social media is encouraging not just a lot of young women, but young people at large to take the lead on climate issues. The rise of social media has provided young people with platforms to share their stories, connect with like-minded individuals, and organize campaigns more effectively. This connectivity amplifies their voices and helps them mobilize support for their initiatives.

How does this case impact the global youth climate movement?

The case has garnered widespread media attention, shining a spotlight on the urgent need for climate action and the voices of young activists. This visibility helps mobilize support for youth-led initiatives, encouraging more young people to engage in climate activism.

[plethoraworldatlas]

A panel of three Trump-appointed judges on Wednesday granted the Biden Justice Department's request to have a landmark youth climate case dismissed, another setback for a long-running effort to hold the U.S. government accountable for damaging the planet and violating the rights of younger generations.

The order handed down by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel instructs an Oregon district court to toss Juliana v. United States for lack of standing, siding with the Justice Department's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus—which the DOJ itself describes as "an extraordinary remedy" that "should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance."

Julia Olson, co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, a public interest law firm backing the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement Wednesday that "the Biden administration was wrong to use an emergency measure to stop youth plaintiffs from having their day in court."

"The real emergency is the climate emergency," said Olson. "This emergency was not created by these young people, who have just been stripped of their fundamental constitutional rights by one of the highest courts in our country. Children deserve access to justice."

[theinconvenientlifestyle]

Democrats rebuke Biden for fighting young climate activists in court - E&E News by POLITICO

Congressional Democrats are chastising the Biden administration for trying to quash a long-running youth climate case against the U.S. government.

In a friend of the court brief, 29 Democratic members of Congress and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called on the executive branch to “cease its extraordinary and oppressive efforts … to silence youth plaintiffs’ efforts to vindicate their Constitutional rights.”

The brief filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes as President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice has asked federal courts to dismiss Juliana v. United States, arguing that the case would put a judge in the position of deciding policy that is better left to the executive and legislative branches.

[cchiroquesblog]

Levi Draheim y todo el equipo de Avaaz

Más información: Juliana v. United States ( https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us ) (Our Children’s Trust - en inglés ) La administración Biden contra los jóvenes por el clima ( https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/juliana-vs-us-extraordinary-tactics-to-block-federal-climate-lawsuit-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2024-03/spanish ) (Project Syndicate) La abogada que lidera demanda de jóvenes contra Estados Unidos ( https://www.latercera.com/que-pasa/noticia/la-abogada-que-lidera-demanda-de-jovenes-contra-estados-unidos/883540/ ) (La Tercera) Los litigios climáticos ante los tribunales se duplican en cinco años en todo el mundo ( https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/litigios-climaticos-tribunales-duplican-cinco-anos-mundo_1_10412601.html ) (eldiario.es)

Avaaz es una red global de campañas de 70 millones de personas que trabaja para garantizar que las opiniones y valores de la gente en todo el planeta modelen los procesos de toma de decisiones a nivel mundial. "Avaaz" significa "voz" o "canción" en muchos idiomas. Los miembros de Avaaz son de todas las naciones del mundo; nuestro equipo está ubicado en 18 países a lo largo de 6 continentes y opera en 17 idiomas. Para saber más sobre las últimas campañas de Avaaz, haz clic aquí ( https://www.avaaz.org/es/highlights/ ) , o síguenos en Facebook ( https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz ) , Twitter ( https://twitter.com/Avaaz ) o Instagram ( https://www.instagram.com/avaaz_org/ ) .

Te hiciste miembro del movimiento de Avaaz y comenzaste a recibir estos mensajes cuando firmaste la campaña "500 millones de árboles arrancados" el 2019-07-27 usando el correo electrónico cchiroque@hotmail.com.

Para asegurarte de que los correos de Avaaz lleguen a tu buzón, añade avaaz@avaaz.org a tu lista de contactos. Para cambiar tu correo electrónico, idioma de preferencia u otra información personal,contáctanos ( https://www.avaaz.org/es/contact/ ) o simplemente haz clic aquí para darte de baja ( https://secure.avaaz.org/page/es/unsubscribe/?v=157569&cid=50745&source=blast_footer ) .

Para ponerte en contacto con Avaaz, no respondas a este correo. Mejor escríbenos a:

www.avaaz.org/es/contact ( https://www.avaaz.org/es/contact )

27 Union Square West

Suite 500 New York, NY 10003

[prelawland]

Environmental Law acknowledging Climate Change

By Maya Mehta, Seattle University Class of 2025

August 23, 2023

To mitigate the negative effects of climate change, environmental law is an essential tool. Ingenious legal strategies are being used by governments, organizations, and individuals to address the climate catastrophe. Extreme weather, increasing temperatures, and melting glaciers are just a few of the pressing issues brought on by climate change that need for coordinated response. While scientific study focuses on the causes and impacts of climate change, the legal system is crucial for creating regulations and enforcing them. The protection of human health, ecosystems, and resources is covered by environmental law, which is now recognized as a crucial tool for dealing with the situation. International pacts like the Paris Agreement highlight the need for intercontinental collaboration in the fight against climate change. Disputes in the law, such as Juliana v. United States, are the reason for tighter environmental laws. Environmental regulations change as the needs of businesses change, and environmental legislation follows suit. Through innovative solutions, it strikes a balance between environmental conservation and economic growth. To address today's complicated issues and promote sustainability, public health, international cooperation, corporate accountability, and resilient urban planning, environmental law is essential.

For full article please visit

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Environmental Law’s Crucial Role in Addressing Climate Change

at

Washington PreLaw Land

[washingtonprelawland-blog]

Navigating Legal Frontiers: Environmental Law’s Crucial Role in Addressing Climate Change

By Maya Mehta, Seattle University Class of 2025

August 21, 2023

Environmental law is a vital instrument in the fight to reduce climate change’s negative effects as the world struggles to deal with its urgent problems. The relationship between legal systems and environmental protection is stronger than ever, as seen by the efforts of governments, organizations, and private citizens to address the climate issue through creative legal measures.

One of the most important challenges of our day is climate change, which poses a threat to ecosystems, businesses, and communities all around the world. Extreme weather events, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and rising temperatures all highlight the urgent need for concerted action. While scientific study focuses on the causes and effects of climate change, the legal system is crucial in determining the laws, rules, and procedures for enforcing them.

A variety of legal principles, rules, and guidelines that are intended to safeguard human health, ecosystems, and natural resources are included in the field of environmental law. Environmental law has naturally emerged as a key strategy for combating the crisis given the complex relationship between climate change and the environment. These legal frameworks, which range from regional laws to international treaties, are crucial in determining how the world responds to climate change.

Numerous accords highlight the importance of international cooperation in the battle against climate change. A historic agreement, the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015 and aims to keep global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Because of its binding character, approximately 200 countries have pledged to implement nationally determined contributions, reflecting each country’s efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve resilience.

Although a framework is provided by international agreements, national governments mostly implement climate policies. Around the world, legislation is being passed to reduce emissions, stimulate the use of renewable energy sources, and advance sustainable practices. For instance, Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ project prioritizes renewable energy sources above nuclear power as it moves toward a low-carbon economy. Meanwhile, California’s aggressive environmental goals have resulted in laws supporting electric vehicles and strict emissions regulations.

In the area of climate action, legal disputes are increasingly acting as powerful accelerators for change. More and more people are turning to the courts to hold corporations and governments responsible for their impacts to climate change. Young plaintiffs claim that the government’s refusal to address climate change violates their constitutional rights in the historic case Juliana v. United States. This legal dispute demonstrates the judiciary’s role in promoting stricter environmental regulations.

The regulatory requirements for businesses in terms of their effects on the environment are constantly changing. Consumers and shareholders are calling for increased accountability and openness from businesses when it comes to tackling climate concerns. Environmental issues are increasingly incorporated into business operations, impacting investment choices and shareholder participation, as seen by the growth of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards.

Despite tremendous advancements, there are still obstacles in the way of successful environmental law-based climate action. The implementation of comprehensive climate measures is hampered by regulatory fragmentation, weak enforcement, and political opposition. Economic growth and environmental protection must still be carefully balanced, necessitating creative solutions that balance competing interests.

In the future, it appears that environmental law will continue to develop in relation to climate change. It will be crucial to adapt to how climate science and new technologies are developing. A few strategies that have the potential to lead to more significant change include improving corporate responsibilities, enhancing the role of litigation, and fortifying international cooperation.

The urgent and complicated problems affecting our world today make environmental legislation of utmost importance. Environmental law offers a key foundation for resolving these concerns as the climate crisis worsens, biodiversity is threatened, and resources are becoming scarcer. It establishes standards for nations to reduce carbon emissions, switch to renewable energy sources, and safeguard important ecosystems. By controlling pollution and harmful substances and guaranteeing that people have access to clean air and water, environmental legislation also protects public health. International environmental agreements enhance cooperation among states, underlining the necessity for coordinated legal actions in a globalized world were environmental concerns frequently cross international boundaries. Environmental law adapts as new technologies are appropriately regulated as sectors continue to be reshaped by technological breakthroughs. Furthermore, by holding companies responsible for their environmental impact and encouraging a change towards sustainable practices, environmental legislation encourages corporate responsibility. Urban planning is governed by environmental law to create a balance between growth and conservation as urbanization increases. In the end, environmental law not only addresses current issues but also has a significant impact on creating a society that is more environmentally aware, preparing for potential calamities, and maintaining a sustainable and resilient planet for future generations.

______________________________________________________________

“Climate Change: What Can Local Governments Do?” MRSC, mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/october-2020/climate-change-what-can-local-governments-do. Accessed 20 Aug. 2023.

“Dramatic Growth in Laws to Protect Environment, but Widespread Failure to Enforce, Finds Report.” UN Environment, www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/dramatic-growth-laws-protect-environment-widespread-failure-enforce. Accessed 20 Aug. 2023.

Pérez, Lucy, et al. “Does ESG Really Matter-and Why?” McKinsey & Company, McKinsey & Company, 10 Aug. 2022, www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/does-esg-really-matter-and-why.

Rechsteiner, Rudolf. “German Energy Transition (Energiewende) and What Politicians Can Learn for Environmental and Climate Policy.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2021, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7532986/.

To Prevent the Collapse of Biodiversity, the World Needs a New ..., carnegieendowment.org/2022/11/28/to-prevent-collapse-of-biodiversity-world-needs-new-planetary-politics-pub-88473. Accessed 21 Aug. 2023.

Unfccc.Int, unfccc.int/most-requested/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement. Accessed 20 Aug. 2023.

[kp777]

By Julia Conley

Common Dreams

June 21, 2023

"Young Americans have the right to be heard by our nation's courts, the branch of our government that has a duty to protect our constitutional right to a livable planet."

Representing a coalition of more than 255 climate justice and other progressive groups as well as more than 50,000 supporters, campaigners on Wednesday digitally delivered a petition demanding the U.S. Department of Justice end its efforts to block a lawsuit filed eight years ago by 21 youth plaintiffs over the harm done to children across the country by the government's continued support for fossil fuels.

The People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition—including Food & Water Watch, Sunrise Movement, and 350.org—delivered the petition to the DOJ and Attorney General Merrick Garland, with coalition steering committee member John Beard saying the young plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States "have the right to be heard by their nation's courts."

"Justice deferred, regardless of age, is justice DENIED," said Beard. "End the DOJ's campaign to deny these youth access to justice."

The case was originally filed in 2015, with the plaintiffs arguing that the U.S. government has not done enough to protect communities from the climate crisis and that its continued support for planet-heating fossil fuel extraction is putting the lives of millions of children in danger.

Since the lawsuit was originally filed, the petition delivered on Wednesday points out, "young people like these 21 young Americans have suffered from increasingly severe climate harms" as their day in court has been "delayed again and again by tactics employed by the Department of Justice to impede or dismiss their case."

"Justice deferred, regardless of age, is justice DENIED. End the DOJ's campaign to deny these youth access to justice."

Since the plaintiffs—now ranging in age from 15 to 26—filed their lawsuit, the U.S. has faced climate-related disasters including a deadly heatwave in the Pacific Northwest, a number of severe hurricanes, and a drought across the western part of the country.

"Young people fear when the next devastating flood, wildfire, drought, heatwave, or other climate disaster will be," said Zanagee Artis, founder and executive director of Zero Hour, who co-delivered the petition with Beard. "It's long past time for the Department of Justice to end its opposition to the Juliana plaintiffs and youth climate justice. Young Americans have the right to be heard by our nation's courts, the branch of our government that has a duty to protect our constitutional right to a livable planet."

The campaigners delivered the petition three weeks after Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that the plaintiffs can amend their complaint and the case can proceed to trial. In 2018 U.S. the Supreme Court halted the case from going to trial days before it was to commence.

"It is a foundational doctrine that when government conduct catastrophically harms American citizens, the judiciary is constitutionally required to perform its independent role and determine whether the challenged conduct, not exclusively committed to any branch by the Constitution, is unconstitutional," said Aiken in her ruling earlier this month.

Now, "evidence that indisputably proves the federal government's knowing perpetuation of the climate crisis will come to light, in open court, and Judge Aiken will rule whether the U.S. energy system violates the youth's constitutional rights," People vs. Fossil Fuels said Wednesday.

The coalition called on the DOJ to refrain from using an "extreme legal tool" known as a petition for writ of mandamus to delay the case. The Trump administration used the maneuver six times to block legal actions, but the tool is "only intended to be used as an 'extraordinary remedy,'" according to Our Children's Trust, the public interest law firm that represents the plaintiffs in Juliana.

"Tell Attorney General Garland today to end the extreme legacy of the Trump DOJ by not filing an unprecedented SEVENTH petition for writ of mandamus in this case in an attempt to once again delay this trial," said Children's Trust this month, calling the legal tool an "abuse of process."

The petition was delivered on the same day that another case regarding children and fossil fuel energy wrapped up in Montana. Sixteen plaintiffs ranging in age from 5 to 22—also represented by Our Children's Trust—are arguing in that case that the state's continued support for fossil fuel extraction has violated the children's constitutional rights.

People vs. Fossil Fuels urged supporters to write to the DOJ to call on Garland to end the Biden administration's opposition to the case.

"The U.S. District Court has just put the young plaintiffs' case back on a path to trial and the Department of Justice will soon respond," said the coalition. "They can choose to defend the case on its merits at trial—just as they would any other constitutional case—or continue the Trump administration strategy of seeking to block the youth's access to their own courts."

[solarpunkwitchcraft]

US followers! On June 4th, they’ll be a Supreme Court case of a group of children arguing that they have a Constitutional right to a clean climate!! It could end up making a big difference in terms of how our horrible hell country addresses climate change and climate justice for all American communities, so its worth trying to watch.

Watch it at 2pm PST/5pm EST here

You can donate to the children who are bringing the case here

[progressivegraffiti]

“Juliana v. United States, will be back in court again on Tuesday afternoon in Portland, Ore. The case was scheduled to begin last October, but the court granted the Trump administration an unusual pretrial appeal, which will be heard by three judges from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Any decision could have important implications for this and other attempts to use the courts to pursue climate action across the United States.” ~