Supreme Court declines to hear appeal in landmark youth-led climate case
The high-court justices denied the request for certiorari filed in Juliana vs. U.S., a case filed by 21 American youth in September of 2015 asking the courts to prevent the United States from permitting, authorizing and subsidizing fossil fuels on the grounds that knowingly worsening climate change is a violation of the plaintiffs' fundamental rights to life, liberty and property.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court as an appeals court in 2020 ruled against the youth, stating the relief the plaintiffs seek "is beyond our constitutional power" and their "impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of the government."
"The U.S. Supreme Court's cert denial brings this long saga to a conclusion," acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division said in a statement.
"Through ENRD's work, the Justice Department is enforcing our nation's environmental laws and safeguarding America's air, water and natural resources. Cases like Juliana distract from those enforcement efforts."
Though now dead, the impact of Juliana vs. United States continues to be felt as it sparked a youth-led environmental movement to demand governmental change to prevent the worst effects of the impending crisis while facing staunch government opposition.
It has inspired dozens of similar youth-led lawsuits across the globe and in the United States, securing climate victories at local levels, including in Montana and Hawaii.
"Ultimately, we didn't get the decision we wanted today, but we've had many wins along the way," Miko Vergun, a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement.
"For almost 10 years, we've stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we can not only survive but thrive. We've faced extreme resistance by the federal government, yet we've never wavered in our resolve."
"We've shown the world that young people will not be ignored, and I'm incredibly proud of the impact Juliana vs. United States has made."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stanford newspaper challenges legal basis for student deportations
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit says that the newspaper, which is open to all students and has more than 150 members, according to the complaint, has weathered resignations and withdrawn stories by noncitizens who were concerned that publishing content about Israel or the conditions in the Gaza Strip could leave them vulnerable to deportation. Advertisement The climate of fear the lawsuit cites at Stanford follows a spate of arrests earlier this year, when the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists in March, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, over their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza. Advertisement 'They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for bedrock speech, like authoring an op-ed and going to protest,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation. 'And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they think they can throw you out of the country for it.' In those and other cases, immigration agents arrested the students after Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the provision, deeming the students a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In each case, Rubio personally signed off on the decision to revoke a student visa or render a lawful permanent resident deportable after determining that those interests were at stake. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the lawsuit says. The new lawsuit mirrored many elements of a case brought by another group, the American Association of University Professors, which is seeking to block the Trump administration from pursuing what it describes as a policy of 'ideological deportations' -- using the law to target activists based on their shared criticism of Israel and its conduct in the war. That case was argued before a federal judge during a two-week trial in Boston in July, and he is expected to decide this month whether to block the deportations on First Amendment grounds. The case raised similar concerns about chilled speech on college campuses, with testimony from faculty at several universities about how dramatically noncitizen academics had withdrawn from public life. Advertisement But lawyers in that case explicitly stopped short of arguing that using the foreign policy provision to target student demonstrators was unconstitutional, sidestepping a risky gambit in court over whether Rubio had abused the authority. That caution came as William G. Young, the judge in the case, expressed skepticism throughout the trial about whether he could rule against Rubio or others in the Trump administration given that they were exercising powers given to them by Congress. 'It seems to me we have a new administration who has, you know, absolutely the primary authority over the foreign policy of the United States,' Young said during closing arguments last month. But other judges have already contemplated the same questions the new lawsuit raises, concluding that using the foreign policy provision in the student activist cases was vague and probably violated the First Amendment. In the case involving Khalil, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey wrote that using the foreign policy provision to detain him was probably unconstitutional, even though that did not factor into his decisions to order Khalil's release in June. Since the Supreme Court limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in June, any ruling in the case would likely apply only to the plaintiffs at Stanford. But the lawsuit aims to set a legal precedent that the organization hopes could be used more broadly. (STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.) Fitzpatrick, the foundation lawyer, said there were narrow but conceivable situations in which the use of the foreign policy law would be appropriate, such as if pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians who fled the country after Russia's invasion sought refuge in the United States and continued to work to undermine Kyiv from abroad. Advertisement 'That has an arguable constitutional basis,' he said. 'What does not have an arguable constitutional basis is someone going up to a podium, whether it's at a city council meeting or a local park, at a protest, voicing an opinion that would be completely protected if you or I said it, and the secretary of state saying, 'We don't like the ideas you're spreading -- get out.' 'That's un-American,' he said. This article originally appeared in
Miami Herald
30 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Was dropping atomic bombs on Japan justified? 80 years later, views have changed
American public opinion toward the atomic bombing of Japan has changed significantly over time. The latest poll from the Pew Research Center reveals that less than half of Americans currently view the bombings as justified, marking a notable drop from earlier years. The survey was conducted ahead of the 80th anniversary of the bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two nuclear blasts killed around 200,000 people, many of whom were children, and left survivors with debilitating side effects, including higher rates of cancer and chronic illness. The attacks — which took place on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945 — were quickly followed by Japan's surrender to the U.S., which brought an end to World War II. They also signaled the dawn of the nuclear age, sparking a worldwide arms race that has led at least nine countries to develop atomic arsenals. In the recent Pew survey, 35% of respondents said the bombings were justified, while a slightly smaller share, 31%, said they were not justified. An additional 33% said they were not sure. The results appear to follow a trend of declining support for the nuclear attacks. In 1945 — in the immediate aftermath of the bombings — a Gallup poll found the vast majority of Americans, 85%, approved of the U.S. decision to drop the newly invented weapons on Japanese cities. Many years later, in 1990, another Gallup survey revealed that a much smaller share of respondents, 53%, approved of the attacks. And, in four subsequent Gallup surveys conducted between 1991 and 2005, approval fluctuated between 53% and 59%. In 2015 — on the 70th anniversary of the bombings — a Pew poll found 56% of Americans believed the attack was justified, while 34% said it was not. However, this survey did not include a 'not sure' option, unlike the most recent one. The latest survey — which sampled 5,044 U.S. adults June 2-8 — also revealed noticeable differences in views based on gender, partisanship and generational lines. For example, 51% of men said the bombings were justified, while just 20% of women said the same. Similarly, 51% of Republicans and those who lean Republican said the attacks were justified, while just 23% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents said the same. Older Americans were also more likely than their younger counterparts to approve of the U.S. bombings. Nearly half of those 65 and older, 48%, said they were justified, while just 27% of 18- to 29-year-olds agreed. The poll — which has a margin of error of 1.6 percentage points — also asked respondents whether they believe the development of nuclear weapons has made the world more or less safe. The vast majority, 69%, said the creation of atomic weapons has made the world less safe. Just 10% said it's made the global community more safe, and 21% said they were not sure. When asked if nuclear weapons made the U.S. in specific safer, 47% said no and 26% said yes. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say both that the development of nuclear weapons has made the world and the U.S. more safe.
Engadget
30 minutes ago
- Engadget
Sections on habeas corpus and nobility titles were temporarily removed from Congress' US Constitution website
Key sections of the US Constitution were temporarily removed from Congress' website. Provisions including habeas corpus (due process) and the prohibition of nobility titles (like, say, King) vanished from the digital version of the document. They've since been restored. 404 Media first reported on the edits after users on Lemmy forums spotted them. There are many ways to read a copy of the US Constitution. But the Library of Congress' online version is one of the easiest to find. Alongside its counterpart hosted by the National Archives, it's an official digital communication from the government. Those two websites also sit atop Google's search results for "US Constitution." So, when key sections vanish from the website, it's worth noting. And when they coincide with those that the Trump administration has said it wants to remove, it's a bit more eyebrow-raising. Portions of Section 8 of Article I, along with all of Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, were missing. "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" was part of that. Also gone was "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." Ditto for the provision banning foreign emoluments for US officials. The Lemmy thread that first caught the changes includes the complete list of edits. The National Archives version wasn't edited. 404 Media notes that, before these edits, the website hadn't changed significantly since first being archived by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. (That archive goes back to 2019.) The US Constitution hasn't changed since 1992. The US Library of Congress' explanation on Bluesky. (Bluesky) The Library of Congress said it was a mistake. "It has been brought to our attention that some sections of Article 1 are missing from the Constitution Annotated ( website," the official account posted on Bluesky. "We've learned that this is due to a coding error. We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon." It was changed back sometime around 2PM ET on Wednesday. The Trump administration doesn't have official control over the Library of Congress, which runs the website. But in May, the president fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. (White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed she "did not fit the needs of the American people.") Trump then named Todd Blanche, one of his former defense lawyers, as acting Librarian of Congress. The Senate must confirm a permanent replacement. This isn't the first time official government websites have removed text that the Trump administration finds inconvenient. In March, The NY Times listed hundreds of words the administration removed from public-facing websites and other materials. They include terms like "activism," "disability," "equality," "female," "prejudice," "pollution," "racism," "sex," "transgender" and "women." ("Men" wasn't on the list of banned words.) Of course, deleting text from the website doesn't change the legally binding document. ("You realize that they still exist even if you don't post them, right?" Jehosaphat Q. Blatte snarked on Bluesky.) But given the current state of affairs, you may want to look elsewhere to bone up on your rights.
