Climate Activists Use Supreme Court's Samuel Alito's Words to Boost Lawsuit
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A group of young climate activists seeking to revive their lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued in a new court filing that a legal opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito bolsters their right to proceed in court.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs cite a dissenting opinion by Alito filed last year, challenging the Court's decision not to hear a case about whether a Wisconsin school district is legally allowed to conceal a student's gender identity from their parents.
"Some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions," Alito wrote.
Why It Matters
Genesis B. v. EPA is one of several cases of environmental litigation involving youth plaintiffs as the debate over United States climate policy continues. The outcome could impact both how courts handle youth-led constitutional climate claims and the EPA's regulatory reach.
The activists' efforts come as federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have increasingly weighed the scope and limits of agency authority over environmental matters.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito poses for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito poses for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
What to Know
Attorneys for the 18 plaintiffs involved in Genesis B. v. EPA filed their opening brief on July 2, 2025, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They called on the court to overturn a previous district court ruling that dismissed their case on the grounds that they lacked standing to sue.
The plaintiffs claim the EPA discriminates against children by undervaluing the long-term benefits of pollution regulations, and that recent Supreme Court precedent strengthens their argument that federal courts have the authority to hear their claims.
U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald first dismissed the lawsuit in May 2024, but allowed the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint. Fitzgerald cited the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate how a favorable court ruling would redress their alleged injuries.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs refer to two Supreme Court rulings decided after the lower court's order. In Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, the Court ruled that a lower court had improperly blocked a challenge to an EPA waiver that allowed California to set more stringent car pollution rules.
In that case, the Court said that a decline in gasoline sales could hurt fuel producers and that "those monetary costs 'are of course an injury.'"
The second recent case cited by plaintiffs is Gutierrez v. Saenz, a case that dealt with a death-row inmate's right to challenge state laws on DNA testing.
The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling that Gutierrez did not have standing to sue because the courts could not provide him with a remedy. The plaintiffs in Genesis B. v. EPA argued that this shows "they are not required to prove that a favorable decision would result in different regulatory outcomes."
The brief states that it is now "undeniable" that the district court may hear the case.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that, if their claims are upheld, the courts possess the power to "redress their unequal treatment and ensuing constitutional injuries."
Youth-led climate litigation has gained attention in recent years, with notable wins in state courts.
For example, in 2023, young plaintiffs in Montana succeeded in obtaining a ruling that climate impacts must be considered before issuing permits for fossil fuel projects. In June, Hawaii agreed to a settlement with young people to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045.
What People Are Saying:
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, in a brief: "The district court erred in denying Plaintiffs standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants' unequal treatment and resulting economic, physical, and mental health harms these constitutional violations cause Plaintiffs personally."
U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, in a February order: "Plaintiffs failed to present the Court with any authority for the proposition that dealing with a societal problem—albeit one of great magnitude—for a longer period of time transforms a generalized grievance into a particularized harm."
What Happens Next
The federal government is expected to file its own brief in the case by August 4.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Trump's order encouraging removal of homeless from city streets 'restore public order' — or eat up public money?
Homelessness has long been a significant issue in the U.S. — and things only seem to be getting worse. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it The federal government said the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024 was the highest on record at 771,480. This figure has been climbing every year since 2017, when it was at 550,996. In order to address the 'root cause' of homelessness and 'restore public order,' President Trump recently signed an executive order to make it easier for states to remove people from the streets and get them into long-term institutions for treatment of addictions and mental health conditions. This isn't the only major action against homelessness this summer. In late June, the Supreme Court ruled that homeless individuals can be arrested or fined for sleeping in public areas. In a statement to USA Today, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump is "delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America." However, the move is not necessarily being looked at as a positive one. What the new executive order on homelessness entails On July 24, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets." The order says that 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' have made America's cities unsafe, and the 'overwhelming majority' of people experiencing homelessness are either addicted to drugs, have a mental condition, or both. It directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments' ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others. This aims to make forcibly moving people into institutions easier. Federal grants will be prioritized for states that enforce prohibitions on acts related to homelessness, like open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting. Funding will also be redirected away from 'housing first' programs and so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts. 'At a time when unaddressed housing costs are driving record numbers of people into homelessness, this order demonstrates a lack of focus and understanding on what our communities — both red and blue — need to address this crisis,' said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'Instead, it largely focuses on punishing people for being homeless and denying desperately needed funds to overwhelmed and under-resourced frontline workers.' The nonprofit criticized the attack on the 'housing first' approach, the push for forced institutionalization, and the violation of the right to privacy for the homeless. The National Homelessness Law Center said it "strongly condemns" Trump's order, saying it "deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness." The group also said that the order "does nothing to lower the cost of housing or help people make ends meet." If anything, it expects that more people will be driven into homelessness. 'As a licensed mental health professional, I know that forced treatment is unethical, ineffective, and illegal," Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center told USA Today. Alexandria, Va., Mayor Alyia Gaskins called Trump's executive order "cruel" in an NPR interview. "It requires states and cities like mine to demonstrate aggressive enforcement," she said. "It ends support for housing first policies. It encourages the expanded use of law enforcement all at a time when we know that the criminalization of homelessness doesn't work." The National Low Income Housing Coalition said that Trump's executive order will 'do nothing to address the underlying causes of America's housing crisis and instead make it harder for states and communities to address these challenges.' Read more: Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can How homelessness policies impact taxpayers When cities experience high levels of homelessness, it can impact residents in many ways. It can cause them to feel unsafe in their own backyards and result in lower property values. So addressing the homelessness crisis could yield positive results for residents and property owners — provided it's done the right way. Critics of Trump's approach feel that the order does not address the root of the issue and instead focuses on mandating institutionalization and treating homelessness as a crime. It rejects the housing first approach to the problem, which involves quickly moving the homeless into affordable housing and then addressing their other needs. The National Low Income Housing Coalition says the country is short 7.1 million affordable rental homes. If the critics are right, we could see homeless numbers increase. Forcing the homeless into facilities could also burden a health care system that's already overwhelmed and seeing cuts in federal spending with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Experts say there aren't enough facilities to treat the homeless. "The order seeks to make it easier to commit people with mental illness who can't care for themselves, while also promising grants and other assistance to help ramp up commitments, and threatening to divert funding away from places that don't push people into treatment facilities 'to the maximum extent permitted by law,'" noted CalMatters. "But the order doesn't include funding for new mental health or addiction treatment beds. In a state already struggling with a lack of resources, some experts said Trump's order for more forced treatment feels hollow." 'There really is not a lot of bed space. And with budgets being strapped the way that they are these days, particularly with cuts coming from D.C., it's going to — states and communities are going to be hard-pressed to really build those facilities and be able to meet the needs of the people that are looking to be — that people want to put away,' said David Ovalle, national reporter focusing on opioids and addictions for The Washington Post, to PBS. If states decide to foot at least a portion of the bill for housing and treating the homeless long-term, it could divert critical health care resources away from other people in need. It could also force municipalities to increase taxes if they're not given enough federal funding to enforce treatment, burdening taxpayers even more. Addressing the nation's homelessness crisis is crucial. And if done correctly, everyone benefits. Unfortunately, it seems like the current approach may be one in which almost everybody loses out. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Congressional appropriators move to maintain Energy Star funding
This story was originally published on Facilities Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Facilities Dive newsletter. When the Senate Appropriations Committee July 24 passed its fiscal 2026 funding bill for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it included language to fund the Energy Star program at $36 million, the same as in fiscal 2024. 'The Committee recognizes the value of and continues to support the Energy Star program,' it states in the report that accompanies the bill. House appropriators passed their version of the bill July 22, and it also included language funding the program, at a lower amount. 'Within the [clean air] funds provided, at least $32,000,000 is for the Energy Star program,' says a committee-passed amendment to the House bill report. The two bills still face floor votes and reconciliation into a single bill before the legislation goes to President Donald Trump for signature into law, but by shining a spotlight on Energy Star as a priority, lawmakers are sending a message they want to see the Trump administration maintain a program that's been popular in both political parties since it was enacted in 1992, program backers say. The 'strong bipartisan support' for the Energy Star program is 'one bright spot in the spending bills,' Sabine Rogers, federal policy manager at the U.S. Green Building Council, said on the organization's website Aug. 6. The Trump administration hasn't said it wants to eliminate the program, but in its fiscal year 2026 budget request for the EPA, which it released in early May, it eliminated all funding for the Atmospheric Protection Program, which administers Energy Star. 'The Atmospheric Protection Program is an overreach of Government authority that imposes unnecessary and radical climate change regulations on businesses and stifles economic growth,' the administration said in the budget request. 'This program is eliminated in the 2026 Budget.' The proposal sparked a backlash as a wide range of organizations joined efforts to maintain the program. Some 1,000 companies, nonprofits and public agencies signed their name to a letter urging the EPA director to maintain Energy Star. Among the groups advocating for Energy Star were the Sierra Club, the American Bakers Association, the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance and the International Facility Management Association. It's an 'interesting bedfellows' situation, Justin Koscher, president of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, said in a Grist story. Polyisocyanurate insulation is a commercial roofing product. 'It's not too often you get all of those groups saying the exact same thing on one particular issue.' Critics of the program say energy efficiency standards are something that would be more appropriately managed by the private sector. 'Green purchasing programs assume the federal government needs to meddle in the marketplace by providing its seal of approval on what it deems to be environmentally satisfactory products,' the Competitive Enterprise Institute says in a white paper published in March. 'If there is a need to create a labeling program to ensure credibility and consumer confidence, then private certification organizations should play such a role.' Supporters credit Energy Star's voluntary efficiency standards with saving businesses and consumers some $500 billion in energy spending since the program was created while costing EPA a fraction of that to administer. The program's 'annual budget of approximately $32 million represents less than 1% of EPA's spending,' supporters say in their letter to the EPA director. Despite Congress' support, the program could be at risk if lawmakers fail to pass this and other appropriations bills and rely instead on temporary continuing resolutions to fund programs, Rogers says in her U.S. Green Building Council update. A full-year continuing resolution, she said, 'will likely not include detailed congressional direction or specific funding levels for most programs, giving the administration more flexibility to determine how funds are spent within agencies. That could leave the ENERGY STAR program vulnerable to being defunded or privatized.' Recommended Reading IFMA adds its name to Energy Star fight Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
