Latest news with #Defendants
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Oil companies are facing the first-ever climate change wrongful death lawsuit
In what could become a landmark case for climate accountability, a Washington state woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit believed to be the first of its kind against major oil companies, claiming they contributed to her mother's death during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave. The suit, filed Thursday in King County Superior Court by Misti Leon, alleges that seven oil companies — ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), BP (BP), Shell (SHEL), ConocoPhillips (COP), Phillips 66 (PSX), and Olympic Pipeline (a BP subsidiary) — knowingly fueled climate change, misled the public about the risks, and failed to warn consumers about the deadly consequences. Leon's mother, Julie, died of hyperthermia on Seattle's hottest day on record. The filing says 'Julie is a victim of Defendants' conduct.' 'For most of Julie's life, Defendants knew the unabated use of their fossil fuel products was altering the climate, which would result in catastrophic harm to the planet and humanity, and lead to deaths like Julie's,' the complaint states. 'Instead of warning the public and consumers about the dangers of their products, Defendants launched a campaign of deception to downplay and discredit the risks of climate change and ensure growing demand for their fossil fuel products.' The filing adds that 'the extreme heat that killed Julie was directly linked to fossil fuel-driven alteration of the climate.' Scientists from the World Weather Attribution said the heat dome event that led to Julie's death would have been 'virtually impossible' without 'human-caused climate change.' The heat dome event lasted about a week from late June to early July, and there were 100 heat-related deaths, according to the Washington State Department of Health. 'I would never have in a million years guessed that a heat dome and climate change would be what killed my mother and what took her from me,' Leon told the New York Times. 'There's no way to comprehend that and to kind of even rationalize it.' In a statement, Chevron counsel Theodore Boutrous Jr. said: 'Exploiting a personal tragedy to promote politicized climate tort litigation is contrary to law, science, and common sense. The court should add this far-fetched claim to the growing list of meritless climate lawsuits that state and federal courts have already dismissed.' None of the other named oil companies immediately responded to a request for comment. The defendants have not yet filed legal responses. Industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, have consistently argued that climate change is a complex global issue requiring coordinated policy responses, not courtroom battles. Many such lawsuits have faced procedural setbacks, with some dismissed by judges citing federal jurisdiction or the Clean Air Act. But others are advancing: The Supreme Court earlier this year allowed climate cases brought by Honolulu and several states to move forward. Still, legal experts say Leon's case could mark a turning point. While more than two dozen states and cities have sued oil companies for climate-related damages, this appears to be the first attempt to hold the fossil fuel industry liable for an individual death allegedly caused by a climate disaster. 'This case puts a human face on the consequences of climate inaction,' Yale Law School professor Douglas Kysar told NPR. 'It's not just rising seas or disappearing glaciers — it's the death of a mother.' The Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that supports climate litigation efforts, worked with Leon to file the lawsuit. 'Big Oil companies have known for decades that their products would cause catastrophic climate disasters that would become more deadly and destructive if they didn't change their business model,' Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. 'Big Oil's victims deserve accountability. This is an industry that is causing and accelerating climate conditions that kill people.' For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to halt judge's order on deportations to South Sudan
The U.S. says the order has wrongly stalled its efforts to carry out deportations of migrants who can't be returned to their home countries. Advertisement THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP's earlier story follows below. WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge suggested the Trump administration was 'manufacturing' chaos and said he hoped that 'reason can get the better of rhetoric' in a scathing order in a case about Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In 'From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' the Boston-based Murphy wrote in the 17-page order. Advertisement Murphy oversees a case in which immigration advocates are attempting to prevent the Trump administration from sending migrants they're trying to deport from the U.S. to countries that they're not from without giving them a meaningful chance to protest their removal. The judge said the men couldn't advocate for themselves In a hearing last week called to address reports that eight immigrants had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said the men hadn't been able to argue that the deportation could put them in danger. But instead of ordering the government to return the men to the U.S. for hearings — as the plaintiffs wanted — he gave the government the option of holding the hearings in Djibouti where the plane had flown on its way to South Sudan as long as the men remained in U.S. government custody. Days later, the Trump administration filed another motion saying that Murphy was requiring them to hold 'dangerous criminals in a sensitive location.' But in his order Monday he emphasized repeatedly that it was the government's 'own suggestion' that they be allowed to process the men's claims while they were still abroad. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated,' Murphy wrote. The government has argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. And they've said that the men's home — Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan — would not take them back. The administration has also repeatedly emphasized the men's criminal histories in the U.S. and portrayed them as national security threats. Advertisement The administration is relying on third countries The Trump administration has increasingly relied on third countries to take immigrants who cannot be sent to their home countries for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to take back their citizens being deported while others take back some but not all of their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns they'll be tortured or harmed. Historically that has meant that immigration enforcement officials have had to release people into the U.S. that it wants to deport but can't. But the Trump administration has leaned on other countries to take them. In the Western Hemisphere, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have all agreed to take some people being removed from the U.S., with El Salvador being the most controversial example because it is holding people deported from the U.S. in a notorious prison. The Trump administration has said it's exploring other third countries for deportations. Murphy said in his order that the eight men were initially told May 19 they'd be going to South Africa and then later that same day were told they were going to South Sudan. He noted that the U.S. government 'has issued stark warnings regarding South Sudan.' He said the men had fewer than 16 hours between being told they were going to be removed and going to the airport 'most of which were non-waking hours' and 'limited, if any' ability to talk to family or a lawyer. 'Given the totality of the circumstances, it is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim,' the judge wrote.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Judge accuses the Trump administration of 'manufacturing' chaos in migrant deportation case
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge suggested the Trump administration was 'manufacturing' chaos and said he hoped that 'reason can get the better of rhetoric' in a scathing order in a case about government efforts to deport a handful of migrants from various countries to South Sudan. In the order published Monday evening, Judge Brian Murphy wrote that he had given the Trump administration 'remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight' in the case and emphasized the numerous times he attempted to work with the government. 'From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' the Boston-based Murphy wrote in the 17-page order. Murphy oversees a case in which immigration advocates are attempting to prevent the Trump administration from sending migrants they're trying to deport from the U.S. to countries that they're not from without giving them a meaningful chance to protest their removal. The judge said the men couldn't advocate for themselves In a hearing last week called to address reports that eight immigrants had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said the men hadn't been able to argue that the deportation could put them in danger. But instead of ordering the government to return the men to the U.S. for hearings — as the plaintiffs wanted — he gave the government the option of holding the hearings in Djibouti where the plane had flown on its way to South Sudan as long as the men remained in U.S. government custody. Days later, the Trump administration filed another motion saying that Murphy was requiring them to hold 'dangerous criminals in a sensitive location." But in his order Monday he emphasized repeatedly that it was the government's 'own suggestion' that they be allowed to process the men's claims while they were still abroad. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated,' Murphy wrote. The government has argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. And they've said that the men's home — Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan — would not take them back. The administration has also repeatedly emphasized the men's criminal histories in the U.S. and portrayed them as national security threats. The administration is relying on third countries The Trump administration has increasingly relied on third countries to take immigrants who cannot be sent to their home countries for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to take back their citizens being deported while others take back some but not all of their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns they'll be tortured or harmed. Historically that has meant that immigration enforcement officials have had to release people into the U.S. that it wants to deport but can't. But the Trump administration has leaned on other countries to take them. In the Western Hemisphere, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have all agreed to take some people being removed from the U.S., with El Salvador being the most controversial example because it is holding people deported from the U.S. in a notorious prison. The Trump administration has said it's exploring other third countries for deportations. Murphy said in his order that the eight men were initially told May 19 they'd be going to South Africa and then later that same day were told they were going to South Sudan. He noted that the U.S. government 'has issued stark warnings regarding South Sudan.' He said the men had fewer than 16 hours between being told they were going to be removed and going to the airport 'most of which were non-waking hours" and 'limited, if any' ability to talk to family or a lawyer. 'Given the totality of the circumstances, it is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim,' the judge wrote.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge accuses the Trump administration of 'manufacturing' chaos in migrant deportation case
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge suggested the Trump administration was 'manufacturing' chaos and said he hoped that 'reason can get the better of rhetoric' in a scathing order in a case about government efforts to deport a handful of migrants from various countries to South Sudan. In the order published Monday evening, Judge Brian Murphy wrote that he had given the Trump administration 'remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight' in the case and emphasized the numerous times he attempted to work with the government. 'From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' the Boston-based Murphy wrote in the 17-page order. Murphy oversees a case in which immigration advocates are attempting to prevent the Trump administration from sending migrants they're trying to deport from the U.S. to countries that they're not from without giving them a meaningful chance to protest their removal. The judge said the men couldn't advocate for themselves In a hearing last week called to address reports that eight immigrants had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said the men hadn't been able to argue that the deportation could put them in danger. But instead of ordering the government to return the men to the U.S. for hearings — as the plaintiffs wanted — he gave the government the option of holding the hearings in Djibouti where the plane had flown on its way to South Sudan as long as the men remained in U.S. government custody. Days later, the Trump administration filed another motion saying that Murphy was requiring them to hold 'dangerous criminals in a sensitive location." But in his order Monday he emphasized repeatedly that it was the government's 'own suggestion' that they be allowed to process the men's claims while they were still abroad. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated,' Murphy wrote. The government has argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. And they've said that the men's home — Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan — would not take them back. The administration has also repeatedly emphasized the men's criminal histories in the U.S. and portrayed them as national security threats. The administration is relying on third countries The Trump administration has increasingly relied on third countries to take immigrants who cannot be sent to their home countries for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to take back their citizens being deported while others take back some but not all of their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns they'll be tortured or harmed. Historically that has meant that immigration enforcement officials have had to release people into the U.S. that it wants to deport but can't. But the Trump administration has leaned on other countries to take them. In the Western Hemisphere, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have all agreed to take some people being removed from the U.S., with El Salvador being the most controversial example because it is holding people deported from the U.S. in a notorious prison. The Trump administration has said it's exploring other third countries for deportations. Murphy said in his order that the eight men were initially told May 19 they'd be going to South Africa and then later that same day were told they were going to South Sudan. He noted that the U.S. government 'has issued stark warnings regarding South Sudan.' He said the men had fewer than 16 hours between being told they were going to be removed and going to the airport 'most of which were non-waking hours" and 'limited, if any' ability to talk to family or a lawyer. 'Given the totality of the circumstances, it is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim,' the judge wrote.
Winnipeg Free Press
6 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judge accuses the Trump administration of ‘manufacturing' chaos in migrant deportation case
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge suggested the Trump administration was 'manufacturing' chaos and said he hoped that 'reason can get the better of rhetoric' in a scathing order in a case about government efforts to deport a handful of migrants from various countries to South Sudan. In the order published Monday evening, Judge Brian Murphy wrote that he had given the Trump administration 'remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight' in the case and emphasized the numerous times he attempted to work with the government. 'From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' the Boston-based Murphy wrote in the 17-page order. Murphy oversees a case in which immigration advocates are attempting to prevent the Trump administration from sending migrants they're trying to deport from the U.S. to countries that they're not from without giving them a meaningful chance to protest their removal. The judge said the men couldn't advocate for themselves In a hearing last week called to address reports that eight immigrants had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said the men hadn't been able to argue that the deportation could put them in danger. But instead of ordering the government to return the men to the U.S. for hearings — as the plaintiffs wanted — he gave the government the option of holding the hearings in Djibouti where the plane had flown on its way to South Sudan as long as the men remained in U.S. government custody. Days later, the Trump administration filed another motion saying that Murphy was requiring them to hold 'dangerous criminals in a sensitive location.' But in his order Monday he emphasized repeatedly that it was the government's 'own suggestion' that they be allowed to process the men's claims while they were still abroad. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated,' Murphy wrote. The government has argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. And they've said that the men's home — Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan — would not take them back. The administration has also repeatedly emphasized the men's criminal histories in the U.S. and portrayed them as national security threats. The administration is relying on third countries The Trump administration has increasingly relied on third countries to take immigrants who cannot be sent to their home countries for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to take back their citizens being deported while others take back some but not all of their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns they'll be tortured or harmed. Historically that has meant that immigration enforcement officials have had to release people into the U.S. that it wants to deport but can't. But the Trump administration has leaned on other countries to take them. In the Western Hemisphere, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama have all agreed to take some people being removed from the U.S., with El Salvador being the most controversial example because it is holding people deported from the U.S. in a notorious prison. The Trump administration has said it's exploring other third countries for deportations. Murphy said in his order that the eight men were initially told May 19 they'd be going to South Africa and then later that same day were told they were going to South Sudan. He noted that the U.S. government 'has issued stark warnings regarding South Sudan.' He said the men had fewer than 16 hours between being told they were going to be removed and going to the airport 'most of which were non-waking hours' and 'limited, if any' ability to talk to family or a lawyer. 'Given the totality of the circumstances, it is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim,' the judge wrote.
