Latest news with #JuliaOlson
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Trump violating right to life with anti-environment orders, youth lawsuit says
Twenty two young Americans have filed a new lawsuit against the Trump administration over its anti-environment executive orders. By intentionally boosting oil and gas production and stymying carbon-free energy, federal officials are violating their constitutional rights to life and liberty, alleges the lawsuit, filed on Thursday. The federal government is engaging in unlawful executive overreach by breaching congressional mandates to protect ecosystems and public health, argue the plaintiffs, who are between the ages of seven and 25 and hail from the heavily climate-impacted states of Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, California and Florida. They also say officials' emissions-increasing and science-suppressing orders have violated the state-created danger doctrine, a legal principle meant to prevent government actors from inflicting injury upon their citizens. 'At its core, this suit is about the health of children, it's about the right to life, it's about the right to form families,' said Julia Olson, attorney and founder of Our Children's Trust, the non-profit law firm that brought the suit. 'We all have constitutional rights, and if we don't use our constitution – if we walk away from it and we walk away from our youth – we will not have a democracy.' The lawsuit specifically targets three of the slew of pro-fossil fuel executive orders Trump has signed during his second term. Among them are two day-one Trump moves to declare a 'national energy emergency' and 'unleash American energy', and another April order aimed at 'reinvigorating' the domestic production of coal – the dirtiest and most expensive fossil fuel. All three orders aimed to bolster already-booming US energy production. They also led agencies to stymy renewable energy production and to suppress climate research and data, flaunting congressional environmental protections, the lawsuit argues. The litigation is the latest in a series of youth-led climate cases brought by the non-profit law firm Our Children's Trust. The lead plaintiff in the new case, 19-year-old Eva Lighthiser, was also a plaintiff in the firm's Held v Montana lawsuit, which notched a landmark win in 2023 when a judge ruled that the state's pro-fossil fuel policies violated their rights under the state's constitution. 'Trump's fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,' said Lighthiser. Lighthiser has already seen the impacts of the climate crisis in her life. Flood-related destruction to roads and bridges one summer even forced her family to sell their house in Livingston. 'The effects of climate change cause Eva persistent stress and anxiety about her future,' the lawsuit says. 'Every additional ton of [greenhouse gas] pollution and increment of heat Defendants cause will cause Eva more harm.' Other plaintiffs in the new case previously participated in other Our Children's Trust lawsuits, including one which reached a historic settlement in Hawaii last year; another filed by California youth against the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and a third, the federal case Juliana v US, which was filed a decade ago and dismissed Juliana without prejudice last year. Lighthiser said Trump's re-election last year felt 'like such a heavy thing'. In the wake of her 2023 win in the Montana lawsuit, she said it felt like taking 'one step forward, three steps back'. She fears Trump's policies will directly impact her well-being. In moves to prop up the dying coal industry in recent months, for instance, the administration has granted relief to both the Spring Creek coal mine and Colstrip coal-fired power station in Montana; trains transporting coal from one to the other run through Lighthiser's hometown. 'The coal cars are brimming with coal that just blows [dust] out all over my town,' said Lighthiser. 'That could effect my own body and my own health, and it feels very intimidating, because it's not something that feels like it's in my control right now.' The lawsuit names Trump and the US as defendants, as well as the office of management and budget, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the departments of interior, energy and transportation, in addition to the head of each agency. 'These are agencies that are really deeply involved in making sure that more fossil fuels stay online,' said Olson. It also targets scientific organizations such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and its parent agency the Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – agencies that are 'suppressing science' in their attempts to comply with Trump's executive orders, said Olson. The youth plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the three executive orders unconstitutional and block their implementation. They are also demanding that it protect the rights to a clean environment granted by certain state constitutions like Montana and Hawaii, which they say the Trump directives have impinged upon. In Olson's view, the case is winnable, particularly because it only brings claims under rights that are explicitly granted under the US constitution, and which have already been recognized by the supreme court. (Juliana v US, by contrast, argued that Americans have an implicit, but unstated, constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate system.) But no matter how the case is eventually ruled, Olson said, the filing of the lawsuit is 'itself a success'. 'Having young people rise up at a time when democracy is threatened and when there's retaliation against so many people in this country for standing up against the administration, that is success,' she said. 'It's about having the bravery to bring claims in the court, of not being too afraid to use their rights.' Though it is 'scary to take on the man in the highest position of power', Lighthiser said the lawsuit is 'absolutely necessary'. She hopes it will eventually help slow global warming, which has led to more frequent and intense wildfires, droughts and floods in her home state of Montana. And she hopes it will afford youth the ability to 'just be kids'. She recalled one day during the summer of 2022, when the Yellowstone River flooded her hometown. 'I spent seven hours that day filling sandbags for people to take to their homes,' she said. 'That kind of thing is going to become more common [with] climate change,' she said. 'That doesn't sound to me like we're getting to live freely.'
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court shuts down historic youth-led lawsuit against US government: 'This fight is far from over'
The Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit by 21 young people who hoped to hold the United States government accountable for energy policies that they argued "violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property." "The justices denied a request by the youth activists to hear their appeal of a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, directing a federal judge in Oregon to dismiss the case after holding they lacked legal standing to sue," Reuters reported. The case, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015, alleging "the U.S. government has permitted, authorized and subsidized fossil fuel extraction and consumption despite knowing those actions cause catastrophic global warming." The 9th Circuit in 2020 ruled that the judicial branch could not oversee the plaintiffs' proposed remedies to rising global temperatures and said that was the field of the executive and legislative branches. The plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, but the court said in May that they lacked standing. In September, they petitioned the Supreme Court. "The Supreme Court's decision today is not the end of the road and the impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone," Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Our Children's Trust noted that Juliana has sparked over 60 similar lawsuits in 50 states and countries and cleared the way for legal victories by youth in the United States and elsewhere who argue their rights were violated by government policies that exacerbated the climate crisis. The crux of the issue is that the rising global temperature has rapidly accelerated in recent decades because of the burning of dirty energy sources: coal, natural gas, and oil. This has led to the 10 hottest years on record in the last 10 years alone, as well as increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events. Big Oil knew its products were bad for humans and the environment at least 71 years ago but continued to reap profits. It also engaged in a disinformation campaign that continues to this day and was backed by federal subsidies, which total $20 billion annually, as the Climate Scorecard observed. States have already diverged from this ruling. In June, Hawai'i agreed to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045 to settle one suit, and in December, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution guarantees the right to a clean environment. These and other legal actions by youth are showing how much can change when you use your voice to stand up for your values. Should the government continue to give tax incentives for energy-efficient home upgrades? Absolutely No Depends on the upgrade I don't know Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. "This fight is far from over," Olson stated. "These claims will be heard, evidence will be presented, and the federal government will be held accountable. The Juliana plaintiffs started this fight for justice, and others will carry it forward. This is a call to all young people who want to stand up to those in the Executive Office of the President who would silence you and threaten your health and safety — join us in protecting your constitutional rights." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Reuters
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court will not hear novel youth-led climate change case
March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by 21 young people to revive a novel lawsuit claiming the U.S. government's energy policies violate their rights to be protected from climate change. The justices denied a request by the youth activists to hear their appeal of a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directing a federal judge in Oregon to dismiss the case after holding they lacked legal standing to sue. The decision marks the end of Juliana v. United States, one of the longest-running climate change cases that youth activists have filed nationwide and one that the plaintiffs' lawyers say helped sparked a broader youth-led movement for climate rights. "The Supreme Court's decision today is not the end of the road and the impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone," Julia Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Our Children's Trust, said in a statement. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The legal group and its youth clients have filed a series of lawsuits accusing state and federal governments of exacerbating climate change by adopting policies that encourage or allow the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in violation of their rights. While some cases have faltered, the Montana Supreme Court in December held that the state's constitution guarantees a right to a stable climate system. Hawaii in June agreed to a first-in-the-nation settlement with young people to take action to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045. In Monday's case, the youth plaintiffs had alleged the U.S. government has permitted, authorized and subsidized fossil fuel extraction and consumption despite knowing those actions cause catastrophic global warming. By contributing to climate change, the plaintiffs said U.S. energy policies violate their rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. But in a 2020 ruling, the 9th Circuit held it was beyond the power of the courts to order and supervise remedies designed to address climate change and that such complex policy decisions were better left to Congress and the executive branch. The court sent the case back to the Oregon judge with instructions to dismiss the lawsuit. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken instead allowed the plaintiffs to try to amend their complaint to keep it going, citing a change in the law. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel in May 2024 said the 2020 ruling left no room to amend the complaint and directed Aiken to dismiss the case.
