Alex Baumhardt writes in Oregon Capital Chronicle, “More than three dozen Congressional Democrats, led by Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, are hoping to help revive a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. government by 21 young Americans – including 11 Oregonians – over continued federal support for fossil fuel production and a failure to urgently mitigate the worst effects of climate change, violating the plaintiffs’ right to a livable environment.”

Juliana v. United States, named after Julia Olson, Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel at Our Children's Trust, is now the longest running suit first filed in the U.S. District Court in Eugene nearly 10 years ago. At the time, the youth behind the suit were between eight- and 18-years old. Olson filed a request in the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case, followed by the backing of Senator Ron Wyden and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, filing an “amicus brief” or “friend of the court brief” urging the court to grant it. The filing included 39 other signers including Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and Oregon Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Val Hoyle, according to the Chronicle.

Fossil fuel companies, the U.S. Department of Justice, former President Donald Trump and Republican states attorneys general have filed court documents against the Juliana case. It was deemed effectively dead in May, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss the case.

It seems like the intent is to get the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson argued the decision to dismiss was hasty and wrongly denied oral arguments by the plaintiffs rather than issuing an opinion, effectively denying the plaintiffs their right to an appeal. The Ninth Circuit held that ordering the federal government to adopt “a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change” would exceed a federal court’s remedial authority set in Article III.

Harvard Law Review suggests that Juliana, filed by Our Children’s Trust, is attempting to go where other environmental cases have failed by drawing on common law tort theories. The Juliana case contends the Constitution guarantees an unenumerated fundamental right to a “stable climate system.” They argued that the United States had “continued to permit, authorize, and subsidize fossil fuel extraction . . . [and] consumption” despite these activities’ contributions to global warming. This choice, it continued, had “infringed on” the Trust’s “constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.”

Judge Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit wrote, “To have standing under Article III, a plaintiff must have (1) a concrete and particularized injury that (2) is caused by . . . challenged conduct and (3) is likely redressable by a favorable judicial decision . . .Thus, the Trust’s standing turned on redressability: “whether the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries [were] redressable by an Article III court.” The judges found “such relief . . . beyond [its] constitutional power.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The amicus brief argues, “Since youth cannot vote, they depend upon each branch of government to act in their best interests when exercising authority. Sadly, at this time, each branch is betraying the intergenerational trust bestowed upon them for ‘our Posterity’ in the face of the climate crisis.” It seems that lawmakers have a vested interest in using children to further their political agenda.

The CDC defines child abuse and neglect as Adverse Childhood Experiences, which can dramatically impact a person’s life experience and health. To use children to front an agenda that isn’t feasible can only be identified as cruel. Studies show that around 30% of Oregon’s carbon drifts in from China, the largest emitter releasing 11.4 billion metric tons of carbon emissions in 2022. Their misguided direction is looming as pitiful when it could have been productive. What if they would have sued to stop chemtrails, which Tennessee has now done and residence are reporting good health benefits. What if they would have sued to stop poisonous fluoride additives to the water system, which is taking hold in some jurisdictions.

What have these children learned from this exercise? How to capitalize on your fears. Money is limitless if you can tie into a cause whether good or bad. Consequences don’t matter. That constitutional right means not having any fears. One thing they still seem to not understand is that the courts are limited in its power to create law.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2024-07-07 07:43:44

Last Update: 2024-07-05 20:11:33