

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
This post may be updated.
In a federal courthouse in Oregon on Tuesday, 21 youths and their supporters argued that by failing to act on climate change, the U.S. government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights.
"I feel like I have to go to court, because my little brother can't speak for himself, he's too little. But I can speak for him, and for everyone in my generation. It's time we were heard. It's time President Obama protects our future, and my little brother's future."
--Jayden Foytlin, 13-year-old plaintiff
With Big Oil behind it, the government, in turn, has sought to dismiss the case, which has been called "the most important lawsuit on the planet right now."
The plaintiffs, currently aged 9-20, scored a win in April when U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin decided the case could proceed.
On Tuesday, the kids and their attorneys hoped that U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken would agree.
As John D. Sutter wrote in his profile of plaintiffs' attorney Julia Olson for CNN, the goal is to get Aiken, "a Bill Clinton appointee, to feel the weight of the court's responsibility to do what other branches of government so far have failed to do: Create a national plan to get greenhouse gas emissions to levels that scientists consider safe."
Sutter wrote:
Some legal scholars consider the climate kids' case to be a long shot. Olson will argue that the federal government, by failing to adequately regulate greenhouse gas pollution and by continuing to lease new federal lands and waters for fossil fuel extraction, as recently as this year, is violating the kids' constitutional right to life, liberty, and property. (Warming is causing the seas to rise, for example, and one plaintiff lives in coastal Florida). She'll also claim that children are a class that's being discriminated against when it comes to climate change: They're not causing this problem, and yet they will be disproportionately subjected to its dire consequences.
Consider 13-year-old plaintiff Jayden Foytlin, a resident of Rayne, Louisiana. For her, Tuesday's hearing comes just one month after the waters from a catastrophic 1,000-year flood "crept into her bedroom in the middle of the night and destroyed most of her family's home," as Our Children's Trust, the group behind the suit, said in a statement.
"They called it a thousand-year flood, meaning it should only happen every thousand years or so," Foytlin said ahead of the hearing. "But in my state--Louisiana--we have had that 1,000-year flood and eight 500-year floods in less than two years. A few weeks ago I literally stepped out of bed and was up to my ankles in climate change."
She continued: "Soon I will leave my home, which is still a mess--no walls, no carpet, even my little brothers toys were destroyed! But I feel like I have to go to court, because my little brother can't speak for himself, he's too little. But I can speak for him, and for everyone in my generation. It's time we were heard. It's time President Obama protects our future, and my little brother's future."
As John Light explained on Tuesday for BillMoyers.com:
The aim of the suit is to have a court--the Supreme Court, if the suit advances that far through the legal system--to require the federal government to address climate change more aggressively through laws and regulations. Lawyers in the case draw comparisons to the federal response to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that required the desegregation of schools. In that case, "judges found there were fundamental constitutional rights to equality and courts supervised the enforcement of those rights," Mary Christina Wood, a law professor at the University of Oregon, told BillMoyers.com last year. Our Children's Trust is hoping for a similar outcome on the issue of climate change.
A press conference will be held after the hearing, around 12pm PDT. Updates were being shared from inside and outside the courthouse on social media under the hashtag #kidsvgov:
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This post may be updated.
In a federal courthouse in Oregon on Tuesday, 21 youths and their supporters argued that by failing to act on climate change, the U.S. government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights.
"I feel like I have to go to court, because my little brother can't speak for himself, he's too little. But I can speak for him, and for everyone in my generation. It's time we were heard. It's time President Obama protects our future, and my little brother's future."
--Jayden Foytlin, 13-year-old plaintiff
With Big Oil behind it, the government, in turn, has sought to dismiss the case, which has been called "the most important lawsuit on the planet right now."
The plaintiffs, currently aged 9-20, scored a win in April when U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin decided the case could proceed.
On Tuesday, the kids and their attorneys hoped that U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken would agree.
As John D. Sutter wrote in his profile of plaintiffs' attorney Julia Olson for CNN, the goal is to get Aiken, "a Bill Clinton appointee, to feel the weight of the court's responsibility to do what other branches of government so far have failed to do: Create a national plan to get greenhouse gas emissions to levels that scientists consider safe."
Sutter wrote:
Some legal scholars consider the climate kids' case to be a long shot. Olson will argue that the federal government, by failing to adequately regulate greenhouse gas pollution and by continuing to lease new federal lands and waters for fossil fuel extraction, as recently as this year, is violating the kids' constitutional right to life, liberty, and property. (Warming is causing the seas to rise, for example, and one plaintiff lives in coastal Florida). She'll also claim that children are a class that's being discriminated against when it comes to climate change: They're not causing this problem, and yet they will be disproportionately subjected to its dire consequences.
Consider 13-year-old plaintiff Jayden Foytlin, a resident of Rayne, Louisiana. For her, Tuesday's hearing comes just one month after the waters from a catastrophic 1,000-year flood "crept into her bedroom in the middle of the night and destroyed most of her family's home," as Our Children's Trust, the group behind the suit, said in a statement.
"They called it a thousand-year flood, meaning it should only happen every thousand years or so," Foytlin said ahead of the hearing. "But in my state--Louisiana--we have had that 1,000-year flood and eight 500-year floods in less than two years. A few weeks ago I literally stepped out of bed and was up to my ankles in climate change."
She continued: "Soon I will leave my home, which is still a mess--no walls, no carpet, even my little brothers toys were destroyed! But I feel like I have to go to court, because my little brother can't speak for himself, he's too little. But I can speak for him, and for everyone in my generation. It's time we were heard. It's time President Obama protects our future, and my little brother's future."
As John Light explained on Tuesday for BillMoyers.com:
The aim of the suit is to have a court--the Supreme Court, if the suit advances that far through the legal system--to require the federal government to address climate change more aggressively through laws and regulations. Lawyers in the case draw comparisons to the federal response to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that required the desegregation of schools. In that case, "judges found there were fundamental constitutional rights to equality and courts supervised the enforcement of those rights," Mary Christina Wood, a law professor at the University of Oregon, told BillMoyers.com last year. Our Children's Trust is hoping for a similar outcome on the issue of climate change.
A press conference will be held after the hearing, around 12pm PDT. Updates were being shared from inside and outside the courthouse on social media under the hashtag #kidsvgov:
This post may be updated.
In a federal courthouse in Oregon on Tuesday, 21 youths and their supporters argued that by failing to act on climate change, the U.S. government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights.
"I feel like I have to go to court, because my little brother can't speak for himself, he's too little. But I can speak for him, and for everyone in my generation. It's time we were heard. It's time President Obama protects our future, and my little brother's future."
--Jayden Foytlin, 13-year-old plaintiff
With Big Oil behind it, the government, in turn, has sought to dismiss the case, which has been called "the most important lawsuit on the planet right now."
The plaintiffs, currently aged 9-20, scored a win in April when U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin decided the case could proceed.
On Tuesday, the kids and their attorneys hoped that U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken would agree.
As John D. Sutter wrote in his profile of plaintiffs' attorney Julia Olson for CNN, the goal is to get Aiken, "a Bill Clinton appointee, to feel the weight of the court's responsibility to do what other branches of government so far have failed to do: Create a national plan to get greenhouse gas emissions to levels that scientists consider safe."
Sutter wrote:
Some legal scholars consider the climate kids' case to be a long shot. Olson will argue that the federal government, by failing to adequately regulate greenhouse gas pollution and by continuing to lease new federal lands and waters for fossil fuel extraction, as recently as this year, is violating the kids' constitutional right to life, liberty, and property. (Warming is causing the seas to rise, for example, and one plaintiff lives in coastal Florida). She'll also claim that children are a class that's being discriminated against when it comes to climate change: They're not causing this problem, and yet they will be disproportionately subjected to its dire consequences.
Consider 13-year-old plaintiff Jayden Foytlin, a resident of Rayne, Louisiana. For her, Tuesday's hearing comes just one month after the waters from a catastrophic 1,000-year flood "crept into her bedroom in the middle of the night and destroyed most of her family's home," as Our Children's Trust, the group behind the suit, said in a statement.
"They called it a thousand-year flood, meaning it should only happen every thousand years or so," Foytlin said ahead of the hearing. "But in my state--Louisiana--we have had that 1,000-year flood and eight 500-year floods in less than two years. A few weeks ago I literally stepped out of bed and was up to my ankles in climate change."
She continued: "Soon I will leave my home, which is still a mess--no walls, no carpet, even my little brothers toys were destroyed! But I feel like I have to go to court, because my little brother can't speak for himself, he's too little. But I can speak for him, and for everyone in my generation. It's time we were heard. It's time President Obama protects our future, and my little brother's future."
As John Light explained on Tuesday for BillMoyers.com:
The aim of the suit is to have a court--the Supreme Court, if the suit advances that far through the legal system--to require the federal government to address climate change more aggressively through laws and regulations. Lawyers in the case draw comparisons to the federal response to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that required the desegregation of schools. In that case, "judges found there were fundamental constitutional rights to equality and courts supervised the enforcement of those rights," Mary Christina Wood, a law professor at the University of Oregon, told BillMoyers.com last year. Our Children's Trust is hoping for a similar outcome on the issue of climate change.
A press conference will be held after the hearing, around 12pm PDT. Updates were being shared from inside and outside the courthouse on social media under the hashtag #kidsvgov: