"We are ready to start trial right now," Philip Gregory, of Gregory Law Group and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement. (Photo: Shadia Fayne Wood/Climate March)
'These Children and Their Evidence Should Be Heard': Lawyers Urge Supreme Court to Let Youth Climate Suit Go to Trial
"Even the Trump administration admits both the climate science and the irreparable harm these youth plaintiffs are facing due to climate change. These children and their evidence should be heard in a court of law."
Just days after the right-wing Supreme Court sparked backlash for granting the Trump administration's request for a stay of the landmark climate lawsuit brought by 21 American kids and young adults, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs on Monday filed their response to the Justice Department's stay application--which they argue is full of errors and "mischaracterizations"--and urged the high court to reject the White House's effort to permanently halt the suit.
"We are ready to start trial right now," Philip Gregory, of Gregory Law Group and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement. "This case asks important constitutional questions, including issues about individual liberty. Even the Trump administration admits both the climate science and the irreparable harm these youth plaintiffs are facing due to climate change. These children and their evidence should be heard in a court of law."
In their rebuttal of the Trump administration's filing--exactly a week before trial was scheduled to begin next Monday, Oct. 29--lawyers for the youth plaintiffs highlighted (pdf) a number of mischaracterizations in the Justice Department's application, including:
- This is not an environmental case, it's a civil rights case.
- This is not a case that hinges on a newly recognized unenumerated fundamental right, as the DOJ misstates.
- The length of trial and its cost are not enough to show irreparable harm for purposes of a stay and are not a legitimate basis to stop a trial on the constitutional rights of children.
- Contrary to the assertions of the Trump administration, this trial will not intrude on the ability of the executive branch to carry out its functions. There will be no confidential information disclosed in discovery or at the trial.
Initially filed in 2015, the youth-led lawsuit argues that the government's actions contributing to the human-caused climate crisis have "violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs argued on Monday that the Supreme Court "has never before stopped a trial for the reasons argued by" the Trump administration.
"The Supreme Court and our constitutional democracy will be better served if the Supreme Court reviews this case after a final judgment, as it does in every other matter where review is granted," Olson added.
Levi Draheim--an 11-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach, Florida--said in a statement that he was "excited" to leave home for trial "because the air is so toxic from the red tide, which is being made worse by climate change."
"I feel like I need to get out of here for my health," Draheim concluded. "We need to go to trial so that I can protect my home."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Just days after the right-wing Supreme Court sparked backlash for granting the Trump administration's request for a stay of the landmark climate lawsuit brought by 21 American kids and young adults, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs on Monday filed their response to the Justice Department's stay application--which they argue is full of errors and "mischaracterizations"--and urged the high court to reject the White House's effort to permanently halt the suit.
"We are ready to start trial right now," Philip Gregory, of Gregory Law Group and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement. "This case asks important constitutional questions, including issues about individual liberty. Even the Trump administration admits both the climate science and the irreparable harm these youth plaintiffs are facing due to climate change. These children and their evidence should be heard in a court of law."
In their rebuttal of the Trump administration's filing--exactly a week before trial was scheduled to begin next Monday, Oct. 29--lawyers for the youth plaintiffs highlighted (pdf) a number of mischaracterizations in the Justice Department's application, including:
- This is not an environmental case, it's a civil rights case.
- This is not a case that hinges on a newly recognized unenumerated fundamental right, as the DOJ misstates.
- The length of trial and its cost are not enough to show irreparable harm for purposes of a stay and are not a legitimate basis to stop a trial on the constitutional rights of children.
- Contrary to the assertions of the Trump administration, this trial will not intrude on the ability of the executive branch to carry out its functions. There will be no confidential information disclosed in discovery or at the trial.
Initially filed in 2015, the youth-led lawsuit argues that the government's actions contributing to the human-caused climate crisis have "violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs argued on Monday that the Supreme Court "has never before stopped a trial for the reasons argued by" the Trump administration.
"The Supreme Court and our constitutional democracy will be better served if the Supreme Court reviews this case after a final judgment, as it does in every other matter where review is granted," Olson added.
Levi Draheim--an 11-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach, Florida--said in a statement that he was "excited" to leave home for trial "because the air is so toxic from the red tide, which is being made worse by climate change."
"I feel like I need to get out of here for my health," Draheim concluded. "We need to go to trial so that I can protect my home."
Just days after the right-wing Supreme Court sparked backlash for granting the Trump administration's request for a stay of the landmark climate lawsuit brought by 21 American kids and young adults, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs on Monday filed their response to the Justice Department's stay application--which they argue is full of errors and "mischaracterizations"--and urged the high court to reject the White House's effort to permanently halt the suit.
"We are ready to start trial right now," Philip Gregory, of Gregory Law Group and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement. "This case asks important constitutional questions, including issues about individual liberty. Even the Trump administration admits both the climate science and the irreparable harm these youth plaintiffs are facing due to climate change. These children and their evidence should be heard in a court of law."
In their rebuttal of the Trump administration's filing--exactly a week before trial was scheduled to begin next Monday, Oct. 29--lawyers for the youth plaintiffs highlighted (pdf) a number of mischaracterizations in the Justice Department's application, including:
- This is not an environmental case, it's a civil rights case.
- This is not a case that hinges on a newly recognized unenumerated fundamental right, as the DOJ misstates.
- The length of trial and its cost are not enough to show irreparable harm for purposes of a stay and are not a legitimate basis to stop a trial on the constitutional rights of children.
- Contrary to the assertions of the Trump administration, this trial will not intrude on the ability of the executive branch to carry out its functions. There will be no confidential information disclosed in discovery or at the trial.
Initially filed in 2015, the youth-led lawsuit argues that the government's actions contributing to the human-caused climate crisis have "violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for the youth plaintiffs argued on Monday that the Supreme Court "has never before stopped a trial for the reasons argued by" the Trump administration.
"The Supreme Court and our constitutional democracy will be better served if the Supreme Court reviews this case after a final judgment, as it does in every other matter where review is granted," Olson added.
Levi Draheim--an 11-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach, Florida--said in a statement that he was "excited" to leave home for trial "because the air is so toxic from the red tide, which is being made worse by climate change."
"I feel like I need to get out of here for my health," Draheim concluded. "We need to go to trial so that I can protect my home."