"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."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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."