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.
People watch the smoke and flames from the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood on January 7, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
"Wildfires are ravaging these children's communities in California, but the court claims that their suffering is too 'indirect' to matter," said the plaintiffs' lawyer. "This ruling is nothing short of judicial dereliction."
With Californians still reeling from what is expected to be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history," a federal judge in the state on Tuesday dismissed a constitutional climate case that young people brought against the U.S. government.
The firm Our Children's Trust filed the equal protection lawsuit on behalf of 18 children in the Central District of California on December 10, 2023. Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency initially just targeted the EPA and its administrator, but the plaintiffs later added the Office of Management and Budget and its director as defendants.
Since the beginning of the case, the Biden administration fought for its dismissal. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, previously dismissed the case last May but also allowed the youth plaintiffs' lawyers to amend their complaint. The judge dismissed the case again on Tuesday, the first major development since Republican President Donald Trump—a noted enemy of climate action—returned to the White House last month.
"We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
Responding in a Tuesday statement, Our Children's Trust slammed the "extraordinary decision to dismiss the case by disregarding key evidence showing the harmful effects of the EPA's policies and the unique vulnerability of children's bodies to climate pollution," highlighting expert testimony from economist Joseph Stiglitz and Dr. Elizabeth Pinsky, a psychiatrist and pediatrician.
"By dismissing this case, the court is turning a blind eye to the real-world harms youth are enduring right now. Wildfires are ravaging these children's communities in California, but the court claims that their suffering is too 'indirect' to matter," said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for the plaintiffs.
"This ruling is nothing short of judicial dereliction in the face of a climate emergency," she asserted. "The court refused to consider that the government's devaluation of children isn't just bad policy—it's a violation of fundamental equal rights."
The young plaintiffs also expressed disappointment with Fitzgerald's decision in the wake of January blazes that experts tied to the climate emergency—specifically, the World Weather Attribution found that fossil fuel-driven global warming made the weather conditions that caused the Los Angeles County fires 35% more probable.
"The court's decision to dismiss this case before we could even present our evidence is a gut punch," lead plaintiff Genesis B said Tuesday. "We are living with the consequences of these policies every single day—wildfires, choking smoke, evacuation orders. And now, with the strongest storm of the year set to hit Southern California this week, our case is more urgent than ever."
"Forecasters are warning of widespread flooding, landslides, and dangerous debris flows, especially in areas devastated by wildfires," Genesis B. explained. "We wanted the chance to show the court the science, the economics, and the lived experiences that prove the government's actions are harming us. Instead, we were denied that opportunity. He just shut the door on us, made up his own facts, and never listened to the real experts. He never gave us the opportunity to testify."
Despite the setback in court on Tuesday, the young plaintiffs in this case are determined to keep fighting and are now considering potential next steps with their lawyers.
"We are not backing down. This fight is about refusing to let our lives be discounted, and we won't stand by as our future is treated as expendable," declared plaintiff Maya W. "We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
This case is just one of many that young people have pursued in recent years, some of which are ongoing and many that involve Our Children's Trust. The group said that earlier Tuesday, attorneys representing a dozen youth plaintiffs in the constitutional climate case Layla H. v. Virginia presented their case virtually before the state Supreme Court.
In another Our Children's Trust case, Juliana v. United States, 43 members of Congress last month submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the 21 plaintiffs. That filing came less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 2023 decision that the state government's promotion of fossil fuels violates young residents' state constitutional rights. Earlier last year, Hawaii's governor and Department of Transportation announced an "unprecedented" settlement in another youth climate case.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
With Californians still reeling from what is expected to be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history," a federal judge in the state on Tuesday dismissed a constitutional climate case that young people brought against the U.S. government.
The firm Our Children's Trust filed the equal protection lawsuit on behalf of 18 children in the Central District of California on December 10, 2023. Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency initially just targeted the EPA and its administrator, but the plaintiffs later added the Office of Management and Budget and its director as defendants.
Since the beginning of the case, the Biden administration fought for its dismissal. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, previously dismissed the case last May but also allowed the youth plaintiffs' lawyers to amend their complaint. The judge dismissed the case again on Tuesday, the first major development since Republican President Donald Trump—a noted enemy of climate action—returned to the White House last month.
"We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
Responding in a Tuesday statement, Our Children's Trust slammed the "extraordinary decision to dismiss the case by disregarding key evidence showing the harmful effects of the EPA's policies and the unique vulnerability of children's bodies to climate pollution," highlighting expert testimony from economist Joseph Stiglitz and Dr. Elizabeth Pinsky, a psychiatrist and pediatrician.
"By dismissing this case, the court is turning a blind eye to the real-world harms youth are enduring right now. Wildfires are ravaging these children's communities in California, but the court claims that their suffering is too 'indirect' to matter," said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for the plaintiffs.
"This ruling is nothing short of judicial dereliction in the face of a climate emergency," she asserted. "The court refused to consider that the government's devaluation of children isn't just bad policy—it's a violation of fundamental equal rights."
The young plaintiffs also expressed disappointment with Fitzgerald's decision in the wake of January blazes that experts tied to the climate emergency—specifically, the World Weather Attribution found that fossil fuel-driven global warming made the weather conditions that caused the Los Angeles County fires 35% more probable.
"The court's decision to dismiss this case before we could even present our evidence is a gut punch," lead plaintiff Genesis B said Tuesday. "We are living with the consequences of these policies every single day—wildfires, choking smoke, evacuation orders. And now, with the strongest storm of the year set to hit Southern California this week, our case is more urgent than ever."
"Forecasters are warning of widespread flooding, landslides, and dangerous debris flows, especially in areas devastated by wildfires," Genesis B. explained. "We wanted the chance to show the court the science, the economics, and the lived experiences that prove the government's actions are harming us. Instead, we were denied that opportunity. He just shut the door on us, made up his own facts, and never listened to the real experts. He never gave us the opportunity to testify."
Despite the setback in court on Tuesday, the young plaintiffs in this case are determined to keep fighting and are now considering potential next steps with their lawyers.
"We are not backing down. This fight is about refusing to let our lives be discounted, and we won't stand by as our future is treated as expendable," declared plaintiff Maya W. "We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
This case is just one of many that young people have pursued in recent years, some of which are ongoing and many that involve Our Children's Trust. The group said that earlier Tuesday, attorneys representing a dozen youth plaintiffs in the constitutional climate case Layla H. v. Virginia presented their case virtually before the state Supreme Court.
In another Our Children's Trust case, Juliana v. United States, 43 members of Congress last month submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the 21 plaintiffs. That filing came less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 2023 decision that the state government's promotion of fossil fuels violates young residents' state constitutional rights. Earlier last year, Hawaii's governor and Department of Transportation announced an "unprecedented" settlement in another youth climate case.
With Californians still reeling from what is expected to be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history," a federal judge in the state on Tuesday dismissed a constitutional climate case that young people brought against the U.S. government.
The firm Our Children's Trust filed the equal protection lawsuit on behalf of 18 children in the Central District of California on December 10, 2023. Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency initially just targeted the EPA and its administrator, but the plaintiffs later added the Office of Management and Budget and its director as defendants.
Since the beginning of the case, the Biden administration fought for its dismissal. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, previously dismissed the case last May but also allowed the youth plaintiffs' lawyers to amend their complaint. The judge dismissed the case again on Tuesday, the first major development since Republican President Donald Trump—a noted enemy of climate action—returned to the White House last month.
"We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
Responding in a Tuesday statement, Our Children's Trust slammed the "extraordinary decision to dismiss the case by disregarding key evidence showing the harmful effects of the EPA's policies and the unique vulnerability of children's bodies to climate pollution," highlighting expert testimony from economist Joseph Stiglitz and Dr. Elizabeth Pinsky, a psychiatrist and pediatrician.
"By dismissing this case, the court is turning a blind eye to the real-world harms youth are enduring right now. Wildfires are ravaging these children's communities in California, but the court claims that their suffering is too 'indirect' to matter," said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for the plaintiffs.
"This ruling is nothing short of judicial dereliction in the face of a climate emergency," she asserted. "The court refused to consider that the government's devaluation of children isn't just bad policy—it's a violation of fundamental equal rights."
The young plaintiffs also expressed disappointment with Fitzgerald's decision in the wake of January blazes that experts tied to the climate emergency—specifically, the World Weather Attribution found that fossil fuel-driven global warming made the weather conditions that caused the Los Angeles County fires 35% more probable.
"The court's decision to dismiss this case before we could even present our evidence is a gut punch," lead plaintiff Genesis B said Tuesday. "We are living with the consequences of these policies every single day—wildfires, choking smoke, evacuation orders. And now, with the strongest storm of the year set to hit Southern California this week, our case is more urgent than ever."
"Forecasters are warning of widespread flooding, landslides, and dangerous debris flows, especially in areas devastated by wildfires," Genesis B. explained. "We wanted the chance to show the court the science, the economics, and the lived experiences that prove the government's actions are harming us. Instead, we were denied that opportunity. He just shut the door on us, made up his own facts, and never listened to the real experts. He never gave us the opportunity to testify."
Despite the setback in court on Tuesday, the young plaintiffs in this case are determined to keep fighting and are now considering potential next steps with their lawyers.
"We are not backing down. This fight is about refusing to let our lives be discounted, and we won't stand by as our future is treated as expendable," declared plaintiff Maya W. "We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
This case is just one of many that young people have pursued in recent years, some of which are ongoing and many that involve Our Children's Trust. The group said that earlier Tuesday, attorneys representing a dozen youth plaintiffs in the constitutional climate case Layla H. v. Virginia presented their case virtually before the state Supreme Court.
In another Our Children's Trust case, Juliana v. United States, 43 members of Congress last month submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the 21 plaintiffs. That filing came less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 2023 decision that the state government's promotion of fossil fuels violates young residents' state constitutional rights. Earlier last year, Hawaii's governor and Department of Transportation announced an "unprecedented" settlement in another youth climate case.
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
"I had to protect my life and my family... my truck was shot three times," said the vehicle's driver.
A family in San Bernardino, California is in shock after masked federal agents opened fire on their truck.
As NBC Los Angeles reported, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents on Saturday morning surrounded the family's truck and demanded that its passengers exit the vehicle.
A video of the incident filmed from inside the truck showed the passengers asked the agents to provide identification, which they declined to do.
An agent was then heard demanding that the father, who had been driving the truck, get out of the vehicle. Seconds later, the agent started smashing the car's windows in an attempt to get inside the vehicle.
The father then hit the gas to try to escape, after which several shots could be heard as agents opened fire. Local news station KTLA reported that, after the father successfully fled the scene, he called local police and asked for help because "masked men" had opened fire on his truck.
Looks like, for the first time I'm aware of, masked agents opened fire today, in San Bernardino. Sources posted below: pic.twitter.com/eE1GMglECg
— Eric Levai (@ericlevai) August 17, 2025
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defended the agents' actions in a statement to NBC Los Angeles.
"In the course of the incident the suspect drove his car at the officers and struck two CBP officers with his vehicle," they said. "Because of the subjects forcing a CBP officer to discharge his firearm in self-defense."
But the father, who only wished to be identified as "Francisco," pointed out that the agents refused to identify themselves and presented no warrants to justify the search of his truck.
"I had to protect my life and my family," he explained to NBC Los Angeles. "My truck was shot three times."
His son-in-law, who only wished to be identified as "Martin," was similarly critical of the agents' actions.
"Its just upsetting that it happened to us," he said. "I am glad my brother is okay, Pop is okay, but it's just not cool that [immigration enforcement officials are] able to do something like that."
According to KTLA, federal agents surrounded the family's house later that afternoon and demanded that the father come out so that he could be arrested. He refused, and agents eventually departed from the neighborhood without detaining him.
Local advocacy group Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice said on its Instagram page that it was "mobilizing to provide legal support" for the family.