April, 08 2016, 09:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Philip Gregory, 650-697-6000, pgregory@cpmlegal.com
Julia Olson, 415-786-4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org
Federal Court Affirms Constitutional Rights of Kids in Landmark Climate Case
VICTORY IN LANDMARK CLIMATE CASE!
EUGENE, Oregon
On April 8, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin of the federal District Court in Eugene, OR, decided in favor of 21 young Plaintiffs, and Dr. James Hansen on behalf of future generations, in their landmark constitutional climate change case brought against the federal government and the fossil fuel industry. The Court's ruling is a major victory for the 21 youth Plaintiffs, ages 8-19, from across the U.S. in what Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein call the "most important lawsuit on the planet right now." These plaintiffs sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, and their right to essential public trust resources, by permitting, encouraging, and otherwise enabling continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels.
Plaintiffs' attorney Philip Gregory with Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy of Burlingame, CA, said: "This decision is one of the most significant in our nation's history. The Court upheld our claims that the federal government intensified the danger to our plaintiffs' lives, liberty and property. Judge Coffin decided our Complaint will move forward and put climate science squarely in front of the federal courts. The next step is for the Court to order our government to cease jeopardizing the climate system for present and future generations. The Court gave America's youth a fair opportunity to be heard."
As part of Friday's historic decision, Judge Coffin characterized the case as an "unprecedented lawsuit" addressing "government action and inaction" resulting "in carbon pollution of the atmosphere, climate destabilization, and ocean acidification." In deciding the case will proceed, Judge Coffin wrote: "The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now. Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs' analysis of the impacts of global climate change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society."
The court rejected the courtroom arguments of Government and fossil fuel industry that Congress could sell the coastal sea waters of the U.S. to Exxon. Instead, the court found that the federal government is subject to the public trust doctrine and that "such a sweeping and profound effect" as suggested by the defendants is not consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. In January 2016, Defendant status was granted to three fossil fuel industry trade associations, representing nearly all of the world's largest fossil fuel companies, who called the case "extraordinary" and "a direct, substantial threat to [their] businesses."
The decision denied motions seeking to dismiss the youth's climate change lawsuit. The motions were brought by the federal government and the fossil fuel industry who denied any duty under the constitution or the public trust doctrine to protect essential natural resources, such as air and oceans, for the benefit of all present and future generations. The court heard oral arguments from attorneys for two hours on March 9, 2016, before hundreds of people supporting the youth, while hundreds more waited in lines to enter the courthouse. In an unprecedented move, oral argument was streamed via video feed into three additional courtrooms in Eugene and one in Portland, Oregon.
In denying the motions of the federal government and the fossil fuel industry, the Court's decision framed the issue as follows: "Plaintiffs are suing the United States ... because the government has known for decades that carbon dioxide (C02) pollution has been causing catastrophic climate change and has failed to take necessary action to curtail fossil fuel emissions. Moreover, plaintiffs allege that the government and its agencies have taken action or failed to take action that has resulted in increased carbon pollution through fossil fuel extraction, production, consumption, transportation, and exportation. Plaintiffs allege the current actions and omissions of defendants make it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to protect their vital natural systems and a livable world. Plaintiffs assert the actions and omissions of defendants that increased C02 emissions 'shock the conscience,' and are infringing the plaintiffs' right to life and liberty in violation of their substantive due process rights." The Court's decision also upheld the youth Plaintiffs' claims in the Fifth and Ninth Amendments "by denying them protections afforded to previous generations and by favoring short term economic interests of certain citizens." Finally, Judge Coffin upheld Plaintiffs' assertion of violations under the public trust doctrine, ruling that there is a federal public trust and plaintiffs' claim can proceed.
"Judge Coffin accepted the Complaint's presentation of undisputed scientific evidence that the federal government has, and continues to, damage these young Plaintiffs' personal security and other fundamental rights. Unlike almost every other case deciding constitutional rights throughout history, the climate rights that will now be decided in this case, cannot be vindicated by future generations. The science is clear that if we do not obtain the relief we seek in this case, our climate system will be irreversibly and catastrophically damaged," said Julia Olson, counsel for the plaintiffs and Executive Director of Our Children's Trust. "Now these young plaintiffs have the right to prove that the government's role in harming them has been knowing and deliberate for more than 50 years."
Dr. James Hansen, guardian in the case for all future generations, and world renown climate scientist said, "Science clearly establishes that our planet's increasing energy imbalance - caused in substantial part by our government's support for the exploitation and combustion of fossil fuel - imposes increasingly severe risks on our common future. Now, from Eugene Oregon, comes a prescient and insightful ruling from a federal district court. Judge Coffin in effect declares that the voice of children and future generations, supported by the relevant science, must be heard. We will now proceed to prove our claims. It is perhaps not too late for serious action to preserve a viable climate system that will be required by our posterity."
This case alleges the Federal Government is violating Plaintiffs' constitutional and public trust rights by promoting the development and use of fossil fuels. The Complaint explains that, for more than fifty years, the U.S. Government has known that carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution from burning fossil fuels causes global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels destabilizes the climate system. The next step is a review of Judge Coffin's decision by another judge in the same court, Judge Ann Aiken.
"This is as important a court case as the planet has yet seen," said Bill McKibben, author and founder of 350.org. "To watch the next generation stand up for every generation that will follow is as moving as it is significant."
Kelsey Juliana, youth plaintiff from Eugene, OR, observed that "this decision marks a tipping point on the scales of justice. Youth voices are uniting around the world to demand that Government uphold our constitutional rights and protect the planet for our and future generations' survivability. This will be the trial of the century that will determine if we have a right to a livable future, or if corporate power will continue to deny our rights for the sake of their own wealth."
"The future of our generation is at stake," said 16-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett. "People label our generation as dreamers, but hope is not the only tool we have. I am a teenager. I want to do what I love and live a life full of opportunities. I want the generation that follows to have the same chance. I absolutely refuse to let our government's harmful action, corporate greed, and the pure denial of climate science get in the way of that. If anything, I'm going to use my positive energy to show my government that I won't let my world stop for them. WE won't let our world stop for them. Our generation will continue to be a force for the world."
Youth Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh Martinez commented, "When those in power stand alongside the very industries that threaten the future of my generation instead of standing with the people, it is a reminder that they are not our leaders. The real leaders are the twenty youth standing with me in court to demand justice for my generation and justice for all youth. We will not be silent, we will not go unnoticed, and we are ready to stand to protect everything our "leaders" have failed to fight for. They are afraid of the power we have to create change. And this change we are creating, will go down in history."
Judge Coffin's Order can be read in its entirely at: https://ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/16.04.08.OrderDenyingMTD.pdf
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
LATEST NEWS
Israeli Airstrike Kills Houthi Prime Minister in Yemen's Capital
As one Houthi leader pledged that "we shall take vengeance," Israel's defense minister said that "this is just the beginning."
Aug 30, 2025
Yemen's Houthis confirmed Saturday that an Israeli airstrike Thursday in the country's capital, Sanaa, killed "several" government officials, including Prime Minister Ahmed al-Rahawi.
The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, have targeted Israel and ships in the Red Sea over the US-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which has been increasingly denounced as genocide. Israel and the United States—under both the Biden and Trump administrations—have responded to the Houthis' Red Sea actions by bombing Yemen, where an ongoing civil war began in 2014.
As The Associated Press reported Saturday:
Thursday's Israeli strike took place as the rebel-owned television station was broadcasting a speech by Abdul Malik al-Houthi, the secretive leader of the rebel group in which he was sharing updates on the latest Gaza developments and vowing retaliation against Israel. Senior Houthi officials used to gather to watch al-Houthi's prerecorded speeches.
Al-Rahawi wasn't part of the inner circle around Abdul Malik al-Houthi that runs the military and strategic affairs of the group. His government, like the previous ones, was tasked with running the day-to-day civilian affairs in Sanaa and other Houthi-held areas.
Although the full list of Houthi officials killed in the strike has not been released, Reuters reported that unnamed sources confirmed that "the energy, foreign, and information ministers were among those killed."
The news agency also noted that while Al-Rahawi became prime minister around a year ago, "the de facto leader of the government was his deputy, Mohamed Moftah, who was assigned on Saturday to carry out the prime minister's duties."
In a Saturday statement, the Houthi government affirmed that it would continue to "fulfill its role" and "institutions will continue to provide their services to the steadfast, patient, struggling Yemeni people. It will not be affected, no matter the extent of the calamity... and the blood of the great martyrs will be fuel and motivation to continue on the same path."
"We affirm to our great Yemeni people, to the oppressed Palestinian people, to all the sons of our nation, and to all free people in the world, that we continue our authentic stance in supporting and aiding the people of Gaza, and in building our armed forces and developing their capabilities to face all challenges and dangers, just as our great Yemeni people are present in all fields and arenas with all determination, will, and faith," the government added, according to a translation from Drop Site News.
Both US President Donald Trump's administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive of the International Criminal Court for his country's conduct in Gaza—consider the Houthis a terrorist organization.
The Thursday strike came nearly a week after the Israel Defense Forces said that it intercepted multiple ballistic missiles launched by the Houthis, and at least one contained cluster munitions. Citing the IDF and Hebrew media, The Times of Israel reported Saturday that a missile fired by the Houthis overnight "fell short" of Israel, instead falling in Saudi Arabia.
The newspaper also shared Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz's response to the Houthis confirming Al-Rahawi's assassination. He said that "two days ago, we dealt an unprecedented crushing blow to the senior officials in the military-political leadership of the Houthi terrorist organization in Yemen, in a bold and brilliant action by the IDF."
"The destiny of Yemen is the destiny of Tehran—and this is just the beginning," Katz continued. "The Houthis will learn the hard way that whoever threatens and harms Israel will be harmed sevenfold—and they will not determine when this ends."
Meanwhile, according to Al Jazeera, Mahdi al-Mashat, a Yemeni politician and military officer who serves as the chairman of the Supreme Political Council of the Houthis, said in a video message that "we shall take vengeance, and we shall forge from the depths of wounds a victory."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No More Conspiracy Theories. Kennedy Must Resign,' Says Sanders Amid CDC Fallout
Make America Healthy Again is "a great slogan," the senator wrote. "The problem is that since coming into office President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite."
Aug 30, 2025
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, is endangering the health of the American people now and into the future. He must resign."
That's how US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) began a New York Times op-ed on Saturday, amid mounting calls for Kennedy to leave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), by choice or force, following the ouster of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez.
As Sanders detailed in the Times—and a Thursday letter to Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) demanding a congressional probe—Monarez was fired after reportedly refusing to "act as a rubber stamp for his dangerous policies." Her exit led to resignations and a staff walkout at the CDC, which is now being led by Jim O'Neill, a Kennedy aide and biotech investor.
Sanders and other lawmakers—including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a polio survivor and the only Republican to vote against Kennedy's confirmation in February—have long warned about the consequences of letting RFK Jr. hold a key health policy position in President Donald Trump's second administration.
"Mr. Kennedy and the rest of the Trump administration tell us, over and over, that they want to Make America Healthy Again," Sanders noted Saturday. "That's a great slogan. I agree with it. The problem is that since coming into office President Trump and Mr. Kennedy have done exactly the opposite."
"Despite the overwhelming opposition of the medical community, Secretary Kennedy has continued his long-standing crusade against vaccines and his advocacy of conspiracy theories that have been rejected repeatedly by scientific experts," the senator wrote. "It is absurd to have to say this in 2025, but vaccines are safe and effective. That, of course, is not just my view. Far more important, it is the overwhelming consensus of the medical and scientific communities."
Sanders pointed to guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and World Health Organization, and called out Kennedy's comments on autism, Covid-19 and polio vaccines, and immunizations in general.
"The reality is that Secretary Kennedy has profited from and built a career on sowing mistrust in vaccines. Now, as head of HHS, he is using his authority to launch a full-blown war on science, on public health, and on truth itself," he wrote, warning that in the "short term, it will be harder for Americans to get lifesaving vaccines," including for Covid.
However, "Covid is just the beginning. Mr. Kennedy's next target may be the childhood immunization schedule, the list of recommended vaccines that children receive to protect them from diseases like measles, chickenpox. and polio," the senator continued. He also sounded the alarm over the secretary "defunding the research that could help us prepare for the next pandemic."
Sanders, a leading advocate of Medicare for All, also took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed last month.
"America's healthcare system is already dysfunctional and wildly expensive, and yet the Trump administration will be throwing an estimated 15 million people off their health insurance through a cut of over $1 trillion to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," he noted. "This cut is also expected to result in the closing of or the decline in services at hundreds of nursing homes, hospitals, and community health centers. As a result of cuts to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance costs will soar for millions of Americans. That is not Making America Healthy Again."
"Secretary Kennedy is putting Americans' lives in danger, and he must resign," Sanders concluded. "In his place, President Trump must listen to doctors and scientists and nominate a health secretary and a CDC director who will protect the health and well-being of the American people, not carry out dangerous policies based on conspiracy theories."
Bernie Sanders is right—RFK Jr. must resign. His leadership is an assault on science, public health, and truth. We’re not just talking politics; we’re talking lives. #ResignKennedy #ScienceFirst”www.nytimes.com/2025/08/30/o...
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth (@elizathewell.bsky.social) August 30, 2025 at 10:30 AM
Doctors, journalists, and others praised the senator's op-ed, with Trauma surgeon Mark Hoofnagle saying that "Bernie nails it."
Pennsylvania State University professor and A Desire Called America author Christian Haines wrote on the social media platform Bluesky that the piece was "clear and incisive, though I wish it didn't need to be said."
Also sharing the post on Bluesky, former Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse said: "It's delusional for anyone to think that RFK Jr. and Donald Trump are making America healthy again. With Kennedy's war against science, truth, and vaccines and Trump's war against Medicaid, their movement should be called MAKING AMERICA UNHEALTHY AGAIN."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Bid to Block $4.9 Billion With 'Pocket Rescission' Blasted as 'Authoritarianism 101'
"Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar.
Aug 30, 2025
Democracy defenders and members of Congress are condemning US President Donald Trump's effort to use a "pocket rescission" process to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid as authoritarian and illegal.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday shared on social media Trump's letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the move. According to a White House fact sheet linked in a subsequent post, much of the money was headed for the US Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump has gutted.
As The Associated Press explained:
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to September 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.
What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it's a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.
Shortly after the OMB social media posts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that OMB Director Russ Vought was helping shutter USAID, writing on the platform X: "Since January, we've saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And with a small set of core programs moved over to the State Department, USAID is officially in closeout mode. Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails. Congrats, Russ."
Meanwhile, Rubio's former congressional colleagues and others are sounding the alarm over the administration's effort.
"America is staring down next month's government funding deadline on September 30," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's clear neither Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown. With Trump's illegal 'pocket rescission': They seem eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their healthcare costs, compromising essential services, and further damaging our national security."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also put pressure on GOP lawmakers, saying that "this is wrong—and illegal. Not only is Trump gutting $5 billion in foreign aid that saves lives and advances America's interests, but he's doing so using an unlawful 'pocket recission' method that undermines Congress' power of the purse. I urge my Republican colleagues to say hell no."
While most Republicans on Capitol Hill have backed Trump's endeavors to claw back funding previously appropriated by Congress, GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted against his $9 billion rescission package earlier this year.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke out against Trump's new move, noting in a Friday statement that under the US Constitution, Congress has "the power of the purse," and the Government Accountability Office "has concluded that this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar, similarly stressed that "Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed. Trump's 'pocket recissions' are lawless and absurd. If a president opposes legislative spending decisions, he can veto them, subject to override, but once passed, he must execute on them."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, declared in a Friday statement that with the pocket rescission move, the Trump administration "demonstrated yet again its contempt for Congress' power of the purse and the Constitution's separation of powers."
"With this Constitution-mocking action, the administration is bringing us closer to a shutdown on September 30, and it doesn't seem to care," Gilbert said. "We call on Congress to push back, pass and abide by appropriations packages, and fight the administration’s illegal impoundments that harm regular Americans."
"This is not just a constitutional crisis, it's a matter of global justice," she added. "The congressionally appropriated funds that the Trump administration illegally aims to cancel support economic development programs to empower the world's most vulnerable and impoverished, and address some of the ravage of catastrophic climate change in developing nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular