

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.
WHAT: Oral arguments in Juliana, et al. v. United States, et al., before Judge Ann Aiken on government and fossil fuel industry's objections to Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin's denial of their motions to dismiss.
WHEN: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 @10:00 am PST. Arrive by 8:00 am to secure a seat in the courtroom.
WHAT: Oral arguments in Juliana, et al. v. United States, et al., before Judge Ann Aiken on government and fossil fuel industry's objections to Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin's denial of their motions to dismiss.
WHEN: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 @10:00 am PST. Arrive by 8:00 am to secure a seat in the courtroom.
A news conference will be held on the courthouse steps immediately following the hearing at approximately 12:00 pm.
WHERE: The Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse
Courtroom 1 (Overflow viewing in Courtrooms 2, 4)
405 E. 8th St., Eugene, Oregon
WHO: Youth plaintiffs Alex, Aji, Avery, Hazel, Isaac, Jacob, Jaime, Jayden, Journey, Kelsey, Kiran, Levi, Miko, Nathan, Nick, Sahara, Sophie, Tia, Victoria, Xiuhtezcatl, and Zealand, and Dr. James Hansen, as guardian for future generations.
Please contact: Meg Ward to arrange to speak to plaintiffs and/or attorneys.
WHY: Twenty-one youth plaintiffs, and Dr. James Hansen, filed a lawsuit in 2015 against the United States, seeking to secure their constitutional rights to a stable climate. Three trade associations, representing the fossil fuel industry intervened to protect their interests. Both the government and the trade associations filed motions to dismiss to throw the youth's case out of court. They lost.
In April, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin denied all the motions to dismiss, paving the way for the case to move forward. However, both the government and fossil fuel industry filed motions in objection to Judge Coffin's findings. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken will hear oral arguments on those motions from lawyers representing all of the parties.
Jayden, 13, one of the 21 youth plaintiffs in this landmark climate case, is a resident of Rayne, Louisiana. For her, the 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. The flooding in Louisiana killed 13 people and forced at least 30,000 more to evacuate. An estimated 146,000 families, like Jayden's, are now trying to repair the flood damage to their homes.
The Louisiana flooding came a little more than a week after NOAA released its 2015 State of the Climate Report, confirming that "global surface temperature in 2015 easily beat the previous record holder, 2014, for the title of warmest year in the modern instrument record," and that "14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000."
"They called it a thousand year flood, meaning it should only happen every thousand years or so," said Jayden. "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. 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 brothers future."
Jayden and her fellow plaintiffs will be entering the hearing Tuesday with momentum from legal victories from their peers. Aside from their own victory before Judge Coffin, they are emboldened by other youth plaintiff wins in state courts in Washington, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. Not to mention other state andinternational legal actions underway, all with support from Our Children's Trust.
"We must hold the world's governments accountable for the safety of current and future generations," said Roger Cox, the Dutch lawyer who won a similar lawsuit against the Netherlands last year for not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause dangerous climate change. "If U.S. courts uphold their federal government's duty to protect our atmosphere, that would bolster our own legal efforts in Europe and give hope across the world that the U.S. may finally walk the walk, and not just talk the talk."
"My client Jayden, who is 13 years old, just survived a 1,000-year flood event that devastated her home with sewage-contaminated rivers running through her bedroom and her community," said Julia Olson, plaintiffs' attorney and Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel of Our Children's Trust. "This is the ninth flood event that is supposed to happen once every 500 years or more to hit her region in two years, floods that would not happen but for climate change. Yet, the national energy policy of the U.S. is 'drill baby, drill'. And by 2040, fossil fuel consumption will still make up more than 75% of our energy supply compared to 80% today. According to these federal defendants, by 2040 our carbon dioxide emissions will at best be flatlining at dangerous levels. Make no mistake, the U.S. government has caused climate change and continues to promote a fossil fuel system that is violating the rights of these 21 young plaintiffs."
Representing the plaintiffs on Tuesday are Julia A. Olson of Wild Earth Advocates, Philip L. Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Daniel M. Galpern. Olson also serves as the Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel of Our Children's Trust.
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/809503839149675/
Twitter: #KidsvGov
WHILE YOU'RE IN TOWN:
Just one day before the hearing, on Monday, September 12, 2016, the University of Oregon Environmental & Natural Resources Law Center and the Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics will be hosting: Climate in Court: A Convening of Renowned Climate Experts in Eugene, Oregon. The panel, scheduled to run from 12 pm - 2 pm PST, will include climate scientist Dr. James Hansen (who is both a plaintiff and an expert in the youth's lawsuit), economist Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, and psychiatrist Dr. Lise Van Susteren. The panel will take place in the University of Oregon's EMU Redwood Auditorium (Room 214), but as seating is limited to 275 persons, the panel will be also live streamed at: https://media.uoregon.edu/channel/livestream.
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.
"We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn't over," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
Two Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Monday added their names to a discharge petition that will now force a vote on legislation to restore the collective bargaining rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers targeted by GOP President Donald Trump.
US Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) responded to Trump's legally contentious executive order by introducing the Protect America's Workforce Act in April. They began collecting petition signatures in June. At least 218 members had to sign it to override House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and force a vote on the bill.
Two New York Republicans, Congressmen Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler, signed the petition on Monday. It was previously signed by the sponsors, House Democrats, and GOP Reps. Rob Bresnahan (Pa.) and Don Bacon (Neb.). Their move came on the heels of an end to the longest government shutdown in US history, which left some federal workers furloughed and others working without pay.
"Every American deserves the right to have a voice in the workplace, including those who serve their country every single day. Supporting workers and ensuring good government are not opposing ideas," Lawler said in a statement. "They go hand in hand. Restoring collective bargaining rights strengthens our federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people."
"Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers' rights."
Golden, a former Blue Dog Coalition co-chair who recently announced his plans to retire from Congress after this term, thanked the newest signatories for joining the fight for his bill.
"America never voted to eliminate workers’ union rights, and the strong bipartisan support for my bill shows that Congress will not stand idly by while President Trump nullifies federal workers’ collective bargaining agreements and rolls back generations of labor law," Golden said. "I'm grateful to Reps. LaLota and Lawler for bringing this discharge petition over the finish line, and I'm calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a clean, up-or-down vote on this bill."
Liz Shuler, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the country's largest federation of unions, similarly welcomed the latest signatures and set her sights on the House speaker.
"The labor movement fought back against the largest act of union-busting in American history by doing what we do best: organizing," Shuler said in a Monday statement. "Working people built a bipartisan coalition to restore union rights to federal workers in the face of unprecedented attacks on our freedoms. We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America’s Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn't over."
"Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers' rights," she continued. "It's time to bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to a vote and restore federal workers' right to collectively bargain and have a voice on the job."
Other discharge petitions might be more salacious, but it is HUGE news tonight that two Republicans just got the Protect America’s Workforce Act discharge petition to 218 to restore federal workers’ union rights.Let’s get the job done. ✊
[image or embed]
— Lauren Miller (@laurenmiller.bsky.social) November 17, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—which is the largest federal workers union, representing 820,000 people in the federal and District of Columbia governments—also applauded the development on Monday.
"An independent, apolitical civil service is one of the bedrocks of American democracy," Kelley said in a statement. "Today, lawmakers stood up together to defend that principle and to affirm that federal workers must retain their right to collective bargaining. This is what leadership looks like."
"Federal workers do their jobs every day without regard to politics. Today's action honors that commitment," Kelley asserted.
"AFGE will continue fighting until these essential rights are fully restored, including by fighting to retain Section 1110 of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act," he vowed, referring to an amendment to the NDAA that restores bargaining rights to hundreds of thousands of civilians working in the US Department of Defense.
While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this one secured the necessary 218 signatures following a similar victory last week, when the newest member of Congress, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), signed her name to an effort to force a vote on releasing files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
CodePink said the plan "will leave Palestine in the hands of a puppet administration, assigning the United States, which shares complicity in the genocide, as the new manager of the open-air prison."
Palestine defenders decried Monday's approval by the United Nations Security Council of a US plan authorizing a so-called international stabilization force for Gaza—a plan decried by one peace group as a denial of Palestinian self-determination.
Thirteen UNSC members voted for the resolution, while no nation voted against the proposal. China abstained, as did Russia, which submitted a rival draft resolution.
While US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz hailed the approval of what he called a “historic and constructive resolution," Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since 2007, rejected what it said "imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which our people and their factions reject."
“Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation," added Hamas, which the US labels a terrorist organization.
After waging war on Gaza for over two years, Israeli officials also rejected the resolution for opening the door to Palestinian statehood—which is officially recognized by around 150 nations but is vehemently opposed by Israel—with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slamming Monday's vote as "unacceptable."
The approved stabilization force will be tasked with securing Gaza’s borders, protecting civilians, facilitating humanitarian assistance, supporting a redeployed Palestinian police force, and supervising disarmament of Hamas and other militant resistance groups. Under the plan, Israeli occupation forces would fully withdraw from Gaza after the stabilization force achieves security and operational control of the Palestinian exclave.
Then, a transitional governing body—the so-called Board of Peace led by US President Donald Trump—would be established to coordinate security, humanitarian aid, and reconstruction. The plan, which builds on Trump's 20-point peace proposal adopted in last month's tenuous ceasefire, dangles the carrot of a pathway toward Palestinian self-determination and statehood under a reformed Palestinian governing authority.
Human Rights Watch criticized the vote in an X post stating that "the fact that the words ‘human rights’ don’t appear in the resolution adopted by the Security Council today speaks volumes."
The US-based peace group CodePink said in a statement that "the resolution, while disguised as a peaceful and humanitarian proposal, is in reality a blueprint for the internationalization of the Israeli occupation and a complete denial of Palestinian self-determination."
CodePink continued:
The resolution imposes a two-year mandate to "secure borders," "protect civilians," and "decommission weapons," with the stated goal of disarming Palestinian resistance. However, it does nothing to address and end the root cause of the violence: Israel's ongoing siege, occupation, and ethnic cleansing. The United States, which armed and shielded the Israeli government unconditionally as it killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, should not be considered a neutral actor of good faith. A military force that answers to a "Board of Peace" chaired by the US president is an extension of US and Israeli interests, plain and simple.
"The establishment of a 'technocratic Palestinian administration' that answers to a US-led board will strip the Palestinian people of political agency," CodePink added. "Essentially, it will leave Palestine in the hands of a puppet administration, assigning the United States, which shares complicity in the genocide, as the new manager of the open-air prison that Israel has already established."
Members of the New York branch of the Palestine Youth Movement led a demonstration outside the US mission to the UN in Manhattan to protest the resolution.
"We see through this thinly veiled attempt to strip the Palestinian people of their sovereignty, self-determination, and right of return," the group said on Instagram. "The people reject any and all occupation plans for Gaza. Our movement will continue to struggle against Zionism and imperialism until Palestine is free, from the river to the sea."
"Labour won't redistribute wealth from billionaires," said former party Leader Jeremy Corbyn. "But they will seize belongings from those fleeing war and persecution."
A new asylum policy announced Monday by the UK Labour Party will allow authorities to confiscate the jewelry and other belongings of asylum-seekers in order to pay for their claims to be processed.
The policy, which some critics said was "reminiscent of the Nazi era," was just one part of the Labour Party's total overhaul of the nation's asylum system, which it says must be made much more restrictive in order to fend off rising support for the far-right.
In a policy paper released Monday, the government announced that it would seek to make the status of many refugees temporary and gave the government new powers to deport refugees if it determines it to be safe. It also revoked policies requiring the government to provide housing and legal support to those fleeing persecution, while extending the amount of time they need to wait for permanent residency to 20 years, up from just five, for those who arrive illegally.
The UK government also said it will attempt to change the way judges interpret human rights law to more seamlessly carry out deportations, including stopping immigrants from using their rights to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to avoid deportation.
In an article for the Guardian published Sunday, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood called the reforms "the most significant and comprehensive changes to our asylum system in a generation." She said they were necessary because the increase in migration to the UK had stirred up "dark forces" in the country that are "seeking to turn that anger into hate."
Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right Reform UK Party, is leading national polls on the back of a viciously anti-immigrant campaign that has included calls to abolish the UK's main pathway for immigrants to become permanent residents, known as "leave to remain."
Meanwhile, in September, over 100,000 people gathered in London for an anti-immigrant rally led by Tommy Robinson, a notorious far-right figure who founded the anti-Muslim English Defence League (EDL). The event saw at least 26 police officers injured by protesters.
Last summer, riots swept the UK after false claims—spread by Robinson, Farage, and other far-right figures—that the perpetrator of the fatal stabbing of two young girls and their caretaker had been a Muslim asylum-seeker. A hotel housing asylum-seekers was set on fire, mosques were vandalised and destroyed, and several immigrants and other racial minorities were brutally beaten.
Mahmood said that if changes are not made to the asylum system, "we risk losing popular consent for having an asylum system at all."
But as critics were quick to point out, the far-right merely took Labour's crackdown as a sign that it is winning the war for hearts and minds.
Robinson gloated to his followers that "the Overton window has been obliterated, well done patriots!" while Farage chortled that Mahmood "sounds like a Reform supporter."
Many members of the Labour coalition expressed outrage at their ostensibly Liberal Party's bending to the far-right.
"The government should be ashamed that its migration policies are being cheered on by Tommy Robinson and Reform," said Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East. "Instead of standing up to anti-migrant hate, this is laying the foundations for the far-right."
In a speech in Parliament, she chided the home secretary's policy overhaul, calling it "dystopian."
"It's shameful that a Labour government is ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma," she said. "Is this how we'd want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course not."
The UK has signed treaties, including the ECHR, obligating it to process the claims of those who claim asylum because they face persecution in their home countries based on race, religion, nationality, group membership, or political opinion. According to data from the Home Office, over 111,000 people claimed asylum in the year from June 2024-25, more than double the number who did in 2019.
The spike came as the number of people displaced worldwide reached an all-time high of over 123.2 million at the end of 2024, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council, with desperate people seeking safety from escalating conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and across the Middle East.
In her op-ed, Mahmood lamented that "the burden borne by taxpayers has been unfair." However, as progressive commentator Owen Jones pointed out, the UK takes in far fewer asylum-seekers than its peers: "Last year, Germany took over twice as many asylum-seekers as the UK. France, Italy, and Spain took 1.5 times as many. Per capita, we take fewer than most EU countries. Poorer countries such as Greece take proportionately more than we do."
The Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, already boasts that it has deported more than 50,000 people in the UK illegally since it came to power in 2024, but it has predictably done little to satiate the far-right, which has only continued to gain momentum in polls despite the crackdown.
Under the new rules, it is expected that the government will be able to fast-track many more deportations, particularly of families with children.
The jewelry rule, meanwhile, has become a potent symbol of how the Labour Party has shifted away from its promises of economic egalitarianism toward austerity and punishment of the most vulnerable.
"Labour won't redistribute wealth from billionaires," said former party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is now an independent MP. "But they will seize belongings from those fleeing war and persecution."