April, 16 2018, 12:00am EDT
Florida Youth Sue Gov. Rick Scott, Adam Putnam for Endangering Their Future
Eight youth plaintiffs allege state government officials are abdicating their responsibility to protect their constitutional rights to a safe climate system
TALLAHASSEE, FLA.
Today, eight Florida youth, including well-known climate activists Delaney Reynolds and Levi Draheim, filed a constitutional climate lawsuit against the state of Florida, Governor Rick Scott, and several state agencies in Leon County Court. The complaint asserts that in causing climate change, the state of Florida has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and has caused harm to Florida's essential public trust resources, such as beaches and marine life. The youth are supported by the nonprofit organization Our Children's Trust.
The youth plaintiffs filed the case, Reynolds v. State of Florida, because the state of Florida is violating their constitutional rights by creating and perpetuating an energy system that is based on fossil fuels. The plaintiffs are asking the state of Florida to adhere to its legal and moral obligation to protect current and future generations from the intensifying impacts of climate change.
Guy Burns, who serves as lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs, said:
"It is the responsibility of the state to uphold the constitution, and these young people have a fundamental right to a stable climate system."
The complaint, brought by youth from Miami-Dade, Alachua, Broward, Brevard, Escambia, Monroe, and Hendry counties, asks for a court-ordered, science-based Climate Recovery Plan as well as multiple other actions, including that the state of Florida acknowledge that climate change is real and that climate change impacts are harming the youth plaintiffs. The plaintiffs ask that Florida does its share to reduce global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to below 350 parts per million (ppm) by 2100, the prescription scientists have developed to achieve global climate stabilization.
The complaint alleges climate change's catastrophic impacts, both current and future, injure youth and other Floridians. These impacts include ocean acidification, sea level rise, saltwater intrusion into drinking water wells, health-related threats from insect-borne diseases, lower agricultural yields, severe droughts, increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, and reduced availability of fresh water due to increased evaporation and sea water intrusion.
Delaney Reynolds, 18-year-old plaintiff from Miami, said:
"The reason that I'm a part of this lawsuit is because I believe that the climate change crisis is the biggest threat that my generation will ever have to face. Right now we live in what I like to call the state of denial because the state of Florida is doing nothing to address climate change, but everything to cause it. That is completely immoral. If we ever want to have a future of living here in Florida, if my children ever want to live here in Florida, we need to start working together to implement solutions for climate change or the state of Florida won't exist."
Reynolds v. State of Florida is not about the government's failure to act on climate. Instead, the eight young plaintiffs assert that the state, through its affirmative actions in creating an energy system that causes climate change by resulting in dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions, has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness and has failed to protect essential public trust resources.
Levi Draheim , 10-year-old plaintiff from Satellite Beach and one of the 21 youth plaintiffs in the landmark climate case, Juliana v. United States, said:
"We can't delay anymore because climate change is a huge problem. We must deal with it right now and start reducing the emissions that are causing it. We need to fix the problem not just talk about it."
Isaac Augspurg, 12-year-old plaintiff from, Alachua County, said:
"Since I was little, I've seen changes in the environment due to climate change. Just in our local springs I've noticed more algae, they're warmer and overall not as healthy. The weather has been erratic and not healthy for plants, like the peaches in our orchard. I've really wanted to do something about climate change and this lawsuit is something that I can do that will help. Sometimes I feel like, being a kid, it's hard to help a lot, but this has made me feel like I can actually make a difference."
Oscar Psychas, 20-year-old plaintiff from Gainesville, said:
"Last spring I walked to 280 miles from my home in Gainesville to Tallahassee to demand our state's leaders protect our wild places. During my walk I saw climate change firsthand during the hottest spring ever recorded in Florida and forests dying from sea level rise along the Gulf Coast. I'm back in Tallahassee today because I've seen that when our leaders destroy a stable climate, everything we care about -- our wild places, our communities, our basic rights to life, liberty, and property -- is endangered."
Jose ("Andres") Phillips, 12-year-old plaintiff from Miami, said:
"Since we're kids, people don't really think we can do something that would affect the government because we can't vote and we can't do a lot of stuff, can't fix a lot of problems because usually it's adults that can do something about it. It's hard to get adults to do something if they don't believe in it. I want this lawsuit to bring recognition that children can and will do things if they're inspired to do it."
Lushia ("Luxha") Phillips, 14-year-old plaintiff from Miami, said:
"I'm excited that children like us can do something about sea level rise. A lot of people know the issues, but they don't speak out against them. Climate change is only going to get worse and adults are leaving it to our generation to fix it. Our generation wants to fix climate change now and we can't do it alone."
Valholly Frank, 15-year-old plaintiff from Big Cypress, and member of the Seminole Tribe, said:
"I'm suing because I don't want to see the environment I grew up in and still am growing up in go to waste. I don't want something beautiful being destroyed. Our politicians can't drive us forward into an unstable and unsafe future. I'm suing because I want to live out my best life possible. I want every kid to be able to grow up and watch their kids grow up on the beautiful planet we live on."
Oliver Chamblin, 14-year-old plaintiff from Pensacola, said,
"I'm joining this lawsuit so that those in power are forced to recognize that action is needed today. I also want to make a difference for my generation and stop the destruction of our environment."
Andrea Rodgers, counsel for the youth plaintiffs and Senior Attorney for Our Children's Trust, said:
"The Florida Constitution recognizes that these young people have certain fundamental rights that state government must not violate. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, Florida state government has actively pursued and implemented policies that result in dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions and threaten the life, liberty, and property of these youth. The court needs to step in to ensure that the rights of these young people are protected."
The lawsuit is the latest in a series filed by attorneys representing youth from across the country, all with support from pro bono attorneys and the nonprofit Our Children's Trust.
Our Children's Trust also supports the climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, which was brought by 21 youth plaintiffs and the youth-led nonprofit, Earth Guardians who, like young plaintiffs in this lawsuit against the state of Florida, argue that the United States government is violating their constitutional and public trust rights with its energy policies responsible for the creation of climate danger. Trial for Juliana v. United States starts on October 29, 2018 in Eugene, Oregon.
To view the filed complaint visit: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/s/20180415FL-ComplaintFINAL.pdf
To watch the live press conference in Tallahassee today at 10:30 am EST and tomorrow in Miami at 3:00 pm EST go to https://www.facebook.com/youthvgov/.
Counsel for the plaintiffs include prominent Florida trial attorneys, including Guy Burns, F. Wallace "Wally" Pope, Mitchell Chester, Jane West, Erin Deady, Deb Swim, Matthew Shultz, Sandy D'Alemberte, and Andrea Rodgers.
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
Trump's 9 New Prescription Drug Deals 'No Substitute' for Systemic Reform
"Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices," said one campaigner.
Dec 19, 2025
"Starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast and furious and will soon be the lowest in the developed world," President Donald Trump claimed Friday as the White House announced agreements with nine pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The administration struck most favored nation (MFN) pricing deals with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. The president—who has launched the related TrumpRx.gov—previously reached agreements with AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.
"The White House said it has made MFN deals with 14 of the 17 biggest drug manufacturers in the world," CBS News noted Friday. "The three drugmakers that were not part of the announcement are AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron, but the president said that deals involving the remaining three could be announced at another time."
However, as Trump and congressional Republicans move to kick millions of Americans off of Medicaid and potentially leave millions more uninsured because they can't afford skyrocketing premiums for Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, some critics suggested that the new drug deals with Big Pharma are far from enough.
"When 47% of Americans are concerned they won't be able to afford a healthcare cost next year, steps to reduce drug prices for patients are welcomed, especially by patients who rely on one of the overpriced essential medicines named in today's announcement," said Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, in a statement.
"But voluntary agreements with drug companies—especially when key details remain undisclosed—are no substitute for durable, system-wide reforms," Basey stressed. "Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices, because drugs don't work if people can't afford them."
As the New York Times reported Friday:
Drugs that will be made available in this way include Amgen's Repatha, for lowering cholesterol, at $239 a month; GSK's asthma inhaler, Advair Diskus, at $89 a month; and Merck's diabetes medication Januvia, at $100 a month.
Many of these drugs are nearing the end of their patent protection, meaning that the arrival of low-cost generic competition would soon have prompted manufacturers to lower their prices.
In other cases, the direct-buy offerings are very expensive and out of reach for most Americans.
For example, Gilead will offer Epclusa, a three-month regimen of pills that cures hepatitis C, for $2,492 a month on the site. Most patients pay far less using insurance or with help from patient assistance programs. Gilead says on its website that "typically a person taking Epclusa pays between $0 and $5 per month" with commercial insurance or Medicare.
While medication prices are a concern for Americans who face rising costs for everything from groceries to utility bills, the outcome of the ongoing battle on Capitol Hill over ACA tax credits—which are set to expire at the end of the year—is expected to determine how many people can even afford to buy health insurance for next year.
The ACA subsidies fight—which Republicans in the US House of Representatives ignored in the bill they passed this week before leaving Capitol Hill early—has renewed calls for transitioning the United States from its current for-profit healthcare system to Medicare for All.
"At the heart of our healthcare crisis is one simple truth: Corporations have too much power over our lives," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said on social media Friday. "Medicare for All is how we take our power back and build a system that puts people over profits."
Jayapal reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The senator said Friday that some of his top priorities in 2026 will be campaign finance reform, income and wealth inequality, the rapid deployment of artificial intelligence, and Medicare for All.
Earlier this month, another backer of that bill, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said: "We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system. Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
It's not just progressives in Congress demanding that kind of transformation. According to Data for Progress polling results released late last month, 65% of likely US voters—including 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans—either strongly or somewhat support "creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called 'Medicare for All.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump: US Forces 'Striking Very Strongly' Against 70+ Targets in Syria
"Most anti-war president ever, also a winner of the FIFA Peace Prize, threatened to invade Venezuela for oil earlier this week and has now launched strikes in Syria," said one observer.
Dec 19, 2025
President Donald Trump—the self-described "most anti-war president in history"—on Friday said the US military is "striking very strongly" against Islamic State strongholds in Syria following the killing of two Iowa National Guard members and an American civilian interpreter in the Mideast nation.
"Because of ISIS’s vicious killing of brave American Patriots in Syria, whose beautiful souls I welcomed home to American soil earlier this week in a very dignified ceremony, I am hereby announcing that the United States is inflicting very serious retaliation, just as I promised, on the murderous terrorists responsible," Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"We are striking very strongly against ISIS strongholds in Syria, a place soaked in blood which has many problems, but one that has a bright future if ISIS can be eradicated," the president continued. "The Government of Syria, led by a man who is working very hard to bring Greatness back to Syria, is fully in support."
"All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned—YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.," he added.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X that "earlier today, US forces commenced OPERATION HAWKEYE STRIKE in Syria to eliminate ISIS fighters, infrastructure, and weapons sites in direct response to the attack on US forces that occurred on December 13th in Palmyra, Syria."
According to the Wall Street Journal, Jordanian warplanes also took part in Friday's attacks, which reportedly hit more than 70 targets in Syria.
"This is not the beginning of a war—it is a declaration of vengeance," said Hegseth. "The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people. As we said directly following the savage attack, if you target Americans—anywhere in the world—you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you. Today, we hunted and we killed our enemies. Lots of them. And we will continue."
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that one of Friday's airstrikes killed ISIS leader Abu Yusif in Dayr az Zawr province in eastern Syria.
“As stated before, the United States—working with allies and partners in the region—will not allow ISIS to take advantage of the current situation in Syria and reconstitute," CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla said in a statement. "ISIS has the intent to break out of detention the over 8,000 ISIS operatives currently being held in facilities in Syria. We will aggressively target these leaders and operatives, including those trying to conduct operations external to Syria."
During his first term, Trump followed through on his promise to "bomb the shit out of" ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq, killing thousands of civilians in a campaign launched by former President Barack Obama in 2014. Trump prematurely declared victory over ISIS in 2018.
Since then, the Biden and Trump administrations have bombed Syria, where around 1,000 US troops remain.
During his second term, Trump has ordered attacks on Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The president—who says he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has also deployed warships and thousands of troops for a possible war on Venezuela.
"Most anti-war president ever, also a winner of the FIFA Peace Prize, threatened to invade Venezuela for oil earlier this week and has now launched strikes in Syria," political commentator David Pakman said on X in response to Friday's attacks.
Some observers noted that the strikes on Syria took place on the same day that the Trump administration released some of the files related to the late convicted sex criminal and longtime former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mitt "47%" Romney's Post-Career Call to Tax the Rich Met With Kudos and Criticism
"When Romney had real power," noted journalist David Sirota, "he fortified the rigged tax system that he's only now criticizing from the sidelines."
Dec 19, 2025
In a leaked fundraiser footage from the 2012 US presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney infamously claimed that 47% of Americans are people "who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it." On Friday, the former US senator from Utah published a New York Times opinion piece titled, "Tax the Rich, Like Me."
"In 2012, political ads suggested that some of my policy proposals, if enacted, would amount to pushing grandma off a cliff. Actually, my proposals were intended to prevent that very thing from happening," Romney began the article, which was met with a range of reactions. "Today, all of us, including our grandmas, truly are headed for a cliff: If, as projected, the Social Security Trust Fund runs out in the 2034 fiscal year, benefits will be cut by about 23%."
"Typically, Democrats insist on higher taxes, and Republicans insist on lower spending. But given the magnitude of our national debt as well as the proximity of the cliff, both are necessary," he argued. "On the spending-cut front... Social Security and Medicare benefits for future retirees should be means-tested—need-based, that is to say—and the starting age for entitlement payments should be linked to American life expectancy."
"And on the tax front, it's time for rich people like me to pay more," wrote Romney, whose estimated net worth last year, when he announced his January 2025 retirement from the Senate, was $235 million. "I long opposed increasing the income level on which FICA employment taxes are applied (this year, the cap is $176,100). No longer; the consequences of the cliff have changed my mind."
"The largest source of additional tax revenues is also probably the most compelling for fairness and social stability. Some call it closing tax code loopholes, but the term 'loopholes' grossly understates their scale. 'Caverns' or 'caves' would be more fitting," he continued, calling for rewriting capital gains tax treatment rules for "mega-estates over $100 million."
"Sealing the real estate caverns would also raise more revenue," Romney noted. "There are more loopholes and caverns to be explored and sealed for the very wealthy, including state and local tax deductions, the tax rate on carried interest, and charity limits on the largest estates at death."
Some welcomed or even praised Romney's piece. Iowa state Rep. JD Scholten (D-1), a progressive who has previously run for both chambers of Congress, declared on social media: "Tax the rich! Welcome to the coalition, Mitt!"
US House Committee on the Budget Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), who is part of the New Democrat Coalition, said: "I welcome this op-ed by Mitt Romney and encourage people to read it. As the next chair of the House Budget Committee, increasing revenue by closing loopholes exploited by the wealthiest Americans will be a top priority."
Progressive Saikat Chakrabarti, who is reportedly worth at least $167 million and is one of the candidates running to replace retiring former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responded: "Even Mitt Romney now agrees that we need to tax the wealthiest. I call for a wealth tax on our billionaires and centimillionaires."
Michael Linden, a senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said: "Kudos to Mitt Romney for changing his mind and calling for higher taxes on the rich. I'm not going to nitpick his op-ed (though there are a few things I disagree with), because the gist of it is right: We need real tax reform to make the rich pay more."
Others pointed to Romney's record, including the impactful 47% remarks. The Lever's David Sirota wondered, "Why is it that powerful people typically wait until they have no power to take the right position and effectively admit they were wrong when they had more power to do something about it?"
According to Sirota:
The obvious news of the op-ed is that we've reached a point in which even American politics' very own Gordon Gekko—a private equity mogul-turned-Republican politician—is now admitting the tax system has been rigged for his fellow oligarchs.
And, hey, that's good. I believe in the politics of addition. I believe in welcoming converts to good causes in the spirit of "better late than never." I believe there should be space for people to change their views for the better. And I appreciate Romney offering at least some pro forma explanation about what allegedly changed his thinking (sidenote: I say "allegedly" because it's not like Romney only just now learned that the tax system was rigged—he was literally a co-founder of Bain Capital!).
"And yet, these kinds of reversals (without explicit apologies, of course) often come off as both long overdue but also vaguely inauthentic, or at least not as courageous and principled as they seem," Sirota continued, stressing that "when Romney had real power, he fortified the rigged tax system that he's only now criticizing from the sidelines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


