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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular