

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.
Julia Olson, 415-786-4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org
To set up interviews with youth plaintiffs, contact:
Meg Ward, 503-341-8590, meg@ourchildrenstrust.org
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in the youth-brought lawsuit, Martinez v. COGCC and found, contrary to the arguments of the Commission and the youth, that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission cannot condition oil and gas development on protecting public health, safety, and welfare and the environment. Justice Gabriel, in a unanimous decision, acknowledged the civic engagement and concerns of the youth plaintiffs' and even found that their interpretation of the Act, which would have required the Commission to prioritize public health over oil and gas development, was reasonable. However, the Court ultimately rejected plaintiffs' reasonable interpretation of the Act, determined that the Act was ambiguous, and held that the Commission did not have authority to promulgate a rule protecting public health if it precluded new oil and gas development.
According to the Supreme Court:
"[T]he pertinent provisions make clear that the Commission is required (1) to foster the development of oil and gas resources, protecting and enforcing the rights of owners and producers, and (2) in doing so, to prevent and mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts to the extent necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, but only after taking into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility."
"In light of our above-described construction of the pertinent provisions of the Act, we conclude that the Commission correctly determined that it could not, consistent with those provisions, adopt such a rule. Specifically, as set forth above, we do not believe that the pertinent provisions of the Act allow the Commission to condition one legislative priority (here, oil and gas development) on another (here, the protection of public health and the environment). Accordingly, in our view, the Commission properly exercised its discretion in declining to engage in rulemaking to consider Respondents' proposed rule."
In describing the Act, the Court ignored the Act's clear requirement that the Commission promulgate rules to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public" (SS 34-60-106(11)) and instead found that if the Commission determines that is it not cost-effective or technically feasible to protect public health, the Commission cannot do so.
The case was brought by seven young Coloradans who are all members of Earth Guardians and are represented by Julia Olson, Dan Leftwich, and Kate Merlin, and supported by the organization Our Children's Trust.
Julia Olson, a Colorado native and the executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs, said:
"The Supreme Court's decisions in Fort Collins and Longmont, and now Martinez, make clear that until the Oil and Gas Conservation Act is amended or set aside as unconstitutional, the Oil and Gas Commission has unfettered discretion to promote Colorado's dangerous and pervasive oil and gas development at the expense of the people. The Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court today, is unconstitutional because it allows the State to deprive Coloradans of their health, safety, and basic security. We will not stop supporting and working to protect youth in Colorado in their fight against fossil fuel development. This is a call to action for the people to rise up."
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, 18-year-old plaintiff and plaintiff in Juliana v. United States, and Youth Director of Earth Guardians from Boulder, said:
"It is so disappointing for the youth and the people of Colorado to hear the decision form the Colorado Supreme Court today. To know that the judges in the highest court of my state believe that the interests of the oil and gas industry come before the public health, safety, and welfare of my fellow Coloradans is shameful. But I want you all to know that this fight for climate justice is far from over. My fellow plaintiffs, youth around the world, and I will continue to stand up for our right to a healthy future."
Emma Bray, 19-year-old plaintiff from Denver, said:
"The last couple years have proven that youth have the opportunity to be heard in the courts and the community. Not a single person, company or corporation can silence the young generation's voices. We will continue the fight for our earth and our future, despite the mountains we need to climb and the setbacks that we will overcome. Regardless of the Court's decision in our case, the fight will continue."
Itzcuauhtli M., 15-year-old plaintiff from Boulder, said:
"When my mom and dad grew up they were never faced with having to stand up to defend their communities, their states and their futures. It is unjust that the Supreme Court would jeopardize our future and the future of their own children by supporting the interests of the oil and gas industry."
Dan Leftwich, of MindDrive Legal Services, LLC and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs, said:
"The Court says the legislature did not intend to prioritize one policy goal over others, but its opinion does just that. Its interpretation of section 106(2)(d) of the Act gives the authority to the Commission to ignore significant adverse impacts to public health, safety and the environment if an operator claims such protections are not 'cost effective' or 'technically feasible.'"
Press Conference: Our Children's Trust will host a press conference today at 10:30 am PST via Facebook Live on the Our Children's Trust Facebook page. Hear from Julia Olson and ask your questions for her in the comments.
Martinez v. COGCC was one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, including the landmark federal lawsuit Juliana v. United States, all supported by Our Children's Trust, seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.
Counsel for plaintiffs include Colorado Environmental Law, LTD., Katherine Marlin, Boulder, Colorado; Minddrive Legal Services, LLC, James Daniel Leftwich, Boulder, Colorado; Wild Earth Advocates, Julia Olson, Eugene, Oregon.
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.
"When leaders traffic in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violence follows," said one Democratic senator. "We must confront Islamophobia with the urgency it demands."
A pair of teenagers allegedly fatally shot three men at a San Diego mosque on Monday before killing themselves in an attack condemned by many—but welcomed or denied by a handful of far-right figures.
The alleged shooters, who the FBI said were 19 and 17 years old, attacked the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD) in the Clairemont neighborhood of California's second-largest city, with officers dispatched to the site at 11:43 a.m., according to San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl. The center contains a mosque and a school where children were studying at the time of the attack.
The chief said one of the victims was a security guard who played a "pivotal" role in preventing more people from being shot at the county's largest mosque just before hundreds of worshippers were expected for afternoon prayers. The guard has been identified as Amin Abdullah.
Wahl said that two shooters—who have yet to be publicly identified—appear to have died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Investigators are treating the shooting as a hate crime.
ICSD director Imam Taha Hassane said that all students and staff members were safely evacuated from the facility.
“It is extremely outrageous to target a place of worship,” Hassane added.
The New York Times reported that investigators recovered anti-Islamic material in the vehicle used by the shooting suspects, and that the words "hate speech" were written on one of the guns used in the attack.
President Donald Trump called the shooting a "terrible situation," while some of his supporters denied or seemed to welcome the attack.
Taheen Nizam, director of the San Diego branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement after the shooting that “we strongly condemn this horrifying act of violence at the Islamic Center of San Diego."
"Our thoughts are with everyone impacted by this attack," Nizam added. "No one should ever fear for their safety while attending prayers or studying at an elementary school. We are working to learn more about this incident and we encourage everyone to keep this community in your prayers.”
The Jewish Democratic Council of America also condemned the attacks. JDCA said that "we're deeply saddened by the shooting at a mosque in San Diego, and our thoughts are with the San Diego Muslim community and all impacted by this tragedy."
"Attacks on our fellow Americans at places of worship are unacceptable," the group added.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was among the Democratic leaders who denounced the shooting, posting on X that he is "horrified by the deadly attack," which he called "an apparent act of anti-Muslim violence."
Several Democratic US lawmakers also condemned the attack.
"What happened at the Islamic Center of San Diego today is devastating," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said on X. "I’m praying for the victims, their families, and their loved ones."
"This is horrifying, and it did not happen in a vacuum," Coons added. "Muslim communities in this country have been demonized and treated as inherently suspect by those willing to fuel fear for power. When leaders traffic in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violence follows. We must confront Islamophobia with the urgency it demands."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also took to X, writing, "I condemn the deadly shooting at a mosque in San Diego, California."
"Every American should be able to practice their religion without fear of violence," he added. "We must do more to combat anti-Muslim bigotry."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she is "devastated to see the news of this deadly attack on a mosque in San Diego."
"Our places of worship should be safe spaces for all people," she added. "We must all stand up and condemn this attack and all forms of Islamophobia, racism, and hatred that are on the rise in our communities."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who is Muslim and the only Palestinian American in Congress, posted on social media: "I am praying for all the families at the Islamic Center of San Diego. My heart breaks every time senseless violence shatters the safety all of our communities deserve."
Gun control advocates also weighed in on the shooting, with March for Our Lives executive director Jaclyn Corin saying, "We reject the idea that this kind of tragedy is inevitable."
"We have the power to build a society where hatred is confronted before it turns deadly, where communities are protected instead of targeted, and where every person can worship freely and safely without fear," Corin added. "This moment demands more than grief. It demands courage, solidarity, and a collective commitment to rejecting the violence, dehumanization, and extremism that continue to endanger our communities."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged the GOP to "realize that this war didn't end at the 60-day mark and will not end until Republicans show some backbone and support Democrats' war powers resolution."
As President Donald Trump announced Monday that he hit pause on a planned attack against Iran at the request of three Gulf monarchs, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer renewed Democrats' push for a war powers resolution to end the illegal conflict.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Monday afternoon that "I have been asked by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was scheduled for tomorrow, in that serious negotiations are now taking place, and that, in their opinion, as Great Leaders and Allies, a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond."
"This Deal will include, importantly, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN!" the president continued. "Based on my respect for the above mentioned Leaders, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached."
Responding to the post on X, Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, concluded that "once again, Trump has realized that escalation will end up badly for the US. That does not necessarily mean, though, that the necessary realism, discipline, and creativity will be mustered for the talks."
Prior to the president's Monday announcement, Parsi had warned that "the Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran," pointing out reporting that he would convene military advisers on Tuesday and that he had "flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats."
The Trump administration partnered with Israeli forces to launch an assault on Iran—without authorization from Congress and in violation of the United Nations Charter—on February 28. Just hours after Trump's genocidal threat against Iran on April 7, a ceasefire agreement was reached; it has since been extended, though the US has maintained its naval blockade while Iran has continued to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The beginning of this month marked a key deadline under the War Powers Act, which the administration tried to dodge by claiming that the current ceasefire means the conflict has been "terminated." While key Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), have tried to stick to that talking point, Democratic leaders and legal experts aren't buying it.
Nope.Not how this works.A naval blockade is an act of war and U.S. armed forces remain engaged in hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 17, 2026 at 10:15 AM
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass war powers resolutions in the Republican-controlled chambers.
Last Thursday, Congressman Jared Golden (D-Maine) cast the deciding vote on the latest war powers resolution considered in the House of Representatives. The retiring former Marine sided with all Republicans except Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.) to block the measure.
As The Hill reported Monday:
Golden, a former Marine who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has indicated he'll support the next war powers resolution. He said he only opposed the last measure because it had a withdrawal deadline that had already passed.
"I look forward to voting for a clean, relevant resolution as soon as possible," Golden said in a statement Wednesday.
And Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) could return to Congress after being absent for four weeks and not voting on any issue since April 17. Wilson released a statement Thursday that she recently underwent eye surgery and was unable to fly but plans to be back in Washington, DC, soon.
With Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) also absent since March 5 because of a "personal medical issue," Republicans can't have more than two defections on an otherwise party-line vote.
In other words, "it may [come] down to absences," as Punchbowl News reporter Anthony Adragna said on social media Monday.
Like in the House, the latest Senate vote also came down to a Democrat: Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) has repeatedly voted with nearly all Republicans against war powers resolutions on Iran, and did so again last Wednesday. Unlike Golden, Fetterman told Semafor on Monday that Senate Democrats know he's "pretty much locked and loaded" regarding his support for Trump's war.
"Something like this is much more important than just voting what your base might demand. Because I think things are much bigger and more important than that. And Iran with a nuclear bomb is one of those things," Fetterman said, taking aim at anti-war campaigners. "I'm very much aware how damaging it is as a Democrat to hold these views. I had 20 CodePink dopes in my office."
CodePink held a "brown bag teach-in" lunch last week. The group said that "many of Fetterman's constituents feel betrayed by the person they campaigned to elect in 2022. Since becoming a senator in 2023, he has repeatedly broken with fellow Democrats to support Trump's wars and militaristic policies. Constituents hope this lunchtime educational session will help him better understand the human consequences of these positions and the growing opposition among Pennsylvanians to endless war and continued support for Israel."
While Fetterman opposed the latest resolution, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) all voted in favor of it, and Schumer (D-NY) made clear on the chamber's floor Monday that he's pushing for an eighth vote.
"Over the weekend, Donald Trump told Iran, 'The clock is ticking, and they better get moving, fast, or there won't be anything left of them,'" Schumer noted. "How can Donald Trump say the clock is ticking when he told the Senate that the clock had paused when his war recently passed the War Powers Act's 60-day threshold to either end hostilities or get congressional authorization?"
"Senate Republicans need to stop playing dumb and realize that this war didn't end at the 60-day mark and will not end until Republicans show some backbone and support Democrats' war powers resolution to end the fighting," he declared. "This week, Democrats will force an eighth vote on our war powers resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with Iran."
Schumer added that "I urge Republicans to support our war powers resolution, end the war, get the troops out of harm's way, or else Republicans will learn that the clock is ticking not only on this war but on their own political futures."
President Donald Trump is yet again facing accusations of breaking his campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again" after the US Environmental Protection Agency on Monday proposed repealing and delaying some landmark limits on "forever chemicals" in drinking water.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are commonly called forever chemicals because they persist in the environment, humans, and wildlife for long periods. Despite their links to various health issues, including cancer, they have been used in products such as firefighting foam, food packaging, nonstick pans, and water-resistant fabrics for clothing and furniture.
The Biden administration was praised for its historic steps to reduce PFAS contamination of tap water and urged to go even further. However, the Trump EPA is now pushing to delay those limits for two common contaminants, PFOA and PFOS, and abandon the restrictions for four others: PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA, and HFPO-DA—also known as GenX.
Announcing the proposed rules on Monday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed not only that the Biden administration failed to follow federal law in implementing its restrictions, but also that the new proposals are part of the president's Make America Healthy Again pledge. They highlighted "innovative" technologies plus funding for states to address PFAS in tap water.
However, campaigners who have long called for stricter PFAS policies excoriated the Trump administration over its two proposed rules—which are set to be published in the Federal Register with a 60-day public comment period, and the subject of an EPA hearing scheduled for July 7.
"Zeldin and Kennedy are trying to sell potions out of the back of a covered wagon. The millions of Americans demanding safe drinking water are not going to fall for their hocus pocus," said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. "By repealing and delaying PFAS standards, EPA is abandoning communities in desperate need of drinking water protections, especially those who live near polluting industries."
Food and Water Watch's water program director, Mary Grant, declared that "with today's proposals, the Trump administration is telling the public to drink poison. It has once again shown that it represents the interests of billionaire corporate polluters—not the health of people in this country."
"One thing is absolutely clear, we cannot roll back or delay protections against PFAS," she said. "For decades, communities have been sounding the alarm and demanding action on these toxic forever chemicals. Instead of implementing commonsense regulations, Trump's EPA has doubled down on weakening our drinking water protections. Every person deserves and needs clean, safe water, and today's proposed rules are threats to millions of people."
Grant argued that "EPA must not delay or roll back these hard-won limits on toxic PFAS contaminants in drinking water. It must immediately cease these deregulatory actions, stop approving new PFAS chemicals, ban all nonessential uses, hold polluters accountable for clean up, expand protections to regulate the entire class, and ramp up support to ensure that every community has access to safe, affordable water."
Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has tracked PFAS contamination across the United States and publicly released its findings, was similarly outraged by the EPA proposals.
"You cannot make America healthy again while allowing toxic PFAS to flow freely from our taps," Cook said. "The Trump EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and water utility pressure—and in doing so, it is condemning millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come."
"The price of this decision will be paid by ordinary people, in the form of more PFAS-related diseases," he warned.
While Trump's agency leaders claimed Monday that the Biden administration ran afoul of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EWG accused them of violating that same law, given its requirement that any revision to a tap water standard "maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons."
Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at EWG, said that "this is a deliberate decision to expose American families to chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health harms. Rolling back limits on four PFAS and then allowing water systems to push compliance deadlines to 2031, when contamination is ongoing, is unconscionable."
"The communities least able to protect themselves will pay the highest price," she added. "That is not regulatory reform. It is an environmental injustice."