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.
Today, the Ninth Circuit delivered its ruling in Juliana v United States, the landmark climate case brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the US government for violating their constitutional rights to a livable climate.
"What is remarkable about this decision, and what will land it in legal textbooks for decades to come, is that the Ninth Circuit recognizes the grave realities of the climate crisis and the government's role in causing climate harms, but immediately abdicates the court's own responsibility to address and remedy those harms," says Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
The Ninth Circuit concluded that climate change is happening because of fossil fuel combustion and that the government has long understood the risks. "The record leaves little basis for denying that climate change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace." The court recognized the "copious expert evidence" that "this unprecedented rise stems from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth's climate if unchecked," and "[a]bsent some action, the destabilizing climate will bury cities, spawn life-threatening natural disasters, and jeopardize critical food and water supplies."
"The record also establishes that the government's contribution to climate change is not simply a result of inaction," the court held. "The government affirmatively promotes fossil fuel use in a host of ways, including beneficial tax provisions, permits for imports and exports, subsidies for domestic and overseas projects, and leases for fuel extraction on federal land."
The Ninth Circuit held that the harms to youth plaintiffs in the case are sufficiently concrete and personal to be considered by the courts. It held that there is a clear causal chain between the plaintiffs' injuries and the government's actions. And it held that fossil fuels are the critical link in this chain. "The plaintiffs' alleged injuries are caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuel production, extraction, and transportation."
"Yet remarkably, having recognized the gravity of harms affecting these plaintiffs and the future generations that they represent, and the responsibility of the US government for causing those harms, the Ninth Circuit concludes that it is not the role of courts to remedy that injustice," says Muffett. "But for centuries, and emphatically, that has been the definition of the role of courts: when plaintiffs are suffering harms to fundamental rights at the hands of other branches of government, addressing those wrongs and protecting plaintiffs' rights is the essential and inescapable domain of the federal courts."
"Whether on issues of equality between genders or equality between races, courts have a long history of doing precisely what the panel says they cannot do here. Now, the entire Ninth Circuit will have the opportunity to either correct that error and make a history it can be proud of, or replicate it, and spend the decades to come as another grim reminder that courts too often perpetuate injustice rather than confront it."
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
"The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes," said a legal scholar who previously worked in the Pentagon's office of general counsel.
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement last week that "no quarter" will be given to "our enemies" in Iran—a declaration, in military parlance, that surrendering combatants will be executed rather than taken prisoner—constituted a clear violation of international law and a war crime.
The International Committee of the Red Cross explains that "the prohibition on declaring that no quarter will be given is a longstanding rule of customary international law already recognized in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration, and the Oxford Manual and codified in the Hague Regulations." The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the US is a party, says it is "especially forbidden" to "declare that no quarter will be given."
During a press conference on Friday, Hegseth said that US forces attacking Iran "will keep pushing, keep advancing; no quarter, no mercy for our enemies."
Hegseth's statement sparked alarm among legal experts and members of Congress, particularly in the context of the Pentagon chief's ongoing efforts to loosen legal oversight of American forces and roll back rules aimed at protecting civilians.
"'No quarter' isn’t some wannabe tough guy line—it means something," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy officer. "An order to give no quarter would mean to take no prisoners and kill them instead. That would violate the law of armed conflict. It would be an illegal order. It would also put American service members at greater risk. Pete Hegseth should know better than to throw around terms like this."
Oona Hathaway, a legal scholar and former special counsel to the Pentagon's general counsel, wrote in response to Hegseth's remarks that "declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law."
"Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime," Hathaway added.
Daniel Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and judge advocate—a profession that Hegseth has treated with contempt—wrote a "hypothetical legal memorandum" advising the Pentagon chief to "publicly retract" his "no quarter" statement, warning that it "may expose you to criminal liability under 18 USC 2441(c)(2), and expose any subordinate servicemembers who carry it out to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as 18 USC 2441(c)(2)."
Maurer continued:
Given that “no quarter” is a clear violation of the Hague Convention IV and, as a consequence, U.S. federal law, we recommend the following immediate actions:
a. Publicly retract the comments and disavow any intention to induce, inspire, counsel, encourage, incite, order, threaten, tolerate, or give “no quarter” to Iranian combatants.
b. Communicate through the chain-of-command conducting Operation Epic Fury that “no quarter” is a war crime that will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or 18 USC § 2441.
Hegseth's declaration of "no quarter" conflicts with US President Donald Trump's statement late last month announcing the illegal war on Iran, which is now in its third week with no end in sight.
Urging Iranian soldiers to lay down their arms, Trump pledged, "We'll give you immunity."
Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the digital law and policy journal Just Security, told Axios that Hegseth is "putting the American military on a track to lawlessness in which we will lose more and more allies." Goodman noted that in the wake of the Second World War, the US prosecuted senior German military officials for refusing quarter to enemy soldiers.
"The best thing Secretary Hegseth can do for the country and for the US military is to say he misspoke and to retract the statement," said Goodman, who previously worked in the Defense Department's office of general counsel. "The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes."
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" said one German official.
US allies are giving President Donald Trump the cold shoulder after he demanded that they send their militaries to help him reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz, which has been shut down by the Iranian government in response to US and Israeli attacks.
Reuters chief national security correspondent Phil Stewart collected reactions from several US allies to Trump's demands in a Monday social media post, and they show little appetite for helping the president out of the jam he created when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran more than two weeks ago.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius spoke bluntly about his country's unwillingness to get involved in what has become a regional conflict in the Middle East that has sent global energy prices soaring and is threatening to upend the global economy.
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" Pistorius asked. "This is not our war, we have not started it."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated flatly that his nation would not be "drawn into the wider Iran war," and insisted that only a diplomatic solution could ease the crisis.
"We are working with others to come up with a credible plan for the Strait of Hormuz to ensure that we can reopen shipping and passage through the Strait," he said. "Let me be clear, that won't be and it's never been envisioned to be a NATO mission."
Catherine King, a member of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's cabinet, said there were no plans to have the Australian military participate in Trump's efforts to reopen the strait.
"We won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz," King said. "We know how incredibly important that is, but that's not something that we've been asked or that we're contributing to."
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi didn't completely rule out sending escort ships to help oil tankers navigate the strait, but she emphasized there are no plans to do so at the moment.
"We have not made any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships," said Takaichi. "We are continuing to examine what Japan can do independently and what can be done within the legal framework."
Trump started publicly calling on US allies to assist in reopening the strait in a Saturday Truth Social post, in which he said "hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated."
Trump repeated his demands to US allies while talking with reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, arguing that getting the strait reopened was in the interest of all nations.
"Really, I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their territory," Trump said. "You could make the case that maybe we shouldn't be there at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil."
US Sen. Ed Markey warned that the Trump administration is engaged in a "blatant attempt to muzzle the free press."
US President Donald Trump late Sunday floated "treason" charges against media outlets that he accused of reporting false information about the Iran war as the human and economic costs of his illegal military assault continued to mount.
In a tirade posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote that media outlets he accused of circulating "fake news" should "be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information." The maximum penalty for treason in the US is death.
Trump specifically called out the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal for reporting over the weekend that "five US Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia." Citing two unnamed US officials, the Journal noted that "the tankers were hit during an Iranian missile strike on the Saudi base," and that the planes were "damaged but not fully destroyed and are being repaired."
The US president called the story "false reporting" without substantively refuting its content. Trump wrote that four of the refueling planes are "in service" and one "will soon be flying the skies"—none of which is inconsistent with the Journal's reporting.
Trump, who regularly uses his social media platform to circulate AI-generated videos and photos, also complained about an AI video purportedly showing the USS Abraham Lincoln on fire. The president claimed the video was "distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets," without offering any examples. AFP published a fact-check of the video last week, deeming it "fabricated footage."
Trump's latest attack on the US media came after his Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, threatened Saturday to pull the broadcasting licenses of media outlets he accused of "running hoaxes and news distortions." Carr did not provide specific examples.
The US president said Sunday that he was "thrilled to see" Carr's threat, railing against "Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic" news organizations.
Trump and other administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have openly whined in recent days about what they've deemed negative coverage of the Iran assault, now in its third week with no end in sight.
Aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump attacked a reporter as "a very obnoxious person" after she asked the president why he's sending 5,000 US Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) warned in a letter to Carr on Sunday that the Trump administration is engaged in a "blatant attempt to muzzle the free press" if outlets don't align their coverage of the Iran war "with Trump's preferred narrative."
"Your Saturday post follows that same logic but extends it to the coverage of an active military conflict, where the chilling effect on journalists and the damage to the public’s right to know are most severe," Markey wrote to Carr.