SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Florida Youth File Petition for Rulemaking with FDACS for Goal of 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
WASHINGTON
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022, over 150 Florida youth - led by four former youth plaintiffs in Reynolds v. State of Florida - filed a petition for rulemaking with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) asking it to establish a goal to generate 100% of Florida's electricity from renewable energy by 2050.
The proposed rule submitted by young Floridians calls on the FDACS to require "each electric utility that produces or purchases electricity for consumption in the State of Florida" to set and achieve goals to generate 100% of Florida's electricity from renewable energy by 2050, with three interim goals to guide and evaluate the transition: at least 40% renewable energy by 2030, at least 63% renewable energy by 2035, and at least 82% renewable energy by 2040. The proposed goals come from energy experts who have concluded that it is economically and technically feasible to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050. Other experts have found that transitioning to renewable energy would create 222,082 construction jobs and 90,727 operation jobs, reduce energy costs, and save lives.
"Florida law is clear that Commissioner Fried has the statutory authority to set goals to increase the use of renewable energy in Florida," said Andrea Rodgers, one of the Our Children's Trust attorneys representing the youth petitioners. "The youth are simply asking that she follow the black letter of the law and heed the advice of energy experts. Now more than ever, young people in Florida need a political leader who will stand up for them and protect their constitutional rights."
Florida is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States and, as of 2020, only 4.3% of Florida's energy came from renewable sources, while natural gas made up 75% of Florida's electricity system. Meanwhile, people and communities in Florida experience numerous devastating impacts of the climate crisis: rising sea levels and resultant flooding, beach erosion and damage to coastal property, extreme damage to marine ecosystems, spread of infectious diseases, increased severity of storms and extreme weather events, and suffering tourism, agriculture, and recreation industries. In 2011, the Florida legislature mandated FDACS to increase the use of renewable energy and reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels; however, Commissioner Fried has still not implemented this law and Florida's electricity system is still dominated by fossil fuels.
"Most adults in charge today simply talk about the issue and fail us, our future and our environment by nearly never actually acting to address the core problem; fossil fuel pollution that creates greenhouse gases that are warming earth to dangerous levels," wrote Delaney Reynolds, one of the lead youth petitioners, on her blog for "The Sink or Swim Project." She continued, "The good news is that we have a law in place that allows Florida's government to enact actual change right now if only our leaders were compelled to do more about the problem than talk about it while they protect the special interests and polluters that want to avoid or delay the changes we must implement to solve this crisis."
This petition for rulemaking, signed by over 150 young people ages 25 and younger from across the state of Florida, is part of an international, youth-led legal campaign that is supported by the nonprofit public interest law firm, Our Children's Trust, which also represented and supported the Florida youth plaintiffs in Reynolds v. State of Florida and currently represents the 21 youth plaintiffs in the federal constitutional climate case, Juliana v. United States.
Additional information, including the petition for rulemaking submitted by Florida youth today, can be found at www.ourchildrenstrust.org/floridapetition.
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
In Latest Legal Loss for Trump, Federal Court Orders Rümeysa Öztürk's Return to Vermont
The ruling in Rümeysa Öztürk's case came less than 24 hours after courts ruled that Badar Khan Suri's case must be heard in Virginia and that Mahmoud Khalil's case must remain in New Jersey.
May 07, 2025
On Wednesday, Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk was the third detained international scholar in 24 hours to secure a victory in a case against the Trump administration when a federal appeals panel ordered the government to return Öztürk to Vermont from the crowded Louisiana detention center to which she was sent hours after plainclothes immigration agents arrested her in March.
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its ruling weeks after U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III in Vermont ordered the administration to return Öztürk to the New England state, where she had been located when her attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition on her behalf.
Sessions' ruling had demanded that Öztürk be returned to Vermont for a hearing by May 1, but she remained in Louisiana—where the Trump administration has sent numerous foreign students marked for deportation to ensure their cases would be handled by conservative judges—as the White House appealed the case to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That court said Wednesday that Öztürk must be sent back to Vermont by May 14, where a federal judge will hold a hearing on her habeas corpus petition on May 22. A bail hearing for Öztürk's release will also be held on May 9.
Öztürk's lawyers argue that the government is unconstitutionally retaliating against her for co-writing an op-ed in her school newspaper last year in which she called on Tufts to divest from companies tied to Israel and its bombardment of Gaza. She was detained in March by plainclothes immigration agents—some of whom wore masks—near her apartment in Somerville, Massachusetts.
"No one should be arrested and locked up for their political views," said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, which is helping to represent Öztürk. "Every day that Rümeysa Öztürk remains in detention is a day too long. We're grateful the court refused the government’s attempt to keep her isolated from her community and her legal counsel as she pursues her case for release."
Lawyers recently submitted new filings in Öztürk's case in Vermont, describing her living conditions for nearly two months in Louisiana.
In a cramped room with 23 other women, Öztürk has suffered progressively more severe asthma attacks and has been exposed to triggers for her asthma, including insect and rodent droppings and a lack of fresh air.
"Rümeysa has suffered six weeks in crowded confinement without adequate access to medical care and in conditions that doctors say risk exacerbating her asthma attacks. Her detention—over an op-ed she co-authored in her student newspaper—is as cruel as it is unconstitutional," said Jessie Rossman, legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Today, we moved one step closer to returning Rümeysa to her community and studies in Massachusetts."
With Öztürk expected to return to Vermont within days, the ACLU this week was also celebrating another "huge blow for the Trump administration" in the case of Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow Badar Khan Suri, who was also arrested in March by masked immigration agents before being secretly transported first to Louisiana and then to Texas.
A federal court ruled Suri's habeas corpus case should be heard in a court in Virginia, where he was living with his wife and young children when he was detained.
The Department of Homeland Security said Suri was "rendered deportable" under the Immigration and Nationality Act because he was found "spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media"—claims for which DHS offered no evidence.
His lawyers have argued he was being detained for constitutionally protected speech in support of Palestinian rights.
A federal court in Virginia is now set to hear Suri's case regarding his demand to be returned to Virginia and released on bond on May 14.
Eden Heilman, legal director for the ACLU of Virginia, said the court rejected the Trump administration's effort to "find a court it believed would be friendlier to its unlawful detention of people advocating for Palestinian rights."
"We are pleased the court saw through the Trump administration's attempts to manipulate the law, and we won't stop fighting until Dr. Khan Suri is reunited with his family," said Heilman.
Meanwhile, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration's effort to appeal the issue of where former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil's habeas corpus case should be heard, ensuring that a federal court in New Jersey—where Khalil was detained when the petition was filed—will remain the venue for the case.
The administration has been pushing for Khalil's case to be heard in Louisiana, where he has also been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention since March, when ICE agents accosted him and his pregnant wife and took him away in an unmarked vehicle—eventually sending him 1,400 miles away from his wife and his legal counsel, where he remained last month during the birth of his first child.
Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, expressed hope that Tuesday's ruling "sends a strong message to other courts around the country facing government attempts to shop for favorable jurisdictions by moving people detained on unconstitutional immigration charges around."
"It is the fundamental job of the judiciary," said Kaufman, "to stand up to this kind of government manipulation of our basic rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Fix Is In': GOP Wants Poor People to Pay More for Medicaid to Fund Tax Cuts for Wealthy
"Poor people will pay more for healthcare so rich people can get tax cuts. Sometimes the stakes are pretty simple."
May 07, 2025
Reporting out Wednesday indicates that congressional Republicans are considering a proposal that would force low-income Americans to pay more for Medicaid coverage, a highly regressive plan aimed at helping the GOP offset the massive projected cost of another round of tax breaks for the wealthy.
The proposal, first reported by The American Prospect's David Dayen, is part of a menu of options Republicans are weighing for inclusion in their forthcoming reconciliation package. A House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the legislation is expected next week.
"Making poor people pay more for healthcare is exactly the kind of effective cut to Medicaid that moderate Republicans have sworn they would not abide," Dayen wrote. "While reducing the federal share of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which provides federal funding to extend Medicaid to adults under age 65 up to 138% of the poverty level in 40 states and D.C., is not part of the menu, this is a backdoor way of achieving something like that reduction, on the backs of individuals who get Medicaid."
The proposal is described in the emerging reconciliation proposal as "cost-sharing above 100% FPL," or federal poverty level.
Medicaid's website explains that out-of-pocket Medicaid costs currently apply to all "enrollees except those specifically exempted by law, and most are limited to nominal amounts."
Under the GOP proposal, according to Dayen, "Medicaid recipients making at or above the federal poverty level, which is $15,650 for a single individual and $21,150 for a two-person household, would have to pay some money for coverage—either in premiums, co-payments for hospital visits and other treatment, or other fees."
"Currently, Medicaid gives states the option to impose out-of-pocket spending on recipients, though some populations and services, like children under 18 or pregnancy care, are exempted," Dayen added. "Some premiums and enrollment fees are limited to beneficiaries above 150% of the poverty line; this policy would take that number lower."
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, told the Prospect that "whether you call it a co-pay, a premium, a fee, or a tax, the net result is either a reduction in the disposable incomes of those subject to the cost-sharing or people forgoing healthcare."
"When I look out into the American income distribution for places where I'd like to cut things back," Bruenig added, "families with incomes between 100% and 138% of the poverty line is not where my eye tends to go."
In response to Dayen's reporting, Working Families Party national director Maurice Mitchell said in a statement that "Republicans want to hike Medicaid premiums and copays to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich."
"The fix is in," said Mitchell. "They care more about tax breaks for their billionaire donors than keeping costs low for families in their own districts. But we're not going to let them get away with it. We're ready to fight back."
"The bottom line is that the Republican bill is going to cut healthcare for kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working families."
Another option on the GOP policy menu for Medicaid is work requirements, which have been tried to disastrous effect at the state level. Research has repeatedly shown that work requirements do little to boost employment while making it more difficult for eligible program recipients to continue receiving benefits. Most Medicaid recipients already work.
Dayen's reporting was published shortly before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis examining the potential consequences of some of the Medicaid cuts floated by Republican lawmakers in recent days.
The CBO—which did not examine the GOP plan to impose more payments on poor Americans—found that the Republican proposals would "reduce the resources available to states to fund Medicaid programs."
"Overall, CBO expects that, on average, states would replace roughly half of the reduced funds with their own resources," the budget office said. "Additionally, in response to the loss of the other half of the resources, states would modify their Medicaid programs and reduce Medicaid spending using three levers: reduce provider payment rates, reduce the scope or amount of optional services, and reduce Medicaid enrollment."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who requested the CBO analysis last month, said Wednesday that "the Republican plan for healthcare means benefit cuts and terminated health insurance for millions of Americans who count on Medicaid."
"Republicans continue to use smoke and mirrors to try to trick Americans into thinking they aren't going to hurt anybody when they proceed with this reckless plan, but fighting reality is an uphill battle," said Wyden. "The bottom line is that the Republican bill is going to cut healthcare for kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working families, and Democrats are going to fight to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Months of Trying to Steal NC Supreme Court Seat, GOP Candidate Finally Concedes
"Throughout Griffin's shameful attempt to overturn the election, the people of North Carolina proved that we will not be silent," said the executive director of Common Cause North Carolina.
May 07, 2025
A six-month saga that drew national attention over a North Carolina state Supreme Court seat finally came to a close on Wednesday when the Republican judge who lost the race last fall conceded.
Jefferson Griffin, a Republican judge on the state Court of Appeals, lost the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election to incumbent Allison Riggs, a Democrat, by over 700 votes, a lead confirmed by two recounts. But Griffin would not accept the results, and instead launched an extraordinary bid to challenge tens of thousands of ballots in the race.
On Monday, a federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump dealt a decisive blow to Griffin's effort, ordering election officials to certify the results of the election and confirm that Riggs had won.
In his ruling, the judge wrote that "retroactive changes to election procedures raise serious due process concerns" and that Griffin essentially sought "to change the rules of the game after it had been played."
In a statement shared with outlet NC Newsline, Riggs said Monday that "today, we won."
"I'm proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina's Supreme Court Justice," she added.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the ruling "good news for democracy."
Instead of appealing the ruling, Griffin conceded defeat to Riggs. "While I do not fully agree with the District Court's analysis, I respect the court's holding—just as I have respected every judicial tribunal that has heard this case," Griffin said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. "I will not appeal the court's decision."
Common Cause North Carolina, is a nonpartisan grassroots organization, cheered the development.
"This is a victory for North Carolina voters, led by North Carolina voters," said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, in a statement on Wednesday. "Throughout Griffin's shameful attempt to overturn the election, the people of North Carolina proved that we will not be silent when a politician attacks the voting rights of our family members, friends, and neighbors. We've shown the awesome power of everyday people to protect the freedom to vote."
Common Cause North Carolina was active in mobilizing North Carolina residents against Griffin's challenges.
In state court, Griffin challenged more than 60,000 votes on eligibility grounds.
At one rally organized by Common Cause North Carolina in February, speakers warned that Griffin's challenge of those votes was a threat to democracy and that the strategy could be copied by other losing politicians who want to challenge their defeats, according to NC Newsline.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular