

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, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org
Andrea Rodgers, andrea@ourchildrenstrust.org
Philip Gregory, pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com
Members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives have expressed their support for the fundamental rights of children to a safe climate and the young Americans in the landmark children’s constitutional climate case, Juliana v. United States. On June 1, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, of the U.S. District Court in Oregon, granted the young plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, putting their case back on track to trial after almost eight years of unprecedented efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to delay or dismiss their case.
Following the ruling, members of Congress demonstrated public support and this week they joined a Tweetstorm to continue to show their commitment to the youth, their rights to a safe, livable climate, and their right to go to trial. The Juliana case was one of the most significant targets of the Trump administration’s “shadow docket” - a tactic wherein cases are decided without full briefing or oral argument, and without any written opinion.
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chairman of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and Chairman of the Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, shared, “BIG NEWS: The #YouthVGov case will finally proceed to trial! This remarkable group of young people who are demanding their right to a healthy planet and future have my full support.” Read his June 3, 2023, tweet here and June 6, 2023, tweet here.
“Twenty-one youth have waited almost eight years to get a ruling on their lawsuit demanding their constitutional right to a safe climate be protected. And yesterday, we welcomed news that they are finally being granted their right to go to trial,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), a Chief Deputy Whip and Ranking Member on the House Innovation, Data, and Commerce Energy and Commerce Subcommittee. “These young people have taken on incredible responsibility to protect our environment. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to support them as they continue their fight to protect the right of all to a safe and habitable climate. Our children and grandchildren should not have to fear for the future of their environment and our world as we know it.” Read her June 2, 2023, press statement here and tweet here.
“Today, I'm proudly standing with @youthvgov + Juliana plaintiffs as they fight to protect their constitutional right to a safe climate. Let's get climate justice out of the shadows & off the shadow docket,” stated Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16), member of the Judiciary Committee and Deputy Whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Read her June 6, 2023, tweet here.
For additional statements of support, including from Senators Whitehouse and Wyden and Congressmembers Jayapal and Tlaib, visit the Juliana statements of support page.
“I’m excited that our case is finally moving forward and grateful that members of Congress continue to support children’s fundamental rights for youth, like me and my little sister,” said 15-year-old Levi Draheim, youngest plaintiff in the Juliana case. Learn more about Levi and the other 20 Juliana plaintiffs here.
Since the case was filed in 2015, more than 85 lawmakers have rallied behind the Juliana youth and their right to a safe climate. They joined U.S. Senate and House letters in November 2021 to President Biden expressing support for the fundamental rights of children to a safe climate. Members stood with the Juliana plaintiffs by cosponsoring the Children’s Fundamental Rights and Climate Recovery Resolution introduced during the 116th and 117th Congress (S.Con.Res.8 & H.Con.Res.31) expressing that the current climate crisis disproportionately affects the health, economic opportunity, and fundamental rights of children, and demands that the United States develop a national, comprehensive, science-based, and just climate recovery plan to meet necessary emissions reduction targets. They also signed on to two 2019 and 2020 amicus briefs filed in the Ninth Circuit.
“Attorney General Garland should treat this like the urgent constitutional case that it is by litigating the case on its merits and presenting their arguments in the light of day at trial, rather than once again seeking to push this case into the dark corners of the shadow docket,” said Julia Olson, lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs. “Members of Congress who continue to stand in solidarity with these 21 young Americans are sending a clear and urgent message to all of our nation’s leaders to protect our children’s fundamental rights to a safe climate.”
Plaintiffs intend to seek a prompt trial date so that they and their experts can finally present their evidence of their government’s active infringement of their constitutional rights.
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.
"No reason given. No one, not even military users, were apparently given advanced warning," said one veteran journalist. "Aside from 9/11, I can't remember anything like that."
The is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Speculation and alarm was triggered overnight after the Federal Aviation Administration late Tuesday, with nothing more than "special security reasons” given as a reason, ordered the suspension of all incoming and outgoing flights from the airport in El Paso, Texas.
"What on Earth is going on?" asked Franklin Leonard, a contributing editor with Vanity Fair, in a reaction to the news—given the limited information provided by the federal government—that was similarly expressed by many online.
In a post on Instagram, the El Paso International Airport said, "All flights to and from El Paso are grounded, including commercial, cargo and general aviation. The FAA has issued a flight restriction halting all flights to and from El Paso effective from February 10 at 11:30 PM (MST) to February 20 at 11:30PM (MST)." No further details were given and passengers were told to contact their carrier for status on specific flights.
Speculation on social media—including concerns about US military operations, connections to President Donald Trump's sweeping deportation operations, and other unsubstantiated notions—was rife in the early hours of Wednesday morning as word spread of the closure. Others simply noted the unusual nature of the FAA order.
"So this is really strange," John Stempkin, a veteran news producer with NPR, said of the unexplained closure. "No reason given. No one, not even military users, were apparently given advanced warning. Aside from 9/11, I can't remember anything like that."
A statement from the airport said the grounding order had been given “on short notice” and that it was waiting for additional guidance from the FAA. In its notice, the FAA said the federal government “may use deadly force” against aircraft violating the airspace and determined to pose “an imminent security threat.”
The grounding of flights, noted the Associated Press, "is likely to create significant disruptions given the duration and the size of the metropolitan area. El Paso, a border city with a population of nearly 700,000 and larger when you include the surrounding metro area, is hub of cross-border commerce alongside neighboring Ciudad Juarez in Mexico."
Reached by phone early Wednesday by the New York Times for his reaction, Representative Joaquin Castro, a Democrat who represents San Antonio, said he had no idea what was going on. “Sorry, I don’t have some clear answer,” Castro told the Times. Asked if he was surprised, the lawmaker simply said, “Yes.”
"They tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," said Sen. Mark Kelly. "That’s not the way things work in America."
A federal grand jury on Tuesday declined to go along with an effort by the Trump Justice Department to indict Democratic lawmakers involved in a November video reminding members of the US military of their duty to refuse illegal orders, a message that came as President Donald Trump deployed troops to major American cities.
The failed attempt to indict the six Democratic lawmakers was led by Trump loyalist Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia. The New York Times reported that federal prosecutors "sought to persuade the grand jurors that the lawmakers had violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the US armed forces."
Trump, who has repeatedly weaponized the Justice Department against his political opponents, erupted in response to the 90-second video, accusing the Democratic lawmakers behind it of "seditious behavior, punishable by death."
The lawmakers who appeared in the video were Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan as well as Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. The Democrats learned they were under investigation last month when they received inquiries from Pirro's office.
Lawmakers and legal observers said it was deeply alarming that the DOJ even tried to secure the indictment.
"What an ugly assault on the First Amendment and on Congress," said legal scholar Ryan Goodman. "Thankfully, thwarted."
Kelly, a retired Navy captain who is facing Pentagon attempts to censure him and cut his military benefits, said the effort to indict him and his fellow Democratic lawmakers was "an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies."
"It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," Kelly wrote on social media. "That’s not the way things work in America."
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship. pic.twitter.com/N8lW0EpQ7r
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 18, 2025
Slotkin, a former CIA officer who organized the November video, said Pirro pursued the indictment "at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested, and hanged for sedition."
"Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good," the senator said. "But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the administration. It was another sad day for our country."
"Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies," Slotkin added. "No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law."
Sen. Ron Wyden called the tax giveaway "indefensible at a time when so many Americans are getting battered by inflation and barely staying afloat."
Nearly all US Senate Republicans on Tuesday voted to block a resolution that would have reversed a Trump administration regulatory change set to give some of the country's richest companies a $10.3 billion tax break.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution was spearheaded by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Angus King (I-Maine). The vote on whether to advance it was 47-51. The only Republican to vote in favor was the other Mainer, Susan Collins, who just confirmed she is running for another term, despite two strong Democratic challengers.
In a statement after the vote, Wyden tied the target of his resolution—an Internal Revenue Service guidance undermining the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT)—to the sweeping budget package that GOP lawmakers passed and President Donald Trump signed last summer, which also featured significant tax breaks for the rich.
"The ink is barely dry on the megabill Trump and Republicans passed to give $1 trillion in new tax breaks to giant corporations, and now his Treasury Department is throwing another $10 billion handout to the most profitable corporations in America," Wyden said.
"The pattern we're seeing is that the Trump administration gives big corporations and ultrawealthy donors whatever tax benefits they want the second they walk through the door at the Treasury Department, but that doesn't mean the Senate has to allow this giveaway to happen," he stressed. "Stuffing $10 billion into the coffers of corporations that are already raking in enormous profits is indefensible at a time when so many Americans are getting battered by inflation and barely staying afloat."
King similarly declared that "it's downright unfair to give billions in tax relief to America's most successful corporations when Maine people are struggling to afford their prescription drugs, childcare, and groceries." He described their resolution as "a commonsense step toward a fairer tax policy that prioritizes people over profits and levels the playing field."
Although the defeat was predictable, economic justice advocates lambasted Senate Republicans for killing the resolution.
Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass said in a statement that "after passing historic tax giveaways for billionaires and big business through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA), blowing up the deficit, and cutting billions from critical healthcare and nutrition programs to pay for it, Trump and his GOP allies in the Senate are taking every opportunity to ensure economic elites can avoid paying their fair share."
"This guidance would effectively circumvent Congress and create numerous opportunities for corporate tax evasion while increasing the deficit and national debt, thus creating more imbalance in a tax code that already favors the wealthy and large corporations," Kass said. "Sen. Wyden is right to lead the charge to stop this guidance—average Americans should not be forced to subsidize some of the most profitable companies on Earth."
Like the Senate, the House of Representatives is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, noted in a Tuesday blog post that "even if lawmakers of both parties had sufficient backbone to retake the legislative power that the executive branch has usurped, President Trump would veto such a bill."
"But as a matter of educating lawmakers and the public, the recently rejected measure was a success given that tax legislation (such as this resolution) up for a vote in Congress usually gets an official budget score from Congress' revenue estimators at the Joint Committee on Taxation," he wrote. "And in this case, that reveals that this unilateral corporate tax cut from the Trump administration will cost $10 billion over a decade unless it is reversed."
"The Senate's failure to ratify Wyden's resolution may be only the opening salvo for members of Congress who want to retake the power given them under the Constitution to make tax law," Gardner suggested. "The regulation in question is not the first, and surely not the last, attempt by President Trump to unilaterally cut corporate taxes."