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
constitutional rights
'Historic' Settlement With Youth Will Force Hawaiian Transit System to Speed Decarbonization
"I hope our case inspires youth to always use their voices to hold leaders accountable for the future they will inherit," said one plaintiff.
Jun 21, 2024
Days before a case brought by 13 young climate advocates in Hawaii was set to go to trial, the state's governor and Department of Transportation on Thursday announced an "unprecedented" settlement that will expedite the decarbonization of Hawaii's transit system—and formally "recognizes children's constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate."
The plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportationwere between the ages of 9 and 18 when they filed their case in 2022, alleging that the state government was violating their rights under the Hawaii Constitution by investing in fossil fuel-intensive infrastructure that would worsen the effects of the climate crisis.
The case is the first youth-led legal challenge addressing constitutional rights related to pollution from the transportation sector, and according to Earthjustice, which represented the plaintiffs along with Our Children's Trust, the settlement is the first agreement "of its kind, in which government defendants have decided to resolve a constitutional climate case in partnership with youth plaintiffs, committing to comprehensive changes" to reduce fossil fuel dependence and emissions.
Under the settlement, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) agreed to "plan and implement transformative changes of Hawaii's transportation system to achieve the state's legally established goal of net-negative emissions by 2045," said Earthjustice.
Specific actions the HDOT agreed to take include:
- Establishing a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan within one year;
- Creating a lead unit and responsible positions within HDOT to coordinate the mission of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction throughout the agency; oversee climate change mitigation and adaptation for the highways program; and ensure public highways are upgraded to be accessible for all users, ages, and abilities;
- Establishing a volunteer youth council to advise on HDOT's mitigation and adaptation commitments in the years to come;
- Improving its transportation infrastructure budgeting process to prioritize reduction of GHG and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transparently analyze and disclose the GHG and VMT impacts of each project and the overall program; and
- Making immediate, ambitious investments in clean transportation infrastructure.
The department agreed to complete pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks within five years, dedicating a minimum of $40 million to expanding the state's public electric vehicle charging stations by 2030.
Earthjustice credited HDOT Director Edwin Sniffen with taking "unprecedented leadership to negotiate a resolution and embrace the government's kuleana (responsibility) to lead the way on bold and broad climate action."
The Navahine youth plaintiffs, said Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, "activated the courts and inspired true democracy in action—all three branches of government committing to work together to do what needs to be done according to best available science, to safeguard their futures."
"Our courts are essential guardians of children's constitutional rights and empowered to protect the planet, but they rely on our collective engagement," said Olson. "Young people across the country and around the world will follow in [the plaintiffs'] footsteps, carrying the same values of care, defense, and love of the land to action."
The settlement was announced nearly a year after young climate advocates in Montana won another historic victory in a case arguing that the state had violated their constitutional rights by prioritizing fossil fuel projects.
Three federal judges who had been appointed by former President Donald Trump angered climate groups last month when they granted the Biden administration's request to dismiss Juliana v. United States, a case originally filed in 2015, which argues the U.S. government has violated the rights of children by continuing to support planet-heating fossil fuel extraction.
A judge in Hawaii last year dismissed the state's request to dismiss the Navahine case. Hawaii officials argued that state laws aimed at reducing carbon emissions were "aspirational" and could not be used in legal arguments claiming the state had violated children's rights.
"Transportation emissions are increasing and will increase at the rate we are going," Judge Jeffrey Crabtree of the O'ahu 1st Circuit Court said as he denied the state's request. "In other words, the alleged harms are not hypothetical or only in the future. They are current, ongoing, and getting worse."
Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, echoed Crabtree's words on Thursday as he announced the settlement.
"We're addressing the impacts of climate change today, and needless to say, this is a priority because we know now that climate change is here," Green said. "It is not something that we're considering in an abstract way in the future."
Andrea Rogers, deputy director of U.S. strategy for Our Children's Trust, said the "historic agreement offers a holistic roadmap for states and countries to follow around the world."
The partnership between the plaintiffs and the state, said a plaintiff identified as Rylee Brooke K., "marks a pivotal step towards preserving Hawaii for future generations—one that will have a ripple effect on the world."
"Being heard and moving forward in unity with the state to combat climate change is incredibly gratifying, and empowering," said Rylee. "I hope our case inspires youth to always use their voices to hold leaders accountable for the future they will inherit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Landmark Report, DOJ Finds Phoenix Police Violated Rights of Homeless
"This behavior is not only unlawful but conveys a lack of humanity and dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society," said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke.
Jun 14, 2024
"A person's constitutional rights do not diminish when they lack shelter," reads a landmark report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Justice, the result of a three-year investigation into the Phoenix Police Department.
The finding is nothing new to advocates for unhoused people who have spent years fighting overpolicing and police brutality against the population, but the report represents the first time the DOJ has found violations of the civil and constitutional rights of people who lack shelter.
The DOJ opened an investigation into the Phoenix Police Department (PhxPD) after complaints about excessive force by police, and pledged to do a full accounting of police violence and of discrimination against Black, Latino, and Native American residents.
Officials found that the overpolicing of Phoenix's unhoused population has become a "central pillar of PhxPD's enforcement strategy," despite the department's stated policy to "lead with services" and provide referrals to agencies that can help unhoused people with housing, healthcare, and other needs.
"Between January 2016 and March 2022, people who were homeless accounted for over one-third—37%—of all PhxPD misdemeanor arrests and citations," reads the report.
The DOJ found the PhxPD principally violated unhoused people's rights by detaining them without reasonable suspicion and by seizing their property without notice—violations of the residents' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Officers last year forcefully moved hundreds of people to a large homeless encampment called The Zone near Phoenix's Capitol complex, which was ultimately cleared last November following a lawsuit filed by neighboring residents.
The DOJ found the police put unhoused people in harm's way by forcing them to move to The Zone, where high rates of crime including sexual assault had been reported. The report also found the PhxPD unlawfully subjected unhoused people to citations and arrests for camping in public parks and other areas, with one man cited or arrested 20 times over three years.
"We found that unhoused people in Phoenix have suffered a pattern of unconstitutional conduct," said Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights. "Additionally, the city and the police department seize and destroy the property of homeless people without providing adequate notice or fair opportunity to collect their belongings. This behavior is not only unlawful but conveys a lack of humanity and dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society."
Arizona state Rep. Analise Ortiz (D-24) applauded the DOJ's historic report, but noted that "the proposed state budget includes $0 for homelessness."
In addition to the police department's violations against many of Phoenix's 2,700 unhoused people, the DOJ reported on racial discrimination, with Black drivers 144% more likely than white drivers to be pulled over, and on department leaders urging officers to use projectiles often with a "use it or lose it" policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona said the report would bolster its ongoing litigation against the city and the PhxPD, and said it was not "not surprised" to hear that the DOJ had found widespread misconduct by the police.
"This damning report makes clear that the Phoenix Police Department suffers from an ingrained permissive culture that tolerates and even encourages widespread use of force, including deadly force, against some of our community's most vulnerable people," said Scott Greenwood, interim executive director of the group. "Moreover, this culture overwhelmingly directs enforcement activity against Black, Brown, Indigenous, and houseless people and harms people experiencing behavioral or emotional health crises."
"The people of Phoenix deserve genuine community safety," Greenwood added. "Today's report reflects a failure of leadership by prior chiefs over the last decade and a city government that has neglected or refused to hold them accountable. The most important thing that the mayor and city council can do now is to embrace this process as a vehicle for transformative change rather than stick their heads in the sand. Policing can and must be both effective and constitutional. Policing in Phoenix is neither."
Keep ReadingShow Less
TikTok Sues US Government Over 'Unconstitutional' Potential Ban
One expert said legislators' admissions "that the ban was motivated by a desire to suppress content about the Israel-Gaza conflict will make the law especially difficult for the government to defend," said one First Amendment expert.
May 07, 2024
A top First Amendment expert on Tuesday said TikTok has a strong case against the U.S. government as the social media platform filed a federal lawsuit against a potential ban—particularly since proponents of the law have admitted it is aimed at blocking Americans' access to news out of Gaza.
The platform filed the lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nearly two weeks after President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversaries Act into law as part of a larger foreign aid package.
Under the law, TikTok parent company ByteDance, a Chinese firm, has 270 days to sell the platform, allowing it to continue operating in the U.S. If it does not sell TikTok, the app will no longer be available on U.S. networks and app stores.
As Common Dreams reported Monday, Republican lawmakers including U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) have linked TikTok to the burgeoning anti-war protest movement spreading across the U.S., with the latter saying in an interview with Secretary of State Antony Blinken last Friday that "there was such overwhelming support" in Congress to shut down TikTok because of the frequent posting of Palestine-related content on the app.
"Restricting citizens' access to media from abroad is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, so it's sad and alarming to see our own government going down this road," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, on Tuesday. "TikTok's challenge to the ban is important, and we expect it to succeed. The First Amendment means the government can't restrict Americans' access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it—and no such reason exists here."
"The fact that some legislators have acknowledged that the ban was motivated by a desire to suppress content about the Israel-Gaza conflict will make the law especially difficult for the government to defend," Jaffer added.
The law's sponsors claim it "is not a ban because it offers ByteDance a choice: divest TikTok's U.S. business or be shut down," reads the lawsuit. "But in reality, there is no choice. The 'qualified divestiture' demanded by the act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally."
Even if selling the app within the time frame was feasible, added TikTok and ByteDance, the law "would still be an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power," ultimately allowing Congress to "circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down."
"And for TikTok, any such divestiture would disconnect Americans from the rest of the global community on a platform devoted to shared content—an outcome fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's commitment to both free speech and individual liberty," the plaintiffs continued.
At The Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday, columnist Will Bunch noted that about a third of Americans between the ages of 18-29 get their news from TikTok, according to a recent Pew survey—as Romney openly stated he fears last week.
As Bunch wrote:
During the war in Gaza, most mainstream Western journalists have been blocked from entering the war zone. The best source of real-time information is often the phone video of airstrikes and their aftermath either shot by Palestinian journalists—more than 90 of whom have been killed—or civilian bystanders. Look, there's disinformation about every issue on social media—it's a serious problem. I'm a clueless boomer myself about TikTok, but I do spend way too much time on X/Twitter and I can tell you exactly what is radicalizing young people about Gaza.
The reason so many under-30 folks have adopted the Palestinian cause isn't disinformation, from Hamas or China or anyone else. They've been radicalized by the truth—daily videos of young children, some of them bloodied, some of them already dead, covered in dust and targeted by 2,000-pound dumb bombs made right here in America.
"If the real motivation for zapping TikTok from your phone is to silence legitimate political speech, just because a lot of members of Congress don't like it," wrote Bunch, "then this bill is the worst attack on the First Amendment since the government was sending World War I critics like Eugene V. Debs and Kate Richards O'Hare to prison, more than 100 years ago."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular