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
us supreme court
43 Lawmakers Back Youth in Climate Case Against US Government
A 17-year-old plaintiff commended the federal lawmakers for "using their voices to weigh in on the importance of our rights to access justice and to a livable climate."
Jan 13, 2025
Dozens of members of Congress on Monday submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting 21 youth plaintiffs who launched a historic constitutional climate case against the federal government nearly a decade ago.
Since Juliana v. United States was first filed in the District of Oregon in August 2015, the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have fought against it. Last May, a panel of three judges appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by President-elect Donald Trump granted a request by President Joe Biden's Department of Justice to dismiss the case.
After the U.S. Supreme Court in November denied the youth plaintiffs' initial request for intervention regarding the panel's decision, their attorneys filed a different type of petition last month. As Our Children's Trust, which represents the 21 young people, explains on its website, they argued to the justices that federal courts are empowered by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) "to resolve active disputes between citizens and their government when citizens are being personally injured by government policies, even if the relief is limited to a declaration of individual rights and government wrongs."
The Monday filing from seven U.S. senators and 36 members of the House of Representatives argues to the nation's top court that "the 9th Circuit's dismissal of the petitioners' constitutional suit for declaratory relief has no basis in law and threatens to undermine the Declaratory Judgment Act, one of the most consequential remedial statutes that Congress has ever enacted."
The Supreme Court "should grant the petition to clarify that declaratory relief under the DJA satisfies the Article III redressability requirement," wrote the federal lawmakers, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "Doing so is necessary because Congress expressly authorized declaratory relief 'whether or not further relief is or could be sought.'"
"The 9th Circuit's jurisdictional holding, which prevented the district court from even reaching the question whether declaratory relief would be appropriate, conflicts with this court's holding that the DJA is constitutional," the lawmakers continued. "It also conflicts with this court's holding that Article III courts may not limit DJA relief to cases where an injunction would be appropriate."
In a Monday statement, Juliana's youngest plaintiff, 17-year-old Levi D., welcomed the support from the 43 members of Congress—including Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
"After 10 years of delay, I have spent more than half of my life as a plaintiff fighting for my fundamental rights to a safe climate. Yet, the courthouse doors are still closed to us," said Levi. "Five years ago, members of Congress stood by me and my co-plaintiffs on the steps of the Supreme Court. Today, as the climate crisis worsens and hurricanes ravage my home state of Florida, they are still with us, using their voices to weigh in on the importance of our rights to access justice and to a livable climate."
"The recent win in Held v. State of Montana and historic settlement in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation showed the world that young people's voices, my voice, and legal action are not just symbolic, but they hold governments accountable to protect our constitutional rights," Levi added. "Now, it's our turn to be heard!"
The lawmakers weren't alone in formally supporting the young climate advocates on Monday. Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association filed another brief that takes aim at the government's use of mandamus—a court order directing a lower entity to perform official duties—to deny the Juliana youth a trial.
"The government's sole argument to justify mandamus is the Department of Justice's past and anticipated future litigation expenses associated with going to trial. That argument is firmly foreclosed by precedent," the groups argued. "And even if it wasn't foreclosed by precedent, the argument trivializes the extraordinary nature of mandamus and would improperly circumvent the final judgment rule."
The organizations urged the high court to grant certiorari to uphold the mandamus standard set out in Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2004. Plaintiff Miko V. said Monday that "I'm incredibly grateful to Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association for standing with us in our fight for justice."
"We're not asking for special treatment; we're demanding the right to access justice, as our constitutional democracy guarantees," Miko stressed. "The recent victory in Held v. State of Montana demonstrates the power of youth-led legal action, and the urgent need for courts to recognize that our generation has the right to hold our government accountable. Every day that the government prevents us from presenting our case, we all lose more ground in the fight for a livable future. It's time for the judiciary to open the courthouse doors and allow us a fair trial."
The briefs came just a week before Big Oil-backed Trump's second inauguration and on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected attempts by fossil fuel giants to quash a Hawaiian municipality's lawsuit that aims to hold the climate polluters accountable, in line with justices' previous decisions. Dozens of U.S. state and local governments have filed similar suits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Rejects Big Oil Attacks on Hawaii Climate Lawsuit
"With this latest denial, the fossil fuel industry's worst nightmare—having to face the overwhelming evidence of their decades of calculated climate deception—is closer than ever to becoming a reality," said one advocate.
Jan 13, 2025
Climate campaigners and scientists on Monday welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reject attempts by fossil fuel giants to quash the Hawaii capital's lawsuit aiming to hold the major polluters accountable for the devastating impacts of their products.
"This is a significant day for the people of Honolulu and the rule of law," Ben Sullivan, executive director and chief resilience officer at the City and County of Honolulu's Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency, said in a statement.
"This landmark decision upholds our right to enforce Hawaii laws in Hawaii courts, ensuring the protection of Hawaii taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants misconduct," he added.
Honolulu first sued companies including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Sunoco in March 2020. The companies have fought to shut down the case—like dozens of other climate liability lawsuits that states and municipalities have filed against Big Oil at the state level.
Shell and Sunoco led a pair of appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that Honolulu's suit was "a blueprint for chaos" because it could inform other legal actions against fossil fuel companies and such cases "could threaten the energy industry." Similar to three previous decisions, the justices declined to intervene.
Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles connected Monday's victory to the other cases, saying in a statement that "Big Oil companies keep fighting a losing battle to avoid standing trial for their climate lies."
"With this latest denial, the fossil fuel industry's worst nightmare—having to face the overwhelming evidence of their decades of calculated climate deception—is closer than ever to becoming a reality," Wiles continued. "Communities everywhere are paying dearly for the massive damages caused by Big Oil's decadeslong climate deception. The people of Honolulu and communities across the country deserve their day in court to hold these companies accountable."
Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Science Hub for Climate Litigation, similarly celebrated the decision, which she called "a resounding affirmation of Honolulu's right to seek justice under state law for the mounting climate impacts caused by fossil fuel companies' deceptive practices."
"For more than 50 years, fossil fuel companies have conducted sophisticated disinformation campaigns to obscure their own research showing that burning fossil fuels would drive climate change," Merner highlighted. "This case lays bare how these actions have contributed to rising seas, intensified storms, and coastal erosion that are devastating Honolulu's people, infrastructure, and natural resources."
"Scientific evidence is unequivocal: The human-caused emissions from fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change," she stressed. "Honolulu's case stands as an example of how communities are using both science and the law to challenge corporate misconduct and demand accountability for climate damages."
Merner added that "the people of Honolulu are demonstrating remarkable leadership in standing up to powerful fossil fuel companies whose disinformation campaigns have directly contributed to the climate harms they now face. Their efforts serve as a powerful example for communities around the world. This decision is one step in a larger effort to seek accountability and justice."
The Supreme Court's latest blow to the oil and gas industry came just a week before the second inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who courted Big Oil executives on the campaign trail and pledged to "drill, baby, drill" if he won the November election.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—had asked the Biden administration to weigh in. Last month, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar
urged the justices not to intervene. Merner said at the time that her briefs "represent an important step in the pursuit of climate accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Completely Out of Touch... Both Parties': Supreme Court Looks Ready to OK TikTok Ban
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," said one advocate.
Jan 10, 2025
To the chagrin of First Amendment defenders and content creators, the Supreme Court on Friday appeared poised to uphold a law passed by Congress last year that would shut down the widely popular social media app TikTok in the U.S. unless its owner, the Chinese company ByteDance, sells it.
The de facto ban on TikTok was tucked into a $95 billion legislative package for aid to Ukraine and Israel that was passed by the Senate in April 2024. A standalone version of the legislation cleared the House with bipartisan support a month earlier. It is set to go into effect on January 19, barring a sale by ByteDance or intervention by the Supreme Court.
The law was justified on national security grounds, which were fueled by fears that national security laws in China could compel ByteDance to give the Chinese government access to data on TikTok users.
Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, wrote Thursday: "The U.S. government stood up to TikTok before they stood up to[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, or the health insurance lobby, or Big Pharma, or Big Oil—no. TikTok. Completely out of touch with the American people. Both parties."
During oral arguments, "justices across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of both sides, [but] the overall tone and thrust appeared to suggest greater skepticism toward the arguments by lawyers for TikTok and its users that the First Amendment barred Congress from enacting the law," according to Friday reporting from The New York Times.
However, the Times also noted that "several justices were skeptical about a major part of the government's justification for the law: the risk that China might 'covertly' make TikTok manipulate the content shown to Americans or collect user data to achieve its geopolitical aims."
Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing on TikTok's appeal of the ban, three bipartisan lawmakers were among the First Amendment advocates who filed amicus briefs in support of the app in late December. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked the court to grant TikTok an emergency injunction to block the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
The ACLU, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation were among several civil liberties groups that also filed an amicus brief in late December, arguing that the government has not presented sufficient evidence that the app, which is used by 170 million Americans, causes "ongoing or imminent harm."
In a statement released Friday, the Free Press policy counsel Yanni Chen said that "as with repressive laws from oppressive regimes around the world, the real toll of the ban will be on everyday people... TikTok users, many of whom use the platform to organize communities and express views that legacy media often ignore."
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular