SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Supreme Court just allowed a major climate lawsuit to go ahead
In a surprise decision late Friday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Juliana v. US, a major lawsuit filed by young people against the US government for failing to limit the effects of climate change. The case may now go to trial in a lower court after the Supreme Court’s extremely unusual move last month to temporarily block the proceeding.
The case includes 21 plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, who began testing the idea that a safe climate is a civil right when the suit was first filed in 2015. It argues that the US government pursued policies that harmed the climate, thereby robbing the children of a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” As redress, they want the government to take action to fight climate change.
“The youth of our nation won an important decision today from the Supreme Court that shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy,” the plaintiffs said Friday in a statement. “We have asked the District Court for an immediate status conference to get Juliana v. US back on track for trial in the next week.”
A lower court ruled earlier this year the case could go to trial, and that trial was expected begin at the United States District Court in Oregon on Monday, October 29.
But then late last month, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay of the case to consider a request from the Justice Department for a stay to halt the case. The Supreme Court’s temporary stay sent the plaintiffs scrambling to put together a brief in time to keep the case moving forward on schedule.
On Friday, the court denied the government’s request for a stay, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the application, according to the court order. The Supreme Court also suggested that a federal appeals court should consider appeals on other grounds before the case heads to trial in district court.
The court, however, strongly suggests that interlocutory appeal of the district court's order on dispositive motions—in plain English, immediate appeal of some key legal questions before the trial—should happen. (Which would mean no trial unless that ruling is upheld on appeal.) pic.twitter.com/011vDPAucT
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) November 2, 2018
[...] For climate change activists, the courtroom is one of the few remaining options for enacting policies to limit greenhouse gases, as the White House scarcely acknowledges climate change and Congress remains deadlocked. The plaintiffs and the defendants in the children’s climate lawsuit will now prepare for trial, though a new date has not yet been set.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:07PM (6 children)
It's telling that only children and young adults signed up. They may be correct in wanting a livable world, but they may be incorrect about the ways to achieve that. The easiest action is to limit access to energy, and chances are that this will cause food shortages and transportation problems, some people (who now drive 50 miles one way to work) will be marooned in a village, become unemployed regardless of their talent.
In practice, though, if this lawsuit is filed, it will not go anywhere due to federal sovereign immunity. Neither the President nor Congress are interested in experiments with the country. And, besides, most of our heavy industry is already in China.
If climate change is going to be fought, it has to be done by usung global methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. At least China and the USA will have to reduce pollution - likely by transitioning to electric cars and nuclear power. Wind is possible, but not everywhere; it costs a lot as well [newsweek.com], as it is a low integration system. If we ever see thermonuclear fusion (controlled or not,) humans will stop burning oil, gas, coal immediately.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:39PM (5 children)
Sovereign immunity does not apply to claims that the government or a government employee violated the Constitution. See US v. Lee, Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:10AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:56AM (3 children)
No, but it sounds like their claim is that an implied right to breathe is. Which is honestly not a crazy claim, if you ignore the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights as is popular these days (that is, rather than taking rights as limitations on government, defining them as requirements for government).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:39AM (2 children)
That's a big difference. Power of doing something is not a duty. The government has power to start WW3, but there is no such duty. So that won't work - the Constitution says that the goverment has power to take care of general welfare. Those things are taken literally.
The kids may implore the government to fix the Earth, but honestly it is barely humanly possible - and if it is possible, it will require cooperation of some five or ten countries, some of which the USA has cool or bad relations with. Then the lawsuit becomes impractical, as it cannot be completed in a reasonable time - we may need 20, 30 or 50 years to do something.
And, of course, the universal reason to deny is "you have no standing" - as you cannot clearly prove that you personally will be affected. The plea for the whole country will not work, we have Congress for that, write letters to your Congressman. I'm sure the lawyers will find 1,000 more reasons.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:15AM
Duh, of course it is just a stunt! I certainly never suggested otherwise. Perhaps some environmental group is behind it for publicity, or Dems. Raise a meritless case and then when it gets tossed claim it is because the court is stacked with Trumpers. It's not like the strategy hasn't been tried before.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:14PM
The U.S. Government has a duty under the Fifth Amendment that persons on U.S. soil not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The several states have the same duty under the 14th Amendment. If anything, actions taken with the knowledge that they will cause sea level rise deprives coastal dwellers of property.