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: 2) by deimtee on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:04AM (4 children)
The Governments obvious first step is twist the case into demanding evidence that the alleged harm is actually occurring. It should be interesting to watch both sides squirm on that if they get a good impartial judge who disallows hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:30AM
It's not even twisting the case. It's bog standard practice - start by demonstrating that you even have a prima facie case, otherwise you get a summary judgement against you. This involves showing standing, appropriate jurisdiction, some kind of genuine complaint, all that good stuff.
And if these kids can't make a serious case in the teeth of counterarguments in a courtroom, then they deserve to lose.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 05 2018, @07:32PM (2 children)
The government never had to do that when they used damn near the exact same argument to ram through the controlled substances act...I think the judge ought to make those asshats face their own hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:49AM (1 child)
While I don't disagree about the hypocrisy, there is a bit of difference between passing a law and a lawsuit.
To pass a law you just need a majority of legislators to agree that it is good for society*.
To win a lawsuit you need to present a better case than your opponent.**
My main hope was that the gov would challenge the 'science is settled' bullshit*** and the Judge would make both sides prove their case. Pass the popcorn.
*good for society usually being either what gets them re-elected or gets them money.
**or have more money for lawyers, which is often the same thing.
***until we have a working omniscient theory of everything the science is never settled, and any claim it is is politics not science.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:24PM
Check Gonzales v. Raich, the CSA has faced lawsuits too, and the Supreme Court sided with the feds that twisting the hell out of the existing law was fine in order to legally justify drug prohibition. So they ought to have no problem with how these kids are trying to twist the law in a similar manner in order to improve environmental regulation.