Wikipedia

Our Children's Trust

Our Children's Trust is an American nonprofit public interest law firm based in Oregon that has filed several lawsuits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments, arguing that they are infringing on the youths' rights to a safe climate system.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

History

edit
 
Julia Olson, founder, in 2023

Our Children's Trust was founded by attorney Julia Olson[7] in 2010 to help formulate legal cases under the public trust doctrine and state and federal constitutions. Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon, who created the concept of "Atmospheric Trust Litigation" to take legal action to hold governments accountable for their role in causing climate change.[8][9] Part of Our Children's Trust's inspiration was from Antonio Oposa's work in the Philippines. The law firm exclusively represents children in constitutional lawsuits to hold government entities accountable for actions causing and worsening climate change.[5][6][9]

edit
 
Global warming—the progression from cooler historical temperatures (blue) to recent warmer temperatures (red)—is being experienced disproportionately by younger generations.[10] With continued fossil fuel emissions, that trend that will continue.[10] Various lawsuits are based on the constitutional rights of younger and future generations.

Organized by Our Children's Trust, legal and administrative actions were filed against all 50 states and the federal government (Alec L. v. McCarthy[11]) in May 2011. The filings were accompanied by the iMatter March, international solidarity youth marches empowering youth to stand up for their future in over 175 marches in 45 countries.[12]

Juliana v. United States

edit
 
One of the plaintiffs, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez
Main article: Juliana v. United States

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a constitutional climate lawsuit filed in 2015 that was being brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States federal government and several of its executive branch agencies and officers, including former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama. The plaintiffs, represented by Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, Vic Barrett and future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen. Some fossil fuel and industry groups were also initially named as defendants but were later dropped by a judge at their request.

The lawsuit asserts that, by operating and investing in a national energy system that causes climate change, the government violated the youths' constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, equal protection of the law, as well as substantially impaired essential public trust resources. The complaint details how each of the 21 plaintiffs are individually injured by their government's actions causing climate change[13] and how the federal government has known of the dangers of climate change for decades,[14] yet persisted in orchestrating a fossil-fuel based energy system. The 21 plaintiffs seek a declaration of their constitutional rights and a declaration that the U.S. national fossil fuel energy system violates their rights.

Juliana v. United States gained attention in 2016 when U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken found, for the first time, that there is a fundamental right “to a climate system capable of sustaining human life"[15] protected by the U.S. Constitution, allowing the case to proceed to trial.[16] 

The government has sought to delay and dismiss the case for various concerns. The case was scheduled to begin trial in the District Court on October 29, 2018, following the Supreme Court's and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ initial denials of the government's requests to stay the case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court issued a stay days before trial was set to begin and the case went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on June 4, 2019, in Portland, Oregon[17] in front of a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of Mary H. Murguia, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Josephine Staton (sitting by assignment), all of whom had been appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama.[18]

On January 17, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case, without prejudice, on redressability grounds.[19] To establish standing, the plaintiffs needed to show that they have injuries that are caused by the government and are redressable by the court. The majority opinion found that the District Court “correctly found the injury requirement met"[20] and that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to show the government was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries. However, the panel dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of redressability because it concluded that the court lacked the power to order plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, which included an order requiring the government to prepare a remedial plan to transition the U.S. energy system off of fossil fuels.

Writing for the majority, Judge Hurwitz wrote that, while “a substantial evidentiary record documents that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change, and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse,” "it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs' requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches."[20][21] In dissent, Judge Staton stated, "It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation. My colleagues throw up their hands. . . . No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists . . . [but] the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution."[22][23][24][25]

In March 2020, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit.[26][27] The petition requested that a panel of 11 judges review January's divided opinion. Later that month, 24 members of the U.S. Congress, experts in the fields of constitutional law, climate change, and public health, and several leading women's, children's, environmental, and human rights organizations filed 10 amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of the plaintiffs, urging that the en banc petition be granted.[28]

On February 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied the Plaintiffs’ petition for en banc review. While a judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the case, a majority of the judges declined to do so.[29][30]

On March 9, 2021, after the mandate was issued and the case was sent back to U.S. District Court, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to limit the remedy sought in their case.[31][32] Specifically, while the plaintiffs had originally requested both declaratory relief and for the court to order the government to create a climate recovery plan, they asked to eliminate injunctive relief, including the climate recovery plan, and instead to seek only declaratory relief.[33]

On May 13, 2021, Judge Aiken ordered attorneys for the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice to convene for a settlement conference. During this time, Judge Aiken also scheduled oral arguments for the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.[34]

On June 8, 2021, 17 Republican Attorneys General filed a motion to insert themselves as intervenors in the case and to object to any potential settlement between the Biden administration and the plaintiffs.[35] On July 7, 2021, six Democratic Attorneys General filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs.[36] On July 13, 2021, the NRDC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.[37]

In June 2023, the plaintiffs received permission to file an amended complaint. The government then moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In December 2023, the district court for the District of Oregon allowed the plaintiffs' claims of a right to a climate system capable of sustaining life under the Due Process Clause and violation of the Public Trust Doctrine to proceed. Once again, the government appealed.[38]

The government requested the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to order the federal district court to dismiss the case. The petition was granted by the circuit court on May 1, 2024, and the district court then dismissed the case the same day.[38]

In dismissing the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Ryan D. Nelson and Eric D. Miller) wrote: In a 2020 appeal, "we held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring such a claim. We remanded with instructions to dismiss on that basis. The district court nevertheless allowed amendment, and the government again moved to dismiss. The district court denied that motion, and the government petitioned for mandamus seeking to enforce our earlier mandate. We have jurisdiction to consider the petition. We grant it."[39] [38]

The plaintiffs were supported by over two dozen of the world's pre-eminent climate scientists and supporters, including the late Dr. Frank Ackerman, Peter Erickson, Dr. Howard Frumkin, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Dr. Mark Jacobson, Dr. Akilah Jefferson (rebuttal), Dr. Susan Pacheco, Dr. Jerome Paulson, Dr. Eric Rignot, Dr. G. Philip Robertson, Dr. Steve Running, Catherine Smith, James "Gus" Speth, Nobel laureate Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Dr. Lise Van Susteren, Dr. Karrie Walters (rebuttal), Dr. Harold Wanless, Dr. Jim Williams, and Andrea Wulf, all of whom prepared expert reports and were deposed in preparation for trial in 2018.

Lawsuits against US States

edit

Our Children's Trust has supported or represented youth in legal efforts in all 50 states by bringing legal actions including climate lawsuits and petitions for rulemaking against state governments. As of February 2023, Our Children's Trust represents and supports young people in active climate cases and legal actions in five U.S. states: Florida, Hawai’i, Montana, Utah, and Virginia:[40]

The following is an incomplete list of additional lawsuits that have been filed by Our Children's Trust against U.S. states:[54]

Held v. Montana

edit

Held v. Montana was filed by Our Children's Trust in March 2020 on behalf of 16 Montanan youths. The case alleges that by affirmatively promoting a fossil fuel-driven energy system, Montana is violating the constitutional rights of the youth to a clean and healthful environment. The lawsuit also claims that the state's fossil fuel energy system is contributing to the climate crisis and is degrading Montana's constitutionally protected public trust resources.[63][64][65]

Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs presented oral arguments on the state's motion to dismiss on February 18, 2021. On August 4, 2021, a judge ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs and denied the state's motion to dismiss. The trial began on June 12, 2023, being the first constitutional climate trial and first ever children's climate trial in U.S. history.[66][67][68][69] On August 14, 2023, the trial court judge ruled in the youth plaintiffs' favor, though the state indicated it would appeal the decision.[70] Montana's Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 10, 2024, its seven justices taking the case under advisement.[71]

Genesis B. v. EPA

edit

In December 2023, Our Children's Trust filed Genesis B. v. EPA in the state of California.[72]

International lawsuits

edit

The following is an incomplete list of non-U.S. places that Our Children's Trust has assisted in litigation:[73]

References

edit
  1. ^ "Mission". Our Children's Trust. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  2. ^ Powell, Andrea (29 October 2018). "Meet the Kids Trying to Put the Government on Trial for Its Climate Policies". Pacific Standard. Retrieved 2019-01-06.
  3. ^ "Our Children's Trust Climate Case Delay – Eugene Weekly". Retrieved 2019-01-06.
  4. ^ "Our Children's Trust Case Still Delayed, May Be Appealed – Eugene Weekly". Retrieved 2019-01-06.
  5. ^ a b "Can Young People Really Use the Courts to Stop Climate Change?". Teen Vogue. 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-12-02.
  6. ^ a b "Youth-led climate change lawsuits are increasing across the country". ABC News. Retrieved 2022-12-02.
  7. ^ Schwartz, John (2018-10-23). "Young People Are Suing the Trump Administration Over Climate Change. She's Their Lawyer". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-12-02.
  8. ^ Wood, Mary Christina (2008). "Atmospheric Trust Litigation, in "Climate Change: A Reader" (2011)" (PDF). Carolina Academic Press.
  9. ^ a b Powell, Andrea (October 29, 2018). "Meet The Kids Trying To Put The Government On Trial For Its Climate Policies". Pacific Standard. Retrieved November 18, 2018.
  10. ^ a b "Warming Across Generations". Climate Central. 22 March 2023. Archived from the original on 13 June 2024.
  11. ^ "Alec L. v. McCarthy". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  12. ^ "iMatter March | Captain Planet and the Planeteers | OMG | One More Generation". Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  13. ^ "Juliana v. United States". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  14. ^ "They Knew: How the U.S. Government Helped Cause the Climate Crisis". Yale E360. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  15. ^ "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION" (PDF). Climate Case Chart.
  16. ^ "These Kids Are Suing the Federal Government to Demand Climate Action. They Just Won an Important Victory". Time. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  17. ^ Docket Order (Feb. 4, 2019)
  18. ^ Schwartz, John (June 4, 2019). "Judges Give Both Sides a Grilling in Youth Climate Case Against the Government". New York Times. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  19. ^ Kaufman, Mark (2020-01-24). "The kids' climate lawsuit isn't dead yet". Mashable. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  20. ^ a b "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT" (PDF). Climate Case Chart.
  21. ^ Ivanova, Irana (January 17, 2020). "Kids' climate change lawsuit tossed out by federal appeals court". CBS News. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  22. ^ Flaccus, Gillian (January 18, 2020). "U.S. court dismisses suit by youths over climate change". The Register-Guard. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  23. ^ Berman, Dan (January 17, 2020). "Appeals court throws out lawsuit by children seeking to force action on climate crisis". CNN. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  24. ^ Teirstein, Zoya (2020-01-17). "Judge writes blistering dissent as kids' climate lawsuit gets tossed". Grist. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  25. ^ Meyer, Robinson (2020-01-22). "A Climate-Lawsuit Dissent That Changed My Mind". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  26. ^ Beitsch, Rebecca (2020-03-03). "Youth activists appeal ruling that they can't sue government over climate change". The Hill. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  27. ^ "Young Climate Plaintiffs Seek Second Chance in Federal Court". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  28. ^ "Kids Get Legal Backup In Bid For Review Of Climate Case - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  29. ^ "'Climate kids' will petition SCOTUS after denied en banc rehearing at 9th Circuit". Reuters. 2021-02-10. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  30. ^ "Kids Climate Suit Headed to the US Supreme Court". www.courthousenews.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  31. ^ "After setback, 'climate kids' narrow lawsuit in Oregon court". Reuters. 2021-03-10. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  32. ^ "Climate Youths Pivot Strategy After 9th Circ. Setback - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  33. ^ "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON – EUGENE DIVISION" (PDF). Climate Case Chart.
  34. ^ "Judge Orders Settlement Conference in Landmark Youth Climate Case, Juliana v. United States; Schedules Oral Arguments for June" (PDF). Our Children's Trust.
  35. ^ "17 States Intervene in Youth Climate Lawsuit". KLCC | NPR for Oregonians. 2021-06-09. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  36. ^ dos Santos, Mat. "The young Americans in Juliana case have a right to trial in open court". The Hill.
  37. ^ "Juliana v. United States". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  38. ^ a b c "Juliana v. United States | League of Women Voters". www.lwv.org. 2024-05-01. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  39. ^ "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals" (PDF). lwv.org. May 1, 2024. Retrieved May 16, 2024.
  40. ^ "Pending State Actions". Our Children's Trust. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  41. ^ "Florida seeks 100% renewable electricity by 2050". AP NEWS. 2022-04-21. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  42. ^ Grzincic, Barbara (2022-06-02). "'Climate kids' lawsuit targets Hawaii's DOT". Reuters. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  43. ^ "E&E News: Hawaii youth sue state over transportation emissions". subscriber.politicopro.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  44. ^ "Hawaii youth sue state over transportation climate harms". AP NEWS. 2022-06-01. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  45. ^ "16 youths get trial date in effort to hold Montana accountable in climate fight". NBC News. 7 February 2022. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  46. ^ O'Connell-Domenech, Alejandra (2022-02-08). "Date set for first-ever youth-led climate trial". The Hill. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  47. ^ Clark, Lesley (2022-02-08). "Mont. kids' climate case may be first to go to trial". E&E News. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  48. ^ "Utah youth allege state's promotion of fossil energy is harming them and the planet". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  49. ^ "Inside the youth-led lawsuit alleging Utah's complicity in climate change". Deseret News. 2022-03-17. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  50. ^ "E&E News: Utah youths launch lawsuit in Juliana mold". subscriber.politicopro.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  51. ^ "Youth Climate Activists Sue Virginia for Violating Their Constitutional Rights". Democracy Now!. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  52. ^ "13 Youth File 'Vital' Constitutional Climate Lawsuit Against Virginia". www.commondreams.org. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  53. ^ Vogelsong, Sarah (February 10, 2022). "Thirteen young people sue Virginia over fossil fuel permitting". Virginia Mercury. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  54. ^ "Pending State Actions". Our Children's Trust. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  55. ^ Harball, Elizabeth (2019-10-10). "Lawyers spar over whether young Alaskans' climate lawsuit can move forward". Alaska Public Media. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  56. ^ "Alaska Youth File Petition for Rehearing in Constitutional Climate Case". Alaska Native News. 2022-02-09. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  57. ^ "Big win for oil and gas industry: Colorado Supreme Court reverses Appeals Court ruling in Martinez case". The Denver Post. 2019-01-14. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  58. ^ Moline, Michael (September 9, 2020). "Children's climate lawsuit: Appeal asserts FL has a duty to curb greenhouse gases". Florida Phoenix. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  59. ^ Bonner, Lynn (March 7, 2020). "Students try again for greenhouse gas emission limits in North Carolina". Charlotte Observer.
  60. ^ "Washington judge throws out children's climate change lawsuit". Washington Examiner. 2018-08-15. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  61. ^ "Massachusetts kids latest to nab win in lawsuit for climate action". Grist. 2016-05-17. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  62. ^ Farrick, Ryan J. (2019-11-15). "Oregon 'Climate Kids' Bring Case Before State Supreme Court". Legal Reader. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  63. ^ Reese, David (18 March 2020). "Montana faces youth lawsuit over its energy policy, climate change". The Missoula Current News - Daily News in Missoula Montana. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  64. ^ "IN BRIEF: Young activists sue Montana claiming its energy policy drives climate change". Reuters. 2020-03-16. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  65. ^ "Law Firms Sue Montana Over Climate Change On Behalf Of State Youth". Montana Public Radio. 2020-03-19. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  66. ^ "E&E News: First 'kids' climate trial will be heard in Montana". subscriber.politicopro.com. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  67. ^ Wohlfeil, Samantha. "Sixteen young Montanans will be first in the nation to take their climate change case to trial". Inlander. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
  68. ^ Uyeda, Ray Levy (2022-04-13). "Fossil fuels v our future: young Montanans wage historic climate fight". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-02-04.
  69. ^ Noor, Dharna (June 12, 2023). "'My life and my home': young people start to testify at historic US climate trial". The Guardian. Archived from the original on June 21, 2023.
  70. ^ Hanson, Amy Beth; Brown, Matthew (August 14, 2023). "Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana". AP News. Archived from the original on August 17, 2023.
  71. ^ Brown, Matthew; Hanson, Amy Beth (July 10, 2024). "Republicans urge reversal of landmark ruling in Montana climate change lawsuit by young plaintiffs". AP News. Archived from the original on July 11, 2024.
  72. ^ Nilsen, Ella (2023-12-11). "A group of California children sue EPA in federal court, alleging it allows climate pollution to continue despite harms | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2024-01-30.
  73. ^ "Active Global Cases". Our Children's Trust. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
  74. ^ "Canadian Youths Suing Government for Climate Change and Its Harmful Effects". Newsweek. 2019-10-24. Retrieved 2023-02-04.
  75. ^ Woo, Andrea (2019-10-24). "Fifteen Canadian youths to launch climate lawsuit against Ottawa claiming Charter rights violated". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2023-02-04.
  76. ^ "Canadian Teens Are Suing the Government Over Climate Change". www.vice.com. 25 October 2019. Retrieved 2023-02-04.
  77. ^ Yeo, Sophie (24 April 2018). "A Group of Young Colombians Just Beat Their Own Government in Court". Pacific Standard. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Children%27s_Trust&oldid=1233974148"