The 21 youth plaintiffs in the Juliana et al. v. United States case. (Photo: Robin Loznack, Our Children’s Trust)
June 4th, 2019 marked the latest effort of 21 young people to be able to call federal government witnesses and defendants to account in a trial of their climate change lawsuit against the US government. Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants in Juliana v. U.S. made oral arguments to a panel of three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Host Steve Curwood has the story.
CURWOOD: Back in 2015, 21 young people filed suit against the US Federal government on the grounds that it is not protecting them from the growing dangers of climate disruption. But the suit has yet to come to trial as the government has sought to throw it out on procedural grounds, resulting in four appeals seeking to keep the case alive. The latest effort spearheaded by attorney Julia Olson for the youth came before three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with oral arguments on June 4th. Jeff Clark of the Justice Department claimed the courts do not have the right to force the Trump Administration or Congress to act on climate.
CLARK: It is a case that is a dagger at the separation of powers. There are no logical stopping points in Ms. Olson’s theory. You can take that, you can apply it to any Clean Air Act situation because people breathe air pollution; they can die. They can have lung dysfunction. They can have other forms of health problems.
CURWOOD: Attorney Julia Olson offered an example of why the government is responsible for depriving the youth of their due process rights to a livable climate.
OLSON: Almost 25 percent of US emissions come from federal public lands. And when the federal government controls the system, facilitates it, subsidizes it, promotes it, as it does, that creates a claim for a substantive due process violation.
CURWOOD: The three judge panel seemed sympathetic to the cause, but as Judge Andrew Hurwitz explained, in this case, its unclear the courts have jurisdiction.
HURWITZ: You present compelling evidence that we have a real problem. You can make compelling evidence that we have inaction by the other two branches of government. It may even rise to the level of criminal neglect. The tough question for me, and I suspect for my colleagues, is do we get to act because of that?
CURWOOD: Both the youth and the Trump Administration now await a ruling from Judge Hurwitz and the other two judges on the appeals court panel, Mary Murguia and Josephine Staton, on whether there will be a trial.
Living on Earth wants to hear from you!
P.O. Box 990007
Boston, MA, USA 02199
Donate to Living on Earth!
Living on Earth is an independent media program and relies entirely on contributions from listeners and institutions supporting public service. Please donate now to preserve an independent environmental voice.
Sailors For The Sea: Be the change you want to sea.
Innovating to make the world a better, more sustainable place to live. Listen to the race to 9 billion
The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment: Committed to protecting and improving the health of the global environment.
Energy Foundation: Serving the public interest by helping to build a strong, clean energy economy.
Contribute to Living on Earth and receive, as our gift to you, an archival print of one of Mark Seth Lender's extraordinary wildlife photographs. Follow the link to see Mark's current collection of photographs.
Buy a signed copy of Mark Seth Lender's book Smeagull the Seagull & support Living on Earth