Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCourt Tosses Landmark Youth Climate Change Lawsuit (damn)
Court Tosses Landmark Youth Climate Change Lawsuit
The lawsuit from 21 children and young adults argued that the federal government has failed to act to address global climate change.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youth-climate-lawsuit-dismissed_n_5e21f59bc5b673621f758a0e
A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a landmark climate justice lawsuit that 21 children and young adults from around the country brought against the federal government.
In its 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco acknowledged the gravity of the climate crisis but ruled the case lacks legal standing to proceed to trial.
Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote in his opinion. Rather, the plaintiffs impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.
The lawsuit, called Juliana v. U.S. and filed by the nonprofit Our Childrens Trust, asserts that the federal government is violating the plaintiffs constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting fossil fuel production and failing to take action on climate change. Originally filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, the lawsuit later shifted to the Trump administration, which has worked aggressively to derail U.S. actions to combat climate change and to boost domestic fossil fuel production as part of its energy dominance agenda.
In its 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco acknowledged the gravity of the climate crisis but ruled the case lacks legal standing to proceed to trial.
Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote in his opinion. Rather, the plaintiffs impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.
The lawsuit, called Juliana v. U.S. and filed by the nonprofit Our Childrens Trust, asserts that the federal government is violating the plaintiffs constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting fossil fuel production and failing to take action on climate change. Originally filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, the lawsuit later shifted to the Trump administration, which has worked aggressively to derail U.S. actions to combat climate change and to boost domestic fossil fuel production as part of its energy dominance agenda.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 765 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court Tosses Landmark Youth Climate Change Lawsuit (damn) (Original Post)
hlthe2b
Jan 2020
OP
GreenPartyVoter
(72,382 posts)1. Damn, indeed.
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)2. Fucking cowards
abqtommy
(14,118 posts)3. Damn straight!
bdamomma
(63,931 posts)4. Is the judge
from the McConnell dirt pool????
hlthe2b
(102,427 posts)5. I don't know, but the 9th circuit should have been our best chance, frankly
onenote
(42,793 posts)6. All three judges are Obama appointees
And the majority was quite clear in recognizing that climate change is a real issue. But there are limits to what an Article III court can do -- and this case crossed over a line into asking the courts to do more than they are qualified to do.