Advertisement
Subscribe for free to eliminate ads
Advertisement
A case brought by 21 young activists who claimed that the federal government’s energy policy infringed on their constitutional rights by exacerbating climate change was denied by the Supreme Court. The juvenile-led climate litigation, which was first brought in 2015 by the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, suffered a significant blow when the Court decided to deny the petition in Juliana v. United States.
Despite facing numerous challenges in lower courts, the plaintiffs had hoped the Supreme Court would intervene and reinstate their case after the 9th Circuit ruled to dismiss it, as reported by The Washington Examiner. After years of legal battles, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case in 2020, and in May, a three-judge panel upheld the dismissal, effectively blocking the plaintiffs’ attempts to continue the lawsuit.
Advertisement
According to its website, Our Children’s Trust, the group supporting the lawsuit, wants to safeguard future generations’ legal rights to a safe climate. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Julia Olson, noted that the fundamental problem has not been resolved despite the Supreme Court’s decision, Olson told Reuters that children’s right to be heard in their right-to-life case is an important national issue,
Advertisement
The young plaintiffs still have until December 9 to submit a certiorari petition, asking the Supreme Court to take a closer look at their case and offer more comprehensive justifications for their claim that they are entitled to sue the federal government for its climate policy.
Advertisement
The plaintiffs in Juliana contended that, despite the obvious risks associated with relying on fossil fuels, the federal government intentionally implemented policies that exacerbated climate change. The 9th Circuit, however, decided that the judiciary shouldn’t handle such intricate and wide-ranging matters.
This lawsuit is part of a broader youth-led climate litigation movement, with other cases across the nation where plaintiffs seek to hold state and federal governments accountable for contributing to climate change. While many of these cases have faced setbacks, some have made progress. For example, in 2023, a Montana judge ruled that the state was violating the rights of young residents by not considering climate impacts when approving new fossil fuel projects. Additionally, Hawaii reached a significant settlement in 2023 to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045, according to the Washington Examiner.
Advertisement
In other news, John Nassif, a Florida resident convicted for his involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, had his appeal rejected by the Supreme Court. Nassif contended that a law prohibiting marching, picketing, and protesting within the Capitol violated the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and assembly. This offense was charged in multiple cases involving defendants from the January 6 event.
Advertisement
Nassif, 57, was found guilty of numerous offenses, including aggressive entering and disorderly conduct, and was given a seven-month prison sentence. A 10- to 16-month imprisonment was the prosecutors’ suggested punishment. When Nassif entered the Capitol more than an hour after it was overrun and stayed there for less than ten minutes, his lawyers argued that he was expressing his core First Amendment rights. The panel claims that Nassif has not shown that, either by law or custom, the Capitol buildings are typically accessible for the people to express their concerns, much less stage protests, pickets, or rallies.
Advertisement
Share the article to spread the truth
