Juliana v US, the federal lawsuit Trump and the GOP despise, just jumped another major hurdle ... by gimleteye

In other news, global heatwave continues to smash records:

- Tbilisi: 41°C

- Baku: 43°C

- Yerevan: 42°C

- Iran: 53°C

- Montreal: 37°C

- Ottawa: 47°C

- Denver: 40°C

- Los Angeles: 44°C (111°F) and all of Southern Ca

- Scotland: 33.2°C

It’s a hot new world and getting hotter. Republicans fiddle while the planet is burning. (If you think — as some Republicans do — that we “can’t afford” to address climate change or that government intervention is “unconstitutional”, just wait until the planet is 10% hotter or more, than it is today.)

For Immediate Release:
July 30, 2018
Contacts:
Philip Gregory, 650-278-2957, ​pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

To set up interviews with youth plaintiffs, contact: Meg Ward, 503-341-8590, ​meg@ourchildrenstrust.org

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Youth Plaintiffs, Allows ​Juliana v. United States ​to Proceed to Trial

Washington, D.C. -- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the 21 youth plaintiffs in ​Juliana v. United States,​ the constitutional climate lawsuit filed against the federal government. The Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay, preserving the U.S. District Court’s trial start date of October 29, 2018. The Court also denied the government’s “premature” request to review the case before the district court hears all of the facts that support the youth’s claims at trial. The Supreme Court’s decision follows the July 20 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals, also in favor of the youth, denying the government’s highly unusual second petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court ​stated​: “The breadth of [the youth’s] claims is striking” and ordered the District Court to take the federal government’s “concerns into account in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt ruling on the Government’s pending dispositive motions.” On July 18, 2018, the District Court expressed its intent to issue a ruling on the government’s motions promptly.

Julia Olson​, ​executive director and chief legal counsel of ​Our Children’s Trust​ and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs said:

“​This decision should give young people courage and hope that their third branch of government, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has given them the green light to go to trial in this critical case about their unalienable rights. We look forward to presenting the scientific evidence of the harms and dangers these children face as a result of the actions their government has taken to cause the climate crisis.”


Kiran O.​, 21-year-old plaintiff from Seattle, WA, said:
“As a young person working in the gardening business, climate change is all around me and looming all the more ominously in my future. The government’s actions are a case of constitutional infringement, and it is the court’s job to hear such cases—the defendants’ argument that this is not within the court’s jurisdiction would only make sense if they were defending citizens’ rights, not violating them. ​Juliana vs. U.S.​ is calling for checks and balances, not disturbing the separation of powers. We have been stalled with nonsense long enough!”

Victoria B.​, 19-year-old plaintiff from White Plains, NY, said:
“The constitutional rights of my fellow plaintiffs and I are at stake in this case, and I am glad that the Supreme Court of the United States agrees that those rights should be evaluated at trial. This lawsuit becomes more urgent every day as climate change increasingly harms us. I have reaffirmed confidence now that all levels of the federal judiciary have ruled in our favor that there should be no more delay in getting to our trial.”

Jacob L.​, 21-year-old plaintiff from Roseburg, OR, said:
“I am so grateful that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of this trial and allowed our case to proceed. The scientific evidence linking the U.S. government's actions and policies to climate change impacts like wildfire and droughts that harm us youth must be presented before our country's justice system in its entirety to ensure that our rights may be protected.”

Philip Gregory​, of Gregory Law Group and co-counsel for the Youth Plaintiffs, commented:
“​We are thankful that the Supreme Court recognized the importance of moving this case forward. We are on the last stages of discovery and preparing for trial. We believe that the district court will promptly address narrowing the claims so that the trial can go forward on October 29, 2018 in Eugene.​”

Juliana v. United States​ is ​not​ about the government’s failure to act on climate. Instead, these​ 21 young plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, assert that the U.S. government, through its ​affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and has failed to protect essential public trust resources.​ The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, and all seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.

Counsel for Plaintiffs are Julia Olson, Esq. of Eugene, OR, Philip L. Gregory, Esq. of Gregory Law Group of Redwood City, CA, and Andrea Rodgers, Esq. of Seattle, WA.
Our Children’s Trust​ is a nonprofit organization, leading a coordinated global human rights and environmental justice campaign to implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans that will return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to below 350 ppm by the year 2100. We elevate the voice of youth, those with most to lose in the climate crisis, to secure the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate on behalf of all present and future generations.

www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
Earth Guardians​ is a Colorado-based nonprofit organization with youth chapters on five continents, and multiple groups in the United States with thousands of members working together to protect the Earth, the water, the air, and the atmosphere, creating healthy sustainable communities globally. We inspire and empower young leaders, families, schools, organizations, cities, and government officials to make positive change locally, nationally, and globally to address the critical state of the Earth.​ ​www.earthguardians.org

###
JULIANA v. U.S. - CLIMATE LAWSUIT

“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” –

- U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken

Youth filed their constitutional climate lawsuit, called Juliana v. U.S., against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. Earth Guardians is also an organizational plaintiff in the case.

Their complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.

The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed. In April 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended denial of both of motions to dismiss. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin's recommendation, with the issuance of an historic November 10, 2016 opinion and order denying the motions. When the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal of that order, Judge Aiken denied their motions in June 2017.

In June 2017, Judge Coffin issued an order releasing the fossil fuel industry defendants from the case, and setting a trial date for February 5, 2018 before Judge Aiken at the U.S. District Court of Oregon in Eugene.

In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requested attorneys for youth plaintiffs submit a response to the government's petition for "writ of mandamus" and invited the District Court to respond as well. The District Court responded via letter and the youth plaintiffs filed their answer. Further, eight amicus briefs were filed with the Ninth Circuit in support of the youth plaintiffs.

Pursuant to its order, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, made up of Chief Justice Sidney Thomas, and Circuit Justices Alex Kozinski and Marsha Barzon heard oral arguments on December 11, 2017. Watch a video recording of the oral arguments below. Youth plaintiffs, now age 10 to 21, and their attorneys look forward to the panel decision. Eric Grant, representing the Trump administration and the U.S. government, argued that the case be dismissed. Justice Kozinski subsequently resigned and was replaced on the panel by Circuit Justice Michelle Friedland.

Due to the Trump administration’s drastic tactics before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to silence the voices of youth and keep science out of the courtroom, the trial will not begin on February 5th, as originally scheduled.

On March 7, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s “drastic and extraordinary” petition for writ of mandamus. During a public case management conference on April 12, 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin set October 29, 2018 as the trial date for Juliana v. United States.

On May 25, 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order denying the Trump Administration’s motion for protective order and a stay of all discovery.

On July 18, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken heard oral argument in the constitutional climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States. Judge Aiken considered the Trump administration’s latest procedural tactics to avoid trial: a motion for judgment on the pleadings (“MJP”) and a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”). Supporters for the youth plaintiffs packed the Wayne Morse Federal Courthouse courtroom in Eugene and three overflow rooms.

On July 20, 2018, in a per curiam opinion, Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, and Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s second petition for writ of mandamus