[ad_1]
Three federal judges heard Tuesday on the issue of whether youth have the constitutional right to be protected from climate change. During the lively hearing that lasted an hour, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals skeptically insisted on arguments from both sides.
The trial, closely watched, Juliana c. United States, was to begin last October, but the court granted the Trump administration an unusual remedy before the trial. Their decision could have important consequences for this attempt, as well as for other attempts to resort to the courts to initiate climate action across the United States.
A submission filed by the plaintiffs in the case applications that the government intensify its efforts to protect the children of today and future generations from the worst effects of climate change. He says that they are likely to be deprived of their "rights to life, liberty, property and the resources of public trust through acts of the federal government that knowingly destroy, endanger and compromise the inalienable climate system that nature confers".
The federal government wants the case to be rejected even before being able to go to trial, but the brief specifies that "these young people deserve to be able to plead their cause in justice against those who, by their governance, harm them, and let fall the light of justice, if necessary". The plaintiffs also asked the government to curb the new fossil fuel extraction projects while the case is pending.
Want climate news in your inbox? Register here for Climate Fwd:, our e-newsletter.
The three judges of the panel that was held in Portland, Oregon, were Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz of the ninth circuit Court of Appeal and Josephine L. Staton of California District Court District Court. The three judges have been appointed to their current positions under President Barack Obama. The judges pressed the lawyers on both sides, seeming to suggest that the government's arguments in favor of closing the file were too narrow and Applicants' legal theories too radical.
Justice Hurwitz relied on the government's claim that even if the executive is harmed by its inaction on climate change, a lawsuit can not solve the problem. He led Trump's administration lawyer, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, into a far-fetched hypothesis involving Canadian terrorists crossing the border, kidnapping and killing children. According to government theory, he asked that "plaintiffs would have no choice but to die?"
Julia Olson, the plaintiffs' senior counsel, was not so easy in front of the judges. Judge Hurwitz reiterated that the rights she asked the courts to recognize were not hard to find in the Constitution. "You are asking us to do a lot of new things, is not it?" Asked he.
Since it was tabled in 2015, the Obama administration had also tried to end this case, saying that these were matters that suited the executive and the legislature, not the courts.
While the Obama administration has signed the Paris climate agreement and taken action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Trump administration has announced plans to: leave the Paris agreement and work to lower dozens of environmental regulations. It has also sought to undermine the science that shows that global warming is a reality and that action is urgently needed.
Andrea Rodgers, counsel for the plaintiffs, indicated that the administration regularly reported on its progress in promoting fossil fuels. (She recently described methane as "liberated gas.") However, she added, "as the delays continue, the public health catastrophe created by the government is worsening."
Mary Wood, Philip H. Knight Law Professor at the University of Oregon, In an interview given to the audience before the hearing, the Trump administration "aggressively accelerated towards the climate cliff thanks to its unbridled policy on fossil fuels, at a time when nations of the the whole world slam on the door. " Professor Wood has provided some of the legal reasoning that the case of claimants is built on.
The group of 21 youths first filed suit against the US government through a group called Our Children's Trust. The case and the children are getting older. "We have been doing this for four years," said Vic Barrett, one of the plaintiffs. "For some of us, that's a quarter of our lives." Five of them are now old enough to buy beer and 14 of them can vote.
In the years that followed the case has been dropped, the sense of urgency about the need to cope with climate change has only grown, with reports like last year 's panel of experts on climate change. The United Nations foresaw disastrous consequences without strong measures, including a worsening of food shortages and forest fires, as well as a massive coral reef mortality as early as 2040.
During those same years, a youth climate movement was created and adopted Juliana as part of its wider call for action on climate change. "It's not just these 21 young people across the United States," said Mr. Barrett, who is now 21 years old and studying at the University of Wisconsin. "It's about showcasing young people across the United States, as well as the work we do and continue to do to hold the government accountable by putting our future at risk."
The plaintiffs want the case to gobefore being able to present evidence in court. Judges could decide to to reject the case, although the timing of their decision remains on anyone's guess, and the consequences could go far beyond this action.
"If the Ninth Circuit expresses a point of view on the role that courts must play in the fight against climate change, this could have far-reaching consequences for other cases," said Professor Michael Gerrard, founder of Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "But it is also possible for the court to rule on narrow procedural grounds that apply only to this case."
Sean Hecht, co-executive director of the The Emmett Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California at Los Angeles said that while judges have raised fundamental questions about the arguments of both parties, "I got the impression that the judges did not really let go of the hand ".
David M. Uhlmann, a former federal prosecutor who now heads the environmental law program of the University of Michigan, said: "In my heart, I love this lawsuit. All that is convincing since the beginning of this lawsuit is even more so today. "
"I think anyone who has studied this court should conclude that it's a tough battle," he said, adding that "it's not won in advance that the Supreme Court rejects these claims ".
For more information on the climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.
[ad_2]
Source link