The government pleads in favor of stopping young people's climate lawsuit, saying that there is no constitutional right to a stable climate

A group of young Americans who have been trying for almost four years to force the federal government to take action to combat climate change ended up in court on Tuesday, saying their unprecedented trial should move forward.

And the Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, was there to once again argue that the trial had to be thrown out before it was ever brought to justice, both because the plaintiffs did not fulfill the legal conditions for bringing such a suit and because "there is no fundamental constitutional right to a" stable climate system "".

The lawsuit, filed in 2015 by 21 youths who claimed that the failure of government leaders in the fight against climate change violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment, was to be tried in front of a district judge from Oregon last fall.

But it was delayed at the last minute as the Supreme Court considered an urgent request from the government. In early November, the court refused to grant the Trump government's request to terminate the case before the trial, but to send it back to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

This is where the case, known as Juliana c. United States, had his last moment in court Tuesday afternoon.

"This is a case that is tearing apart the separation of powers," said Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice, before a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal. He added, "This is a lawsuit that is designed to get around a whole bunch of laws."

Clark reiterated the government's long-standing arguments that the lawsuit amounts to an "end" to congressional and federal agency authorities and that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs would be cumbersome, unrealistic and unjustified.

But Julia Olson, Plaintiffs' Counsel and Executive Director of Our Children & # 39; s Trust, insisted that her clients – the majority of whom are now old enough to vote – have been deprived of their basic rights due to government policies. that fuel global warming. . The group's goal is to force the government to reduce support for fossil fuel extraction and production, as well as support policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"When our great-grandchildren look back to the 21st century, they will see the government-approved destruction of climate as the constitutional issue of this century," said Olson. "We must be a country that applies the rule of law to the harmful behaviors of governments that threaten the lives of our children, so that they can grow up freely and pursue their happiness. That's what the founders had planned.

The three judges who presided over Tuesday's hearing questioned the two lawyers on the details of their arguments, and they seemed to wonder whether the courts could make such drastic demands on the government.

"Listen, you ask us to innovate," Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz told Olson at one point. "You may be right, I'm sensitive to the problems you're reporting, but you should not say it's just an ordinary suit … You're asking us to do a lot of new things, is not it?" not?

"We are asking the court to apply fundamental constitutional law and principles to a whole new set of facts," Olson said.

Last fall, in a congressionally mandated report, the federal government explained how the effects of climate change, including deadly forest fires, hurricanes and heat waves, are already hitting the United States. and how the risk of such catastrophes worsened.

Produced by 13 federal departments and agencies as well as external researchers, the National Climate Assessment required more than 1,000 pages. Its authors argued that climate change "is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and the quality of life, the economy and the natural systems that support us".

The Supreme Court's three-page order in November, which referred the case to the 9th Circuit, noted the government's statement that "the lawsuit is based on a set of unprecedented legal theories." , such as a substantive procedure consistent with certain climatic conditions ", and a right equal to the protection of living in the same climate as enjoyed by previous generations. "

The judges acknowledged that the 9th Circuit had previously rejected the government, but stated that these rulings were rendered when there was a "likelihood that the complainants' claims would shrink as the case advanced". This no longer seems to be the case, said the unsigned opinion, suggesting that possibility that the 9th circuit could see things differently now.

The order also left open the possibility that the government would return to the Supreme Court.

In his statement to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco wrote that "the affirmation of radical new fundamental rights for certain climatic conditions has no basis in the history and tradition of the nation – and no has no place in federal courts. "

Even before Tuesday, lawyers from two jurisdictions had already made similar arguments in the lower courts. But again and again, the judges let the case continue.

At an interview held last fall, Olson was optimistic that the young plaintiffs would get the lawsuit they're looking for.

"Throughout this case, we had confidence that we would have a trial and I think we will," she said. "We have overcome everything the government has launched. This is not luck. This is the strength of the case, the strength of the evidence and the strength of the legal arguments that we present. "