Lawyers and young plaintiffs speak in federal court in Eugene, Oregon, following a hearing as part of their federal climate change lawsuit.(Photo: Chris Pietsch, AP)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Trump government's request to prevent 21 youths from bringing a warming planet to trial in Eugene, Oregon.

The action keeps alive, at least for now, an unusual lawsuit started in 2015 to force a change in federal environmental policy by declaring "climate system capable of preserving human life "a civil right.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of children aged 11 to 22 years, as well as future generations.

But while refusing to stop the trial, the judges said the US Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit could do it if the Justice Department asked him to do so. This court refused to intervene in the past.

Associate Judges Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed, probably because they were ready to end the trial now.

The judges had expressed doubts about the prosecution in July, when they refused to stop the court proceedings, but said the scale of the requests was "striking". The question of whether or not these claims should be dealt with in court "is therefore an important ground for divergence of opinion," the court said at the time.

Hi! Here we have full coverage of the mid-term elections. Let's start!

Our children's trust lawyers have argued that government policies have deprived children of their "constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, dignity, personal security, a stable climate system." , guaranteeing the maintenance of liberties and human life ".

They want the government "to prepare an accounting of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, prepare and implement a national remedial plan applicable" to reduce carbon emissions.

Judge Ann Aiken of the Federal District Court, who has chaired the pre-trial briefing for more than two years, had scheduled the trial to start on Monday and last up to 12 weeks.

"The courts have an obligation not to go beyond the limits of their jurisdiction, but they also have an important duty to fulfill their role in controlling the unconstitutional acts of other branches of government," she said. last month by denying the government's efforts to stall or dismiss the lawsuit.

The Department of Justice opposed time and expense, saying the problem should be resolved by Congress and not by the courts. His objections were raised for the first time under the Obama administration.

"This lawsuit is an attempt to reorient federal environmental and energy policies through the courts rather than through the political process, by asserting a new and unsubstantiated due process, respecting certain climatic conditions," Attorney General Noel Francisco said. court documents.

The children on whose behalf the complaint was brought, he said, "can not make any credible claim of imminent and irreparable harm." Their alleged injuries stem from the cumulative effects of CO2 emissions from all sources of the world during decades".

Although the case Juliana v. United States has not yet reached the trial stage, it has been taught in more than two dozen law schools, as well as elementary and secondary schools, said the children's lawyers – "inspiring students of all ages to see themselves in the parchment of the American Constitution."

More: Supreme Court: Conservative Groups See Opportunities to Reduce Regulation and Strengthen Property Rights

More: Brett Kavanaugh's vote: "The asterisk of justice" will he carry the political task to the Supreme Court?

More: Who is the real Brett Kavanaugh? Legal whiz kid or hack of supporters? A mentor for a fraternal woman or boy who loves beer?

Read or share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/supreme-court-allows-climate-change-trial/1731253002/