Will a landmark youths’ climate change lawsuit become the “trial of the century?”
That’s an argument given by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Grant, on behalf of the Trump administration and the U.S. government defendants, on why the lawsuit by the 21 Juliana v. United States youth plaintiffs should not be permitted to proceed to trial.
In his arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at a hearing in San Francisco on December 11, Grant complained three times that, if Juliana v. United States was allowed to proceed to trial, it would be the “trial of the century,” according to a joint news release from Earth Guardians and Our Children’s Trust.
The young plaintiffs and the organizational plaintiff Earth Guardians assert that the U.S. government, through its “affirmative actions that cause climate change, has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.” The lawsuit was filed in 2015 during the Obama administration.
Grant also complained that the discovery requests by the plaintiffs in the case were “burdensome” and that moving forward with the case could distract the administration from performing “its constitutional duties.”
Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children’s Trust and co-lead counsel, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs before the three judge panel regarding whether President Trump and his administration can evade a constitutional climate change trial.
Near the end of Julia Olson ’s time, Judge Alex Kozinski asked: “If the District Court says one thing, and the EPA says another, your position is that District Court prevails?”
Julia Olson responded: “It's important that the court be that impenetrable bulwark, to judicially safeguard against systemic abuses of government power that infringe on the substantive due process rights of these plaintiffs. We simply ask that the court lift the temporary stay and send it back to the district court so that these young people can go to trial and present their historical and scientific evidence.”
The Washington Post reported that two of the judges “appeared skeptical” about the government’s request to stop the case from going forward: www.washingtonpost.com/...
“On Monday, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Judge Marsha Berzon appeared skeptical about the government’s request to halt the case at this juncture and undermine the lower court’s decision, saying it would be an unprecedented and potentially unwarranted decision,” Brady Dennis, Washington Post reporter, wrote.
“’If we set precedent on this kind of case, there is no logical boundary to it,’ Thomas told administration attorney Eric Grant, arguing that countless other defendants would seek similar relief,” Dennis wrote.
(On December 18, Judge Kozinski announced his immediate retirement, coming days after the Washington Post reported on allegations by 15 women that Kozinski “had subjected them to inappropriate behavior, including having clerks watch porn in his chamber.” apps.washingtonpost.com/...)
The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by OurChildren’s Trust, “seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.”
See the embeddable video of oral arguments here: https://youtu.be/J3Z8TSw-Ou4
Before the youth plaintiffs entered the courthouse, Pennie Opal Plant of Idle No More, San Francisco Bay, led an indigenous prayer ceremony “to ground the youth and community in this political moment,” according to the groups. The youth plaintiffs and lawyers held a press conference outside the courthouse; https://www.facebook.com/youthvgov/videos/1827629650612998/
“I hope that the court understands the urgency of the climate crisis and allows our case to proceed to trial,” said Jaime Butler, a 17-year-old plaintiff from Flagstaff, Arizona. “This case will ultimately determine the livelihood of my tribe, the Navajo Nation, and all native people in this country.”
“I felt that the court understood the gravity of our need for trial. It was obvious that they asked good clarifying questions and sought to fully understand the issues this case raises,” said Nathan Baring , a 17-year-old youth plaintiff from Fairbanks, Alaska. “With that being said, I’m confident that they will recognize this is an improper stage to dismiss the case. I believe that the momentum is on our sideand it’s time for climate science to have its day in court.”
“We cannot allow our actions and our future to be determined by those in power,” said Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, a 17-year-old from Colorado.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs were encouraged by the line of questioning by the Ninth Circuit Panel at the hearing. Philip L. Gregory , co-lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs and a Partner with the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, CA, commented, “It is clear the Ninth Circuit panel clearly understood the issues presented by this case.”
”Based on its questioning, the panel recognizes the importance of a full trial on the merits, in particularly the scientific evidence. Given the urgency of the climate situation, we hope the panel issues a prompt order and allows the case tomove forward,” said Gregory.
Hundreds of community members went to the courthouse to stand in solidarity with the young plaintiffs, filling up the courtroom and two overflow rooms. “Many expressed direct threats from a changing climate including the recent wildfires devastating California,” the groups noted.
During and after the oral arguments, hundreds of supporters also rallied outside the Ninth Circuit building in San Francisco. The diverse groups supporting the youth plaintiffs included 350.org; Idle No More, San Francisco Bay; Citizens Climate Lobby; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace; and Sunrise.
In June 2017, the Trump administration filed a “drastic and extraordinary” petition for writ of mandamus, asking the Ninth Circuit to direct the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon todismiss the youth plaintiffs’ case, according to the groups.
The Trump administration’s mandamus petition seeks early review of U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken’s 2016 denial of motions to dismiss the youth brought climate case. In their petition, the federal government claims “irreparable harm” for having to participate in the ordinary pre-trial discovery process and having to go to trial.
The trial is currently scheduled for February 5, 2018. “The ordinary path for a constitutional lawsuit would be for the District Court first to conduct a trial of the youth plaintiffs’ legal arguments and scientific evidence, and then to later appeal an adverse ruling after a final judgment in the case,” the groups said.
“This case is this generation’s Brown vs Board of Education,” summed up Julia Olson, in describing the significance of the lawsuit. “The founders saw that government could abuse its power in such a way as to deprive people of their very lives and the foundation of life, and it is time for the court to be the impenetrable bulwark that stops that abuse of power and protects these young people and all future generations.”
The hearing took place in a state that has the reputation for being the nation’s “green leader,” but is in fact is the third largest oil producer behind Texas, first, and North Dakota second. The oil industry is the largest and most powerful corporate lobby in California and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) is the single largest and most powerful lobbying organization.
The oil industry has captured the regulatory apparatus in California from the Governor’s Office, to the Legislature, to the state agencies. Because of the gusher of oil lobbying money — $16,360,618 in the first six months of 2017 alone — no bill opposed by the oil industry with the exception of one has been able to make it out of the Legislature over the past three years. More information: www.dailykos.com/…
Counsel for Plaintiffs are Julia Olson, Esq. of Eugene, OR and Philip L. Gregory, Esq. of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, CA
Our Children’s Trust is a nonprofit organization, elevating the voice of youth, those with mostto lose, to secure the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate on behalf of presentand future generations. We lead a coordinated global human rights and environmental justicecampaign to implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans that will returnatmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to below 350 ppm by the year 2100.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 workingtogether to protect the Earth, the water, the air, and the atmosphere, creating healthysustainable communities globally. We inspire and empower young leaders, families, schools,organizations, cities, and government officials to make positive change locally, nationally, andglobally to address the critical state of the Earth. www.earthguardians.org