The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / Kids Argue to Supreme Court to Keep Climate Case on Track: ‘We Will Be Irreparably Harmed’
Kids Argue to Supreme Court to Keep Climate Case on Track: ‘We Will Be Irreparably Harmed’

Kids Argue to Supreme Court to Keep Climate Case on Track: ‘We Will Be Irreparably Harmed’

October 22, 2018 Filed Under: Liability Litigation

print
By Karen Savage

The 21 young plaintiffs in the landmark climate suit Juliana v. United States filed its response to the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing they will be irreparably harmed if the case is not allowed to proceed to trial. They asked that the court lift the stay of discovery it issued on Friday and allow the trial to proceed as scheduled on Oct. 29.

Attorneys for the 21 young plaintiffs filed that response with the Supreme Court on Monday. The court had halted the case to consider a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the Trump administration last Thursday.

“The Supreme Court has never before stopped a trial for the reasons argued by the defendants and I’m confident our brief will assure the Chief Justice that there is no intrusion into the ability of the executive branch to do its job while the Department of Justice defends this case at trial,” said Julia Olson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. The Trump administration has argued that a trial could prevent the executive branch from carrying out its functions.

In putting the brakes on the case, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the mandamus petition, in which the federal government contends it will be irreparably harmed by the trial. A writ of mandamus is a rare legal mechanism that asks a higher court—in this case, the Supreme Court—to overrule a lower court before a trial has concluded and a verdict rendered.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice turned down mandamus petitions by the government to overturn the U.S. District Court, which had paved the way for the case to go to trial on Oct. 29. The Supreme Court had previously also turned down a similar petition, but signaled it could reverse course last week when it issued the stay.

Philip Gregory, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said the case asks important constitutional questions, including issues about individual liberty.

“Even the Trump administration admits both the climate science and the irreparable harm these youth plaintiffs are facing due to climate change,” said Gregory. “A stay of trial in the District Court would severely interfere with the orderly administration and resolution of cases and would unnecessarily undermine the confidence of the American people in our Nation’s justice system.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs contend that the young plaintiffs—not the government—will be irreparably harmed if the case does not proceed, something they say the government has already concluded.

As evidence, they point to admissions by the federal government in previously filed documents that stated “current and projected atmospheric concentrations of … GHGs … threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations, and thus will mount over time as GHGs continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change.”

In their brief, the young plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote, “Government officials and documents already concede these children are living in a ‘danger zone’ and ‘emergency situation’ because of climate change and Plaintiffs’ experts agree.”  

They also argued the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the need to protect children from government action that harms them and said the plaintiffs’ “exposure to climate change is today causing them concrete and particularized injuries…”.

They also said the Trump administration “failed to introduce any evidence contradicting the evidence that Plaintiffs’ catastrophic harms are imminent. As such, based on the evidence before the district court, any delay in resolving Plaintiffs claims serves to prolong and exacerbate Plaintiffs’ existing injuries.”

The 21 young people who brought the suit come from around the country and argue that the federal government is violating their Constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting an energy system that exacerbates climate change. They are asking for a science-based program to reduce carbon emissions and protect the climate for future generations.

The case was ordered to trial in 2016 by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, becoming the first court in the country to recognize a liveable climate as a Constitutional right.

“This is not an environmental statutory case under the Administrative Procedure Act. As the district court wrote, this is a ‘civil rights action’ under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in their response.

The Trump administration has tried, but failed to argue that discovery and trial violate Administrative Procedure Act, which limits discovery in hearings involving regulatory violations and other administrative technicalities.  

The government has failed at repeated attempts to have the case dismissed. The second writ of mandamus petition to the Supreme Court was considered a legal ‘Hail Mary’ considering the failure of the last one. But the composition of the court has changed since Justice Anthony Kennedy turned down that petition in August.

Kennedy’s subsequent retirement opened the seat that was filled by Brett Kavanaugh, giving the court a solid conservative majority.

Despite the court’s change in composition, Olson said she remains optimistic.

“The Supreme Court and our constitutional democracy will be better served if the Supreme Court reviews this case after a final judgment, as it does in every other matter where review is granted,” she said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43 | Climate Change says:
    October 27, 2018 at 1:27 pm

    […] Kids Argue to Supreme Court to Keep Climate Case on Track: ‘We Will Be Irreparably Harmed&rsqu… by Karen Savage, Climate Liability News, Oct 22, 2018 […]

  2. Why is the U.S. government so motivated to avoid the kids' climate case? says:
    October 29, 2018 at 7:12 am

    […] Kids Argue to Supreme Court to Keep Climate Case on Track: 'We… […]

  3. Supreme Court lifts stay, allows kids climate case to proceed says:
    November 2, 2018 at 10:14 pm

    […] the plaintiffs filed their response, Roberts referred the matter to the full court, which issued Friday’s ruling. Only […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • French Government Sued for Inadequate Climate Action
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Baltimore Becomes Latest City to Sue Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Damages

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.