Our Children's Trust was founded by attorney Julia Olson[7] in 2010 to help formulate legal cases under the public trust doctrine and state and federal constitutions. Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon, who created the concept of "Atmospheric Trust Litigation" to take legal action to hold governments accountable for their role in causing climate change.[8][9] Part of Our Children's Trust's inspiration was from Antonio Oposa's work in the Philippines. The law firm exclusively represents children in constitutional lawsuits to hold government entities accountable for actions causing and worsening climate change.[5][6][9]
Legal Actions
Global warming—the progression from cooler historical temperatures (blue) to recent warmer temperatures (red)—is being experienced disproportionately by younger generations. With continued fossil fuel emissions, that trend that will continue. Various lawsuits are based on the constitutional rights of younger and future generations.
Organized by Our Children's Trust, legal and administrative actions were filed against all 50 states and the federal government (Alec L. v. McCarthy[11]) in May 2011. The filings were accompanied by the iMatter March, international solidarity youth marches empowering youth to stand up for their future in over 175 marches in 45 countries.[12]
Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a constitutional climate lawsuit filed in 2015 that was being brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States federal government and several of its executive branch agencies and officers, including former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama. The plaintiffs, represented by Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, Vic Barrett and future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen. Some fossil fuel and industry groups were also initially named as defendants but were later dropped by a judge at their request.
The lawsuit asserts that, by operating and investing in a national energy system that causes climate change, the government violated the youths' constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, equal protection of the law, as well as substantially impaired essential public trust resources. The complaint details how each of the 21 plaintiffs are individually injured by their government's actions causing climate change[13] and how the federal government has known of the dangers of climate change for decades,[14] yet persisted in orchestrating a fossil-fuel based energy system. The 21 plaintiffs seek a declaration of their constitutional rights and a declaration that the U.S. national fossil fuel energy system violates their rights.
Juliana v. United States gained attention in 2016 when U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken found, for the first time, that there is a fundamental right “to a climate system capable of sustaining human life"[15] protected by the U.S. Constitution, allowing the case to proceed to trial.[16]
The government has sought to delay and dismiss the case for various concerns. The case was scheduled to begin trial in the District Court on October 29, 2018, following the Supreme Court's and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ initial denials of the government's requests to stay the case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court issued a stay days before trial was set to begin and the case went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal.
On January 17, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case, without prejudice, on redressability grounds.[19] To establish standing, the plaintiffs needed to show that they have injuries that are caused by the government and are redressable by the court. The majority opinion found that the District Court “correctly found the injury requirement met"[20] and that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to show the government was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries. However, the panel dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of redressability because it concluded that the court lacked the power to order plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, which included an order requiring the government to prepare a remedial plan to transition the U.S. energy system off of fossil fuels.
Writing for the majority, Judge Hurwitz wrote that, while “a substantial evidentiary record documents that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change, and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse,” "it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs' requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches."[20][21] In dissent, Judge Staton stated, "It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation. My colleagues throw up their hands. . . . No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists . . . [but] the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution."[22][23][24][25]
In March 2020, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit.[26][27] The petition requested that a panel of 11 judges review January's divided opinion. Later that month, 24 members of the U.S. Congress, experts in the fields of constitutional law, climate change, and public health, and several leading women's, children's, environmental, and human rights organizations filed 10 amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of the plaintiffs, urging that the en banc petition be granted.[28]
On February 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied the Plaintiffs’ petition for en banc review. While a judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the case, a majority of the judges declined to do so.[29][30]
On March 9, 2021, after the mandate was issued and the case was sent back to U.S. District Court, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to limit the remedy sought in their case.[31][32] Specifically, while the plaintiffs had originally requested both declaratory relief and for the court to order the government to create a climate recovery plan, they asked to eliminate injunctive relief, including the climate recovery plan, and instead to seek only declaratory relief.[33]
On May 13, 2021, Judge Aiken ordered attorneys for the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice to convene for a settlement conference. During this time, Judge Aiken also scheduled oral arguments for the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.[34]
In June 2023, the plaintiffs received permission to file an amended complaint. The government then moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In December 2023, the district court for the District of Oregon allowed the plaintiffs' claims of a right to a climate system capable of sustaining life under the Due Process Clause and violation of the Public Trust Doctrine to proceed. Once again, the government appealed.[38]
The government requested the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to order the federal district court to dismiss the case. The petition was granted by the circuit court on May 1, 2024, and the district court then dismissed the case the same day.[38]
In dismissing the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Ryan D. Nelson and Eric D. Miller) wrote: In a 2020 appeal, "we held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring such a claim. We remanded with instructions to dismiss on that basis. The district court nevertheless allowed amendment, and the government again moved to dismiss. The district court denied that motion, and the government petitioned for mandamus seeking to enforce our earlier mandate. We have jurisdiction to consider the petition. We grant it."[39][38]
Our Children's Trust has supported or represented youth in legal efforts in all 50 states by bringing legal actions including climate lawsuits and petitions for rulemaking against state governments. As of February 2023, Our Children's Trust represents and supports young people in active climate cases and legal actions in five U.S. states: Florida, Hawai’i, Montana, Utah, and Virginia:[40]
Held v. Montana was filed by Our Children's Trust in March 2020 on behalf of 16 Montanan youths. The case alleges that by affirmatively promoting a fossil fuel-driven energy system, Montana is violating the constitutional rights of the youth to a clean and healthful environment. The lawsuit also claims that the state's fossil fuel energy system is contributing to the climate crisis and is degrading Montana's constitutionally protected public trust resources.[63][64][65]
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs presented oral arguments on the state's motion to dismiss on February 18, 2021. On August 4, 2021, a judge ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs and denied the state's motion to dismiss. The trial began on June 12, 2023, being the first constitutional climate trial and first ever children's climate trial in U.S. history.[66][67][68][69] On August 14, 2023, the trial court judge ruled in the youth plaintiffs' favor, though the state indicated it would appeal the decision.[70]
Genesis B. v. EPA
In December 2023, Our Children's Trust filed Genesis B. v. EPA in the state of California.[71]
International lawsuits
The following is an incomplete list of non-U.S. places that Our Children's Trust has assisted in litigation:[72]
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for atheists, agnostics, and nontheists. Formed in 1976, FFRF promotes the separation of church and state, and challenges the legitimacy of many federal and state programs that are faith-based. It supports groups such as nonreligious students and clergy who want to leave their faith.
Ann Louise Aiken is an American attorney and jurist in the state of Oregon. A native Oregonian, she has served as a state court judge of the Oregon circuit courts and worked in private legal practice. She is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. She served as chief judge of the court from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 2016.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Florida since January 6, 2015, as a result of a ruling in Brenner v. Scott from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on August 21, 2014. The order was stayed temporarily. State attempts at extending the stay failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court denying further extension on December 19, 2014. In addition, a state court ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Miami-Dade County on the afternoon of January 5, 2015. In another state case challenging the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, a Monroe County court in Huntsman v. Heavilin stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal and the stay expired on January 6, 2015.
Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since a federal district court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.
In the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum, record label Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of U.S. copyright law. It was only the second file-sharing case to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, which the judge reduced to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through remittitur.
Josephine Laura Staton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp (09–7125) is a lawsuit filed in the United States by 11 Indonesian villagers against ExxonMobil Corporation alleging that the company is responsible for human rights violations in the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. The case has broad implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries. Indonesian security forces committed torture, rape, and murder against the plaintiffs and their families while under contract with ExxonMobil to guard the Arun gas field during the late 1990s and early 2000s; plaintiffs claim that Exxon is responsible for these atrocities.
Climate change has had a number of impacts on the US state of Montana. Heat waves are becoming more common, snow is melting earlier in the spring, and trees are dying as a result of drought, forest fire, and increased prevalence of forest insects. In the next few decades in Montana, climate change is most likely to impact water availability, agricultural yields, and wildfire risk. State and local governments have taken legislative steps, such as establishing a renewable energy portfolio and creating climate action plans, to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Monsanto was involved in several high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It had been defendant in a number of lawsuits over health and environmental issues related to its products. Monsanto also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of agricultural biotechnology. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, and the company has since been involved in litigation related to ex-Monsanto products such as glyphosate, PCBs and dicamba. In 2020 it paid over $10 billion to settle lawsuits involving the glyphosate based herbicide Roundup.
Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA. The suit claims the surveillance system, which NSA calls "Upstream", breaches the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, also known by the initial X, is an American environmental activist and hip hop artist. Martinez was the Youth Director of Earth Guardians until 2019.
The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.
Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.
Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.
Doe et al. v. Trump Corporation et al. is an ongoing case commenced in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York in October 2018, in which four anonymous plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump and three of his adult children — Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka — alleging racketeering and of fraudulently encouraging unsophisticated investors to give large amounts of money to organizations connected to the Trumps. It is alleged that the defendants promoted the multi-level marketing company ACN Inc. in exchange for millions of dollars in secret payments from 2005 to 2015. The lawsuit says that Trump "told investors that he had 'experienced the opportunity' and 'done a lot of research,' and that his endorsement was 'not for any money.'" However, it subsequently emerged that Trump was a paid spokesman for at least one of the companies whose products and services he was promoting to investors.
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a case in the United States Supreme Court dealing with matters of jurisdiction of various climate change lawsuits in the United States judicial system.
Executive Order 13990, officially titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis is an executive order signed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, which implements various environmental policies of his administration including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and temporarily prohibiting drilling in the arctic refuge.
Vic Barrett is an American climate activist. He was a plaintiff in Juliana v. United States, which has been called likely the most ambitious and aggressive climate change lawsuit filed to date. Barrett also featured in a documentary about the case, Youth v. Gov.
Held v. Montana is a constitutional court case in the State of Montana regarding the right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations":Art. IX, § 1 as required by the Constitution of Montana. The case was filed in March 2020 by Our Children's Trust on behalf of sixteen youth residents of Montana, then aged 2 through 18. On June 12, 2023, the case became the first climate-related constitutional lawsuit to go to trial in the United States.
Genesis B. v. EPA is a court case filed in the state of California against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
