Appeals court ruling dismissing youth climate lawsuit is founded on a logical incoherence: the Courts exist to redress grievances; the ruling says they are not empowered to do so. #JulianavUnitedStates #OurChildrensTrust washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro…
The US Constitution, the 1992 Climate Convention (a ratified treaty & so Constitutional law under Article 6), the Clean Air Act & THREE Supreme Court rulings require the federal government to protect Americans from avoidable danger. #JulianavUnitedStates #OurChildrensTrust
The ruling attempting to justify dismissal admits that the federal government is not only failing to act, but is actively & disproportionately funding & incentivizing the development, commercialization & consumption of climate-disrupting fossil fuels...
The ruling further recognizes that this affirmative investment in & support for climate-disrupting fossil fuels has happened continually through several decades during which the federal government had detailed conclusive evidence of the irreparable harm caused by this practice.
The ruling specifically finds “The plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuel production, extraction, and transportation.” It also recognizes that government policy is driving this harm & political branches have chosen not to defend plaintiffs.
The ruling also determined it was necessary to “assume [the] existence” of a “substantive constitutional right to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life’,” in order to make a finding on whether the complaint was redressable in US federal courts.
This is potentially critical precedent. The logic of dismissal is so thin, it cannot hold up in any lawful adherence to the Article 3 mandate that federal judges serve only “during good Behaviour”. And so, on substantive grounds, the court has recognized this Preamble right.
The ruling argues that a declaration of unconstitutionality would not suffice to redress the harm. This argument is baseless & also disingenuous, because the court would have to require action of the political branches to get in line with the Constitution.
The ruling inexplicably attempts to argue that if plaintiffs challenge unlawful action & seek “that the Nation’s laws are faithfully enforced”, such redress would not suffice to merit a hearing in federal court. That is, of course, the precise reason the federal courts exist.
Article 3 states: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;”
The ruling notes that “The crux of the plaintiffs’ requested remedy is an injunction requiring the government not only to cease permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use, but also to prepare a plan subject to judicial approval to draw down harmful emissions.”
Such a plan would suffice to redress the particular injury which is the US government’s unjustifiable delivery of hundreds of billions of dollars in free assistance to an industry it knows is causing catastrophic irreparable harm to young people and future generations.
Not only would the US government, in such a scenario, no longer ignore its Constitutional responsibility to protect its people from avoidable danger, it would also, by virtue of existing laws, be required to extend that redress beyond its borders.
Instead of providing trillions of dollars to wars focused on capturing one or another segment of the world’s remaining reserves of fossil fuels, the US would have to use its economic & geopolitical leverage to prevent such conflicts.
In the case of such a verdict, redress would also require the US government & all who operate businesses within the United States to abide by the spirit & letter of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In other words, the redress sought could drive a global transition.
In her historic dissent, Judge Staton writes “the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity,” adding...
“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.” (Staton dissent, continued)
Judge Staton goes on to note “Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.”
Judge Staton also finds that “So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.”
@threadreaderapp please unroll this thread
