Latest news with #OurChildrensTrust
Forbes
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
The Fight For A Human Right To A Healthy Climate Is Heating Up
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 29: Protesters attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court held by the ... More group Our Children's Trust October 29, 2018 in Washington, DC. The group rallied in support of the Juliana v. U.S. lawsuit brought on behalf of 21 youth plaintiffs that argues the U.S. government has violated constitutional rights for more than 50 years by contributing to climate change. (Photo by) A legal battle is heating up over climate change and human rights. Youth and senior plaintiffs in the US, Europe, Africa, and beyond are beginning to score wins. So are their fossil fuel and government v United States – Pioneering Climate Lawsuit In March of this year, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the pioneering climate case, Juliana v. United States. For ten years, youth plaintiffs had argued that government actions causing climate change violated their generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. Despite the loss in court, Juliana received extensive media coverage and has had an outsized impact on climate litigation. According to Our Children's Trust, which litigated on behalf of the youth plaintiffs, 'the legal framework established by Juliana has inspired over 60 youth-led climate lawsuits worldwide, against more than 50 countries and states, including cases like Held v. State of Montana and Navahine v. Hawai'i Department of Transportation, which have secured significant victories for climate rights.'Legal Victories in Montana, the EU, and Nigeria In contrast to Juliana, the youth plaintiffs in Held v. Montana achieved a victory. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution protects the right to a stable climate and that restricting climate impacts in environmental reviews violated that right. And in KlimaSeniorinnen, seniors in Switzerland triumphed in the European Court – arguing that the Swiss government's inadequate climate policies violated their right to life and health under the European Convention on Human Rights. The residents of the Niger Delta also prevailed in a case against Shell Oil's Nigerian subsidiary. Mrs Justice May ruled that the fossil fuel giant could be sued for damages from pipeline spills even when those spills were caused by vandals. Justice May also ruled that the five-year statute of limitation did not apply because a 'new cause of action will arise each day that oil remains on land affected by the spills.'Youth Challenge Trump's Executive Orders Another case inspired by Juliana is Lighthiser v. Trump, in which 22 youth are challenging the Trump administration's 'unleashing' fossil fuels, anti-clean energy, and anti-climate science executive orders. The youth argue the Trump administration's actions threaten their constitutional rights to life, health, and safety. The parties await a September hearing on the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction and the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. According to Our Children's Trust, 'This case has the power to shift our national energy paradigm from one rooted in profit to one that protects children's lives and futures. If the youth plaintiffs win, the unlawful fossil fuel expansion orders will be halted, and the Constitution will be reaffirmed as a vital tool for climate protection.'Government Counter Attack Given the onslaught of 2,967 climate-related legal cases filed to date across nearly 60 countries, it's not surprising that governments are waging a counter attack. Nineteen states and the territory of Guam have filed a motion in Lighthiser v. Trump to defend Trump's executive orders. Why is the Lighthiser case the only one in over 450 legal cases challenging Trump's executive orders where a coalition of states has intervened? Some claim this case presents a unique threat to the fossil fuel industry and its government Fossil Fuel Industry SLAPPs Back The fossil fuel industry is waging its own legal battles against climate activists. SLAPP (Strategic Legal Action Against Public Participation) suits enable oil companies to use their considerable wealth to target activists and non-profit organizations. The goal is to exhaust the activist organization's resources and force them to shut down. According to Betsy Apple, executive director of Global Climate Legal Defense Fund: 'The process is the purpose… The whole point of a SLAPP is a war of attrition.' In one such SLAPP, the oil company Energy Transfer prevailed in a North Dakota court against Greenpeace, arguing that the nonprofit played a major role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. This is despite the fact that the Native American protest leaders testified that Greenpeace played only a minor, supportive role. The jury agreed to over $660 million in damages against Greenpeace. Not only does Energy Transfer's SLAPP seemingly discount the Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe anti-pipeline movement, it threatens to bankrupt many of Greenpeace's operations. Drilled reporter Alleen Brown covered this case, and found that half the jurors had ties to the fossil fuel industry and members of the local press doubted the scientific consensus on climate change. Greenpeace is appealing the decision, hoping to prevail in a more neutral court in one of the 38 states, which unlike North Dakota, have anti-SLAPP Slaps Back The European Commission has a Directive against SLAPP suits, which has enabled Greenpeace to launch a counter offensive against Energy Transfer. In a court in the Netherlands, Greenpeace has demanded compensation for costs incurred fighting Energy Transfer's litigation in the US. The EU's anti-SLAPP Directive was spurred by the car bomb assassination of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who faced more than 40 civil and criminal libel lawsuits. Greenpeace's suit is the first test of the EU's anti-SLAPP law to curb harassment or silencing of activists, including by tying them up in expensive litigation. According to Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, after losing the free speech argument in the 'court of public opinion,' fossil fuel corporations are 'weaponising courtrooms' to silence their critics. In the meantime, civil society groups are fighting back, often using novel legal and Human Rights In one such novel strategy, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights argued in its 'Climate Emergency and Human Rights' Advisory Opinion that displacement of people due to climate-induced disasters is not merely a humanitarian concern, but rather a matter of a country's binding human rights obligations. The Advisory calls for new legal categories for climate-displaced people. According to Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, by advancing the rights of millions displaced by the climate crisis, the ruling heralds a fundamental reorientation of the human rights law approach to climate litigation. In a second ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the court confirmed the right to a healthy environment including the right to a healthy climate. This means a right to a 'climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic influence that is dangerous to humans and to nature as a whole.' The document outlines governments' legal responsibilities to uphold human rights at risk from climate change, which include the right to life, health, clean water, education and work. The inquiry leading to this ruling was brought by the governments of Chile and Colombia, and is one of a rapidly expanding number of legal actions in the Global South. As far as the future is concerned, we can expect the global battle for the human right to a healthy climate will continue to rage.
Fox News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Parental rights watchdog exposes left-wing climate group's strategy to recruit kids for environmental activism
FIRST ON FOX: Parental watchdog group American Parents Coalition is sounding the alarm about a left-wing climate advocacy group that they warn could be coming for your kids. In a new report, published via APC's parental notification system called "The Lookout," the parental rights watchdog alleges climate advocacy group Our Children's Trust (OCT) is "emotionally manipulating" children to advance its climate agenda. Besides OCT's lawsuits that entail youth plaintiffs, APC pointed to curriculum materials the climate advocacy group promotes, which the watchdog said are "aimed at indoctrinating kids into a particular set of beliefs about the environment." APC also cited OCT's promotion of social media posts and research studies that talk about children's "climate-related stress." "Our Children's Trust should not be 'trusted' by parents," APC Executive Director Alleigh Marré said. "The left's obsession with undermining parental authority and targeting young minds has now entered the climate movement." In May, on behalf of 22 young people, several of whom were minors at the time of filing, OCT filed Lighthiser v. Trump to challenge the president's executive orders related to the fossil fuel industry and peeling back Biden-era green energy mandates. APC says the suit utilizes a narrative of climate hysteria, arguing, "Plaintiffs were born into and now live in a destabilized climate system…" and "Every additional ton of GHG pollution and increment of heat Defendants cause will cause Olivia [a child plaintiff] more harm." Meanwhile, in addition to using children to help file its climate change-related lawsuits, OCT also pushes educator resources and course materials to schools that perpetuate the idea of climate-related stress and anxiety in young people. For example, APC pointed to course materials that included a brainstorming session for students, which the watchdog group said implies parents are not offering adequate protection for children. The classroom exercise asked students: "What might make youth different from other people in the eyes of a court?" Sample answers provided to students included, "Youth generally will outlive older generations and so will have to live with the consequences of adults' present-day actions," and "Youth are often dependent upon adults for protection of their physical, mental and social well-being." APC also pointed to OCT's use of social media and research to promote the idea that their child-driven climate lawsuits are necessary. "Climate anxiety is real and it's impacting children's mental health," an Instagram post highlighted by APC states. "Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to their physical, developmental and socio-economic characteristics," another Instagram post highlighted by APC says. "No organization should be focused on stoking anxiety and fear among kids in an effort to persuade them to join lawsuits that are activist and political in nature," Marré said. "The bombardment from Our Children's Trust and other activist groups pushing climate alarmism and hysteria are having devastating impacts to children's mental health. Exposing children to this kind of extremist mentality is not productive and leads to manipulation rather than education." Marré also complained that this stifles children's ability to think for themselves. However, OCT vigorously disagreed with the assertions made by Marré and APC. "Our Children's Trust, a group founded by mothers, equips young people with the education and tools to understand the world they know they are inheriting—and to participate in civic life in a meaningful, lawful way," OCT said in a statement to Fox News Digital when they were reached for comment. "While the APC did not allow us to review its report in advance of its release, we can confidently say its conclusions represented to us by Fox News are false. We do not manipulate young people. Youth come to us already deeply aware of how climate change is impacting their lives and futures. They pursue legal action because the political branches of government are harming their fundamental rights to life, safety, and health." The statement from OCT went on to argue that the assertion that "climate anxiety among youth is somehow manufactured" is "out of touch" and "insulting to the millions of children facing record-breaking wildfires, floods, and extreme heat." "It's telling that this group purporting to represent parents would rather discredit youth voices than address the real climate harms children are living through," OCT's statement concluded. "Our work is grounded in science, constitutional and children's rights, and civic engagement—not fearmongering—and is supported by pediatricians, parents, teachers, and faith leaders across the country. Young people don't need to be manipulated to care about the planet. They are already living the consequences."
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Trump's anti-climate orders draw lawsuit from young activists citing life, liberty
Jen Psaki talks with Riley, a young climate activist and one of 22 plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Trump administration in which they are represented by Our Children's Trust. The lawsuit charges that Trump is violating their right to life and liberty with the environmental damage that will come from his executive orders.
New York Times
29-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Youth Climate Activists Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Orders
Young people who sued state governments over climate change have begun a legal challenge aimed at President Trump's spate of executive orders on climate and the environment. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Montana, argues that three of the executive orders are unconstitutional and would cripple the clean energy industry, suppress climate science and worsen global warming. The 22 plaintiffs, ranging in age from seven to 25 years old, are mostly from Montana, as well as Hawaii, Oregon, and other states, and are represented by the nonprofit legal group Our Children's Trust. That group has notched two important legal victories in recent years, winning cases against the state of Montana and the Hawaii Department of Transportation. 'Trump's fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,' said Eva Lighthiser, 19, the named plaintiff. 'I'm not suing because I want to. I'm suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line.' The plaintiffs argue that they are already experiencing harms from a warming planet in the form of wildfires, drought and hurricanes, and that Mr. Trump's executive orders will make conditions even worse. They say the executive orders violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty by infringing on their health, safety and prospects for the future. Further, they argue that the orders constitute executive overreach, because the president cannot unilaterally override federal laws like the Clean Air Act. The executive orders in question include those declaring a 'National Energy Emergency,' directing agencies to 'Unleash American Energy,' and 'Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.' The complaint points to immediate consequences from the executive orders, like exempting the Colstrip coal-fired power plant in Montana from pollution rules. The aging plant emits more harmful fine particulate matter pollution, or soot, than any other power plant in the nation, according to Environmental Protection Agency data. A Biden-era rule would have compelled the facility, the only coal plant in the country to lack modern pollution controls, to install new equipment, but it received an exemption from the Trump administration last month. Several of the plaintiffs live near the plant or a mine that provides it with coal, or along the facilities' transport routes, said Julia Olson, founder of Our Children's Trust. The suit names Mr. Trump and several cabinet secretaries and agencies, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Energy Secretary Chris Wright; and Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator. The Interior Department and the E.P.A. both declined to discuss pending litigation. The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The complaint also takes aim at the Trump administration's cuts to federal climate research projects like the National Climate Assessment, which is the government's flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country. The report is required by Congress but last month the administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been working on the latest version. 'In order for them to protect their rights, they need science,' Ms. Olson said of the young people. One of the plaintiffs is Rikki Held, 24. She was also the named plaintiff in the Montana case, in which the Montana Supreme Court agreed that the state's energy policies had violated Montanans' constitutional right to a clean environment. A daughter of a ranching family in the town of Broadus in southeastern Montana, Ms. Held studied environmental science and is now teaching high school students in Kenya. Ms. Held said her science career had been inspired by the U.S. Geological Survey researchers who would visit her family's land to study the Powder River. That agency is facing significant reductions under the Trump administration's proposed budget. In an interview from Kenya, Ms. Held said that her family had endured numerous effects of a warming planet, including increased wildfires. That effects livestock, the economy and the food systems that she and her neighbors rely on, she said. 'With all the wildfires, there's smoke in the air that affects health,' she said. 'Especially for ranchers, you don't have an option to stay inside. You have to go out and work take care of your livestock. I've been out fencing in 110 degree days, which is a record-breaking temperature from my area. In 2021, we had two or three of those days, and you just have to be out in the heat and keep working, because you don't have another choice.' The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the orders unconstitutional, block their implementation and protect the rights of youth as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and their respective state constitutions. Our Children's Trust was joined in filing the suit by Gregory Law Group of California, McGarvey Law of Montana and Public Justice, a public interest law firm in Washington. Another case by Our Children's Trust filed in 2015, Juliana v. United States, was described as a legal landmark, but was dismissed by a federal appellate court. In March, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. That suit argued that the federal government had violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs with policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels over many decades. In dismissing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that courts were not the right venue to address climate change. Our Children's Trust said the new case was different because it is focused on specific executive orders and their implementation in recent months.
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Trump violating right to life with anti-environment orders, youth lawsuit says
Twenty two young Americans have filed a new lawsuit against the Trump administration over its anti-environment executive orders. By intentionally boosting oil and gas production and stymying carbon-free energy, federal officials are violating their constitutional rights to life and liberty, alleges the lawsuit, filed on Thursday. The federal government is engaging in unlawful executive overreach by breaching congressional mandates to protect ecosystems and public health, argue the plaintiffs, who are between the ages of seven and 25 and hail from the heavily climate-impacted states of Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, California and Florida. They also say officials' emissions-increasing and science-suppressing orders have violated the state-created danger doctrine, a legal principle meant to prevent government actors from inflicting injury upon their citizens. 'At its core, this suit is about the health of children, it's about the right to life, it's about the right to form families,' said Julia Olson, attorney and founder of Our Children's Trust, the non-profit law firm that brought the suit. 'We all have constitutional rights, and if we don't use our constitution – if we walk away from it and we walk away from our youth – we will not have a democracy.' The lawsuit specifically targets three of the slew of pro-fossil fuel executive orders Trump has signed during his second term. Among them are two day-one Trump moves to declare a 'national energy emergency' and 'unleash American energy', and another April order aimed at 'reinvigorating' the domestic production of coal – the dirtiest and most expensive fossil fuel. All three orders aimed to bolster already-booming US energy production. They also led agencies to stymy renewable energy production and to suppress climate research and data, flaunting congressional environmental protections, the lawsuit argues. The litigation is the latest in a series of youth-led climate cases brought by the non-profit law firm Our Children's Trust. The lead plaintiff in the new case, 19-year-old Eva Lighthiser, was also a plaintiff in the firm's Held v Montana lawsuit, which notched a landmark win in 2023 when a judge ruled that the state's pro-fossil fuel policies violated their rights under the state's constitution. 'Trump's fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,' said Lighthiser. Lighthiser has already seen the impacts of the climate crisis in her life. Flood-related destruction to roads and bridges one summer even forced her family to sell their house in Livingston. 'The effects of climate change cause Eva persistent stress and anxiety about her future,' the lawsuit says. 'Every additional ton of [greenhouse gas] pollution and increment of heat Defendants cause will cause Eva more harm.' Other plaintiffs in the new case previously participated in other Our Children's Trust lawsuits, including one which reached a historic settlement in Hawaii last year; another filed by California youth against the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and a third, the federal case Juliana v US, which was filed a decade ago and dismissed Juliana without prejudice last year. Lighthiser said Trump's re-election last year felt 'like such a heavy thing'. In the wake of her 2023 win in the Montana lawsuit, she said it felt like taking 'one step forward, three steps back'. She fears Trump's policies will directly impact her well-being. In moves to prop up the dying coal industry in recent months, for instance, the administration has granted relief to both the Spring Creek coal mine and Colstrip coal-fired power station in Montana; trains transporting coal from one to the other run through Lighthiser's hometown. 'The coal cars are brimming with coal that just blows [dust] out all over my town,' said Lighthiser. 'That could effect my own body and my own health, and it feels very intimidating, because it's not something that feels like it's in my control right now.' The lawsuit names Trump and the US as defendants, as well as the office of management and budget, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the departments of interior, energy and transportation, in addition to the head of each agency. 'These are agencies that are really deeply involved in making sure that more fossil fuels stay online,' said Olson. It also targets scientific organizations such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and its parent agency the Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – agencies that are 'suppressing science' in their attempts to comply with Trump's executive orders, said Olson. The youth plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the three executive orders unconstitutional and block their implementation. They are also demanding that it protect the rights to a clean environment granted by certain state constitutions like Montana and Hawaii, which they say the Trump directives have impinged upon. In Olson's view, the case is winnable, particularly because it only brings claims under rights that are explicitly granted under the US constitution, and which have already been recognized by the supreme court. (Juliana v US, by contrast, argued that Americans have an implicit, but unstated, constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate system.) But no matter how the case is eventually ruled, Olson said, the filing of the lawsuit is 'itself a success'. 'Having young people rise up at a time when democracy is threatened and when there's retaliation against so many people in this country for standing up against the administration, that is success,' she said. 'It's about having the bravery to bring claims in the court, of not being too afraid to use their rights.' Though it is 'scary to take on the man in the highest position of power', Lighthiser said the lawsuit is 'absolutely necessary'. She hopes it will eventually help slow global warming, which has led to more frequent and intense wildfires, droughts and floods in her home state of Montana. And she hopes it will afford youth the ability to 'just be kids'. She recalled one day during the summer of 2022, when the Yellowstone River flooded her hometown. 'I spent seven hours that day filling sandbags for people to take to their homes,' she said. 'That kind of thing is going to become more common [with] climate change,' she said. 'That doesn't sound to me like we're getting to live freely.'
