The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the petition that made young climatic activists who claimed the federal government in climate change their constitutional rights, which saw a legal struggle growth from children and teenagers in adults.
The case of the landmark in 2015. They were filed in 21 prosecutors, the youngest 8 years. They claimed that the actions of the US government encourage the economy of fossil fuels, they violated their right to a living climate.
Case – called Julian against the United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana – recovered several times caused Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations, whose lawyers argued that they tried to directly develop federal environmental policies and energy through courts instead of the political process.
Julia Olson, Chief Legal Adviser to trust our children, a non-profit legal company that represented the prosecutors, said the influence of the lawsuit “cannot be measured by the finals of this case.”
“Juliana launched a global movement that LED for the Youth for Climate Practice continues to grow,” Olson said in the Monday statement. “He strengthened young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and the future. We have already secured important victories, and we will continue to push forward.”
What happened to the case?
Prosecutors wanted the Court to hold the trial whether the US government violates their fundamental rights to life and freedom to the management of the energy system based on fossil fuel.
The case has been wounded for years through the legal system. At one point in 2018. The trial stopped the U.S. Chairman of the Supreme Court John Roberts Just days before it was supposed to start.
2020. Year, 9. The U.S. Circle appeals ordered the case rejected, saying that the job of determining the climate policies should fall into politicians, not judges. But the American district judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, OregonInstead, activists enabled the amendment to their lawsuit and a judgment, the case could go to the trial.
Last year, which acts at the request of the Miniden Administration, Tom 9. The circular panel issued an order that demands that Aiken reject the case, and she did. The plaintiffs then tried, unsuccessful, revive the lawsuit through their petition to the US Supreme Court.
The trust of our children, reaction to new events at the federal level, now prepares a new federal shop that is “rooted in the same constitutional principles that led Juliana,” Olson said.
Who are the prosecutors?
Prosecutors are now ranging from 17 to 29 years and continued their climate advocacy to different degrees, said Olson, adding that some are still at university. About half is from the rodlock in Oregon, according to the website of our children.
“Everyone has incredible stories,” Olson said. “Everyone is doing incredible work.”
Juliana, who now 29, has become a primary school teacher in Oregon, said Helen Britta, co-worker for communications for the trust of our children. Other prosecutors include Alex Loznak, who became a lawyer focused on environmentally friendly and immigration work, and Nathan Baring, who is now serving as a program of Jelena Association in Alaska.
“We are part of the wave, so this is not the end of the road in any way,” it was said to fight for the High Court move.
Miko Vergun, who was born on Marshal Islands and grew up in Beaverton, Oregon, fights for the future in which the Pacific people can remain above the level of our children. She recently graduated from Oregon Statury University with a degree in cultural anthropology, said Britto.
In the Monday statement, Vergun said that the decision of the Supreme Court was now not what prosecutors had hoped, but there were “many victories in the way.”
“For almost ten years, we got up for the rights of current and future generations, demanding the world where we can’t just survive, but progress,” she said. “All the great movements faced obstacles, but what separates is the persistence of people behind them. We have shown young people will not be ignored, and I am incredibly proud of the influence of Julian against the United States.”
What about other young people’s nuns?
The trust of our children submitted climate legal actions on behalf of young people in all 50 countries, including active cases in Florida, Utahu and Alaska.
In the case of Montana, the Supreme Court in December supported a significant climate verdict to violate the constitutional right of the population by issuing global warmings, and that regulators must take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing a fossil fuel development permit.
The case, brought 16 youth prosecutors, went to trial in the 2023 state-2003. Years. The Montana Constitution requires the Agency to “maintain and improve” a purely environment.
The Ministry of Environmental Protection Montana, issues licenses for fossil fuel projects, must adhere to the Decision of the Supreme Court, said Olson, adding that the confidence of our children would make it perform the verdict in case it is injured.
In the case of Hawaii who brought 13 young people through threats of climate change, either side have been up to 2045. years from 2045. Year reached the state government to achieve zero emissions in its transport system by 2045. years. The court will monitor the implementation of the agreement for the next 20 years.
Internationally, the case of Oregon inspired over 60 climate lawsuits for young people around the world, in accordance with the confidence of our children.