The public trust doctrine underlies the idea that the federal government manages both national waters and federal lands for the good of the people according to Bratspies, Juliana would argue that the same idea extends to the atmosphere, and that therefore the government is neglecting its duties by not ensuring the atmosphere remains free of greenhouse gasses and therefore affected by climate change. In that case, the plaintiffs are alleging the federal government is violating what’s known as the public trust doctrine - an idea that goes back as far as the Romans, which holds that when a state controls land, they act as a trustee and control it for the benefit of the people. Juliana rests on a different legal theory entirely. Montana, rules in favor of the plaintiffs, she could say those changes were unconstitutional and that the state of Montana would have to start considering the impacts of climate change in permitting decisions. If Judge Kathy Seeley, who heard the arguments in Held v. Montana’s state government has leaned particularly hard into climate denialism: in 2011 the legislature amended the Montana Environmental Policy Act so that climate change couldn’t be factored into environmental reviews, and this May, in an attempt to render the Held lawsuit moot, it specifically added a provision to ban any consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of energy projects. That gives the plaintiffs strong constitutional ground to stand on, Bratspies told me. In 1972, Montana held a constitutional convention that, among other things, guaranteed in the new constitution that “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” Montana benefit from a very specific set of circumstances. ![]() But the cases rest on very different legal theories. Both Held and Juliana are being represented by attorneys from Our Children’s Trust, an environmental group that filed similar youth-led lawsuits in every state. United States, could move forward after the case was amended in response to a dismissal in 2020. Three weeks ago, a judge ruled that a different youth-led climate case, Juliana v. That message, it seems, is that the courts have a newfound appetite for climate cases in a way that didn’t exist before. A decision for the plaintiffs in a very red state like Montana would be an extremely important message to the country as a whole.” But there’s also the wider context in terms of the social conversations about how to respond to the climate crisis. “There’s one audience in the court, and getting a favorable ruling in court is important. “There are two audiences,” said Rebecca Bratspies, a law professor at the City University of New York and the founding director of the Center for Urban Environmental Reform. Going to trial means the plaintiffs will be able to establish, in the public record, evidence about the causes and effects of climate change. The fact that the youth plaintiffs actually got their day in court is by itself a big deal. But, May told me, other than cases over administrative issues such as permitting, none of those cases made it to trial. Never has climate been put on trial like this.”Īccording to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, thousands of climate change-related cases have been filed in the United States. “If even a year ago, you had called and asked what I thought the prospects were of a climate case going on trial like this, I would have said next to zero. “I understand the skepticism,” said James May, a law professor at Delaware Law School and founder of its Global Environmental Rights Institute. Not only is it a smart case with a strong argument, they told me, but it has practically no downsides. ![]() And yet when I asked lawyers about the case, they had a very different take. But also hopefully starting … a trickle-down of other litigation and activism nationally that we’ve been able to spark here.”Ī cynic might describe the optimism as misguided the idea of kids suing to control their future has historically only been entertained in the world of fiction. “Our next step in the process is getting our decision, which we’re really optimistic about at this point. “It feels like the beginning, really,” Busse, who at 18 is one of the case’s older plaintiffs, said. Montana, a trailblazing youth-led climate case that wrapped on Tuesday, he sounded optimistic. When Lander Busse spoke to the press after closing arguments in Held v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |