RSN Fundraising Banner
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Stop Teenagers' Climate Lawsuit
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34913"><span class="small">Greg Stohr, Bloomberg</span></a>   
Friday, 19 October 2018 08:21

Stohr writes: "President Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court stop a novel and sweeping lawsuit pressed by children and teenagers seeking to force the federal government to take steps against climate change."

Young plaintiffs in the Juliana v. United States celebrate after the management conference at the U.S. district court in Eugene, Oregon, February 7, 2017. (photo: Kimberly Gough)
Young plaintiffs in the Juliana v. United States celebrate after the management conference at the U.S. district court in Eugene, Oregon, February 7, 2017. (photo: Kimberly Gough)


Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Stop Teenagers' Climate Lawsuit

By Greg Stohr, Bloomberg

19 October 18

 

resident Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court stop a novel and sweeping lawsuit pressed by children and teenagers seeking to force the federal government to take steps against climate change.

Thursday's emergency filing aims to head off a trial that's set to start Oct. 29 in federal court in Oregon. It's the administration's second attempt to have the nation's highest court intervene in the case.

Although the Supreme Court rejected the first request in July as premature, the justices hinted at skepticism about the lawsuit, saying its breadth was "striking." Since that order was issued, the Senate has confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh to succeed the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The group of mostly teenagers says U.S. government policies have exacerbated global warming in violation of their constitutional rights and those of future generations. They want the government to put in place a plan to phase out carbon emissions and stabilize the Earth's climate. A federal judge in Eugene, Ore., on Monday said the case could proceed to trial, though she dismissed Trump as a defendant.

The Trump team inherited the case from the Obama administration, which had similarly tried to have it thrown out.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+13 # chrisconno 2018-10-19 10:50
Why do we keep saying this is a slow motion coup? How long was it from Hitler's election to Allied forces liberating the concentration camps? We are only two years into this egregious administration and already Trump has caged thousands of kids, has the courts packed with his illegitimate judges and condones murder of the press. What will get us first, the climate or Trump Nazis?
 
 
+13 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2018-10-19 11:18
Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court may not interfere in the trial of a Case that has arisen under “the Laws of the United States” until after that Case has been properly adjudicated. After Article III lists to what Cases the supreme Court’s “judicial Power shall extend”, and this list includes those arising under “the Laws of the United States”, Art III, Sec 2 states, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

“Original jurisdiction” refers to the FIRST court that is to hear a Case.
“Appellate jurisdiction” means the power to consider a Case that has already been tried and adjudicated.

So unless Congress, NOT THE PRESIDENT, has passed an Exception AND the supporting Regulations allowing the Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction IN THIS CASE, the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution to await the outcome of a trial before acting.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2018-10-19 19:40
I don't think the SC cares about the constitution any more. There is no one to stop them doing whatever they want.
 
 
+5 # tedrey 2018-10-19 16:44
This is a tremendously important case. My own take is that a nation which holds out against a serious majority of governments and experts plausibly trying to save the world environment and human civilization has thereby lost all claim to legitimacy, no matter what their internal legislation may suggest.

But I don't expect our American Exceptionalist ideology will ever accept that position.