A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by young climate activists aiming to halt Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders. The case, involving 22 plaintiffs aged 7 to 25, argued that Trump’s policies violate the state-created danger doctrine and unlawfully promote fossil fuels. Despite acknowledging the harms of climate change- WATCH: Judge Dismisses Youth Climate Lawsuit Against Trump’s Pro-Fossil Fuel Policies: What’s Next? TrendTrove Oct 15 report, transcript follows
Cont'd- Judge Dana Christensen ruled that the court lacked the authority to act. This decision comes after the landmark Held v Montana case, where a judge ruled in favor of youth plaintiffs’ right to a healthy environment. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Julia Olson, vows to appeal, calling the ruling a violation of justice. This video explores the legal battle, its implications for climate activism, and the ongoing fight against pro-fossil fuel policies. Keywords: climate change, youth activism, Trump policies, fossil fuels, environmental law, Held v Montana, climate lawsuit, environmental justice.
[Transcripts are here st Heating Planet for readers writers and researchers. Plus, video can disappear. The printed word is forever.]
Imagine a group of young people, their
0:02
futures hanging in the balance, taking
0:05
on a powerful government to protect the
0:07
planet they'll inherit. That's exactly
0:10
what happened when a group of young
0:12
climate activists sued the Trump
0:14
administration over its pro- fossil fuel
0:17
policies. But here's the kicker. A
0:20
federal judge just dismissed their case,
0:23
leaving many wondering if the voices of
0:25
the next generation are being drowned
0:27
out.
In a move that sparked outrage and
0:30
debate, US District Judge Dana
0:32
Christensen threw out a lawsuit brought
0:35
by 22 young plaintiffs, ranging in age
0:38
from 7 to 25 and hailing from five
0:41
different states. These young activists
0:44
sought to block three of President
0:46
Trump's executive orders. These weren't
0:49
just any orders. They included
0:51
declarations of a supposed national
0:54
energy emergency, an effort to unleash
0:57
American energy, and a plan to
0:59
reinvigorate coal production in the US.
1:03
Think of it like this. They were trying
1:05
to stop the government from doubling
1:07
down on the very thing causing the
1:09
climate crisis.
The heart of their
1:11
argument, the plaintiffs contended that
1:14
these executive orders represented an
1:17
unlawful overreach of presidential
1:19
power. Furthermore, they claimed the
1:22
orders violated the state created danger
1:25
doctrine, a legal principle designed to
1:28
prevent government officials from
1:30
actively causing harm to their citizens.
1:33
It's like saying the government has a
1:35
responsibility not to make things worse.
1:38
And some of these plaintiffs weren't new
1:40
to this fight. Several had previously
1:43
been involved in the groundbreaking Held
1:45
versus Montana case in 2023, the first
1:49
constitutional climate trial in the
1:51
United States. In that case, they won
1:54
with a judge ruling that the Montana
1:56
state government had violated their
1:58
constitutional right to a healthy
2:00
environment. Talk about a track record.
2:03
Judge Christensen acknowledged the
2:05
severity of the climate crisis in his
2:08
ruling. He stated that the plaintiffs
2:10
presented overwhelming evidence that the
2:12
climate is changing at a staggering pace
2:15
and that this change stems from the rise
2:17
in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by
2:20
the production and burning of fossil
2:22
fuels. So, the judge agreed with the
2:25
science.
But here's where it gets
2:27
controversial. Christensen went on to
2:30
say that despite his concern, the
2:32
court's power to act was limited. He
2:35
argued that granting the plaintiff's
2:36
request would require the court to
2:39
scrutinize every climate related agency
2:42
action taken since the start of Trump's
2:45
second presidency in January 2025.
2:49
This is quite simply an unworkable
2:51
request for which plaintiffs provide no
2:54
precedent, he concluded. In essence, he
2:57
felt the scope of the request was too
2:59
broad and would put an unreasonable
3:01
burden on the court.
Was this a fair
3:04
assessment or a copout? Julia Olsen,
3:07
chief legal counsel at our children's
3:10
trust and the lead attorney for the
3:12
plaintiffs, didn't hold back in her
3:14
response. Every day, these executive
3:17
orders remain in effect. These 22 young
3:20
Americans suffer irreparable harm to
3:23
their health, safety, and future. she
3:26
told the Guardian. The judge recognized
3:28
that the government's fossil fuel
3:30
directives are injuring these youth, but
3:32
said his hands were tied by precedent.
3:36
And this is the part most people miss.
3:39
Olsen announced that they would appeal
3:41
the decision.
We will appeal because
3:44
courts cannot offer more protection to
3:46
fossil fuel companies seeking to
3:48
preserve their profits than to young
3:50
Americans seeking to preserve their
3:53
rights. This violates not only the
3:55
Constitution and Supreme Court
3:57
precedent, but the most basic principles
4:00
of justice. A powerful statement. But
4:03
will it be enough? Beyond this
4:05
particular lawsuit, it's important to
4:08
remember the broader context.
A report
4:10
from Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy
4:13
and ethics nonprofit, revealed that
4:15
Trump had appointed over 40 individuals
4:18
directly employed by coal, oil, and gas
4:21
companies to his administration.
4:24
This raises serious questions about
4:26
potential conflicts of interest and the
4:28
influence of the fossil fuel industry on
4:31
government policy.
Moreover, since
4:34
taking office, Trump had launched
4:36
attacks on both sustainable energy
4:38
alternatives and climate science. In
4:41
August, his administration even released
4:43
a report claiming that climate change is
4:46
a challenge, not a catastrophe. A
4:49
statement that was widely criticized by
4:51
climate experts as a farce filled with
4:54
misinformation. It paints a picture of a
4:57
government actively working against
5:00
climate action.
So, what does this all
5:02
mean? The dismissal of this lawsuit is a
5:05
setback for young climate activists, but
5:07
it's far from the end of the story. The
5:10
fight for climate justice continues, and
5:12
these young people are determined to
5:15
have their voices heard. But is the
5:17
legal system truly equipped to address
5:19
the urgency of the climate crisis?
5:22
Should judges be more willing to take
5:24
bold action, even if it means breaking
5:27
with precedent? And what responsibility
5:29
do we as a society have to protect the
5:33
rights of future generations? Share your
5:35
thoughts in the com
TrendTrove on YouTube since 2021 from USA- "Explore the latest news and trends in music, film, TV, and pop culture."
Related print news article:
BILLINGS — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit from young climate activists seeking to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders promoting fossil fuels and discouraging renewable energy. The activists said the orders would worsen global warming, threatening their lives and violating their constitutional rights. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice and more than a dozen states, including Montana, had urged Judge Dana Christensen to dismiss the case. https://montanafreepress.org/2025/10/15/judge-dismisses-federal-lawsuit-from-young-climate-activists/
[KE: Everything climate scientists predicted about global warming since the 1970s is coming true only faster]
No comments:
Post a Comment