Podcast appearances and mentions of Juliana V United

Back in 2015, twenty-one young people sued the United States for its actions to drive and exacerbate climate change. The case, Juliana v. United States, looked like it was done for back in 2021 when the 9th Circuit declared the young people did not have standing to bring the case and declined to grant a rehearing, but it's been mandated back to district court where the Juliana 21 have amended their complaint and are gearing up for round 2.

In 2015, 21 young people filed a climate lawsuit called Juliana v. United States, asserting that the government violated their rights to life, liberty, and property. We talk with plaintiffs Aji Piper and Tia Hatton; and journalists: Christi Cooper and Lee Van Der Voo about the ups and downs of this amazing lawsuit and the community it created.

 Government investment in the fossil fuel industry infringes upon our constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. A combination of litigation and demonstration is needed to hold our government accountable. Kelsey Juliana and Vic Barrett are plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, also known as Youth v. Gov. We caught up with them to discuss the documentary Youth v Gov premiering at this year’s DOC NYC, America’s Largest Documentary Film Festival. Purchase tickets until November 19th here https://www.docnyc.net/film/youth-v-gov/. Listen now! More at TheCoolestShow.com and @Think100Climate. #YouthvGov #DOCNYC #Think100

A lawyer for Juliana v. United States says the plaintiffs’ strategy is worthwhile, despite a legal setback. Learn more at https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/

In this episode of Our Future Now!, National Children’s Campaign co-founders Natalie Mebane and Jonah Gottlieb are joined by two plaintiffs of Juliana vs US, Jayden Foytlin and Levi Draheim, to talk about how a revolutionary lawsuit is being spearheaded by kids. They talk about, what they’re specifically fighting for and what a win with this lawsuit will mean for our future.   Visit vote4ourfuture.org to learn more about how Zero Hour and the National Children's Campaign are galvanizing Americans to vote on behalf of our nation's 74 million children, who deserve bold climate action and environmental justice.    Learn more about Juliana v. United States at: https://www.youthvgov.org/our-case   Help expand the squad by checking out some local candidates we’re rooting for: Donna Imam: https://votefordonna.com/   Learn more about elections in your area at https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page Apply for your absentee ballot here: http://www.vote4ourfuture.org/votebymail.html If you’re interested in getting involved with the National Children’s Campaign visit: tinyurl.com/teamncc  

In this episode we speak with Andrea Rodgers, Senior Attorney at Our Children’s Trust. We discuss environmental law in the age of coronavirus and the non-profit public interest law firm, Our Children’s Trust. Andrea then provides updates from the climate justice case, Juliana vs United States.Andrea Rodgers is the Senior Attorney at Our Children’s Trust where she serves as co-counsel on the constitutional youth climate lawsuit against the federal government, Juliana v. United States, and as lead counsel on the constitutional youth climate lawsuits against the state of Washington, Aji v. State of Washington, and the state of Florida, Reynolds v. State of Florida. She has served as an Honors Attorney for the U.S. Department of Transportation, In-House Legal Counsel for the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, and Staff Attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center. Her environmental law practice focuses on reducing pollution from industrial agricultural operations, protecting and enhancing instream flows for people and fish, and fighting climate change on behalf of young people and future generations. Andrea is licensed to practice law in Washington and Oregon and is admitted to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Tenth Circuit, U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Northern California, the Snoqualmie Tribal Court, the Lummi Indian Nation Tribal Court and the Muckleshoot Tribal Court.Support the show (https://coastrange.org/donate/)

In August 2015, 21 plaintiffs, ranging from 8-19 years old at the initial hearing, filed a landmark lawsuit against the United States as well as many specific members of the Federal Government. In short, their claim was that the U.S. Government had knowingly violated the rights of the plaintiffs and future generations, by encouraging, subsidizing, … Continue reading A Meditation on Juliana v. United States →

In this episode, host Rob Verchick talks with Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholars Melissa Powers (Lewis & Clark Law School) and Karen Sokol (Loyola University New Orleans College of Law) about the 9th Circuit's dismissal of the Juliana v. United States youth climate justice case, what it means -- and doesn't mean -- for other climate cases working their way through the courts, and more.

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by attorney Philip Gregory, of the Gregory Law Group, to discuss Juliana v. United States and his participation as co-lead counsel in the matter. In today’s bonus episode, Aaron and Philip are talking about what has been dubbed the “biggest lawsuit on the planet,” the case in which 21 young people are seeking to sue the federal government over climate change – and a topic that we covered on this program in episode 70 with Kelsey Juliana herself.   Last Friday, January 17th, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to dismiss the case. Philip and Aaron talk about this decision, what it means moving forward, and more. Discussing the Court’s findings, Aaron and Philip talk about due process under the U.S. Constitution, issues of remedy and resolution, the government’s duties to its citizens, as well as what the next steps are.  Listen in and enjoy this mini episode on climate change and how it impacts us all.     To learn more about “Youth v. Gov.,” please click here.   To listen to Episode 70, “Is this the biggest lawsuit on the planet? W/ Kelsey Juliana & Julia Olson,” please click here.   To read the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Philip Gregory     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Facebook: @GOODLAWBADLAW Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

On January 17, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a long-anticipated decision in the case known at Juliana, et al., v. United States, et al. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. One would be very hard pressed to find any other case that has been fought so bitterly by the federal government. The history of this litigation is historic itself, and shows the ferocity of government against the steadfast, common sense, legally justified and scientifically honest attempts by the Plaintiffs to save their future, and yours. In this episode of Climate Monitor, we amplify the voice of Judge Josephine L. Staton, who's powerful words of warning should be respected by all. Resources: Childrens' Trust: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us January 17, 2020 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/01/17/18-36082.pdf Narrated by Mitch Chester.

Youth activists are spearheading a powerful political movement around addressing the climate crisis.For many people, this is a moment of both fear and hope — global carbon emissions continue to increase, at the same time as demands for global climate action grow louder. Will 2019 be remembered as the year humanity turned a corner in the fight against climate change?In this episode of Political Climate, we bring you a special interview with a group of leading youth activists ahead of the Global Climate Strike and United Nations Climate Change Summit.We speak with Kelsey Juliana and Vic Barrett, two of the 21 plaintiffs in the Juliana v. United States lawsuit over the right to a safe climate and livable future, as well as and Jamie Margolin, co-founder of the organization Zero Hour and a plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging Washington State has failed to adequately regulate greenhouse gases.But first we hear from Jonah Gottlieb, director of Schools for Climate Action and the executive director of the National Children’s Campaign, who is currently in Washington D.C. with famed teen activist Greta Thunberg and other youth leaders. What does it feel like for these young people to finally have so much attention on the climate threat?Recommended reading:Grist: How 21 meddling kids could force a major turnaround on climateNew Yorker: The Right to a Stable Climate Is the Constitutional Question of the Twenty-First CenturyCNN: NYC says its 1.1 million students can skip class for the climate strike (as long as their parents say OK)Rolling Stone: The Climate Crisis and the Case for HopePolitical Climate is produced in partnership with the USC Schwarzenegger Institute, and thanks to invaluable support from producer Victoria Simon.Subscribe to the Political Climate podcast via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, Overcast or any of these other services.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring:- James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School- Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring:- James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law School- Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. In 2016, the district court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. After many twists and turns (including unusual mandamus proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court), the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in late 2018. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring: Prof. James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolDamien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 4, 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in a high-profile interlocutory appeal in Juliana v. United States, regarding whether the U.S. Constitution gives rise to cognizable constitutional and federal common law claims against the Executive Branch for actions alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.The Juliana plaintiffs – most of whom were minor children when the suit was filed in 2015 – argue, inter alia, that the federal government has violated their fundamental right to a stable climate grounded in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the government has breached its duty to hold the atmosphere in trust under federal common law principles. In 2016, the district court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. After many twists and turns (including unusual mandamus proceedings in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court), the district court certified the case for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit in late 2018. The federal government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing; that the case is not justiciable in any federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; that the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on the merits upon which relief can be granted.Featuring: Prof. James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolDamien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 1st, 2019, Future Coalition held over one hundred press conferences around the country to raise awareness of the potential landmark case, Juliana v. United States, in which Our Children's Trust is suing the United States federal government on constitutional grounds to provide a stable climate on behalf of youth plaintiffs. Katie Eder, the Executive Director of Future Coalition, joins the show to weigh in on the youth movement, Future Coalition, and gives us the latest on the case. https://futurecoalition.org https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org https://nori.com/podcasts/reversing-climate-change/69-fighting-us-energy-policy-with-the-youth-climate-lawsuitwith-andrea-rogers-of-our-childrens-trust

A lawsuit that started years ago, Juliana v. United States, is receiving some attention again.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will meet Tuesday in Portland to hear arguments in the constitutional challenge to climate change policy brought by 21 young people. The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States were assembled by an Oregon lawyer and the lead plaintiff is a University of Oregon student. They argue that because government policy is worsening climate change, it is violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and failing to protect vital public resources. We’ll hear what they’re thinking about the day before the judges meet to consider the case.

The amended complaint of the youth climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, includes a Prayer for Relief stating that “Defendants have violated and are violating Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by substantially causing or contributing to a dangerous concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that, in so doing, Defendants dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required by our nation and Plaintiffs alike.” In other words, the government isn’t just sitting back while climate change happens, they’re implementing an energy policy that actively contributes to the problem. Andrea Rogers is Senior Staff Attorney with Our Children’s Trust, an organization working to elevate the voice of youth in an effort to secure the legal right to a stable climate system. Andrea is a graduate of the Arizona State University School of Law, where she served as co-executive editor of Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science and Technology. Her impressive resume includes roles as In-House Legal Counsel for the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe and Staff Attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center. Andrea’s environmental law practice is dedicated to reducing pollution and fighting climate change.  Today, Andrea joins Ross and Christophe to explain why Juliana v. US qualifies as a constitutional law case, sharing the progress of the case to date and discussing how it provides a framework for decarbonization. She describes the nuances of the government’s duty to protect its citizens and counters the argument that the government didn’t know its energy policy contributed to climate change. Andrea also offers insight around the role of public trust doctrine in Juliana v. US, the court’s ability to influence policy, and the government’s defense in the case. Listen in to understand the role of the judiciary in setting new precedent and learn how you can support Our Children’s Trust in furthering this landmark case.   Resources  Our Children’s Trust Join Juliana No Ordinary Lawsuit Podcast Juliana v. US Professor Mary Wood DeShaney v. Winnebago County Obama at the 2018 Rice University Gala Obergefell v. Hodges Brown v. Board of Education McCleary v. State of Washington DC v. Heller Green New Deal Jimmy Jia on RCC EP057 Jeff Sachs Evolved Energy Research Carbon Removal Newsroom Review RCC on iTunes   Connect with Ross & Christophe Nori Nori on Facebook Nori on Twitter Nori on Medium Nori on YouTube Nori on GitHub Email hello@nori.com Nori White Paper Subscribe on iTunes   Key Takeaways  [1:38] Andrea’s path to reversing climate change Father founder of environmental law ASU for Science and the Law program Wrote litigation manual for 2011 suit On team filed Juliana v. US in 2015 [5:11] The legal flaw of laws passed to protect the environment Prior to passage, file on ‘nuisance grounds’ (judge’s discretion) Laws legalized certain levels of air, water pollution [8:20] Why Juliana v. US qualifies as a constitutional law case Youth born into dangerous climate system Consequences infringe on liberty [10:29] The argument that the government doesn’t have a duty to protect Not obligated to take action to protect Prohibited from authorizing policy that causes harm Duty to protect if place person in position of danger (e.g.: DeShaney) [13:10] The argument that the government didn’t know it was contributing to climate change Control energy systems, future with policy Duty to certain amount of knowledge re: consequences  [15:19] The progress of Juliana v. US to date Judge Ann Aiken found right to stable climate system = attribute of liberty Government moved to dismiss case 12 times (prevent from going to trial) [19:10] The cases that inspire Andrea’s team as precedent Brown v. Board of Education Prison reform litigation McCleary v. State of Washington  [22:50] The role of public trust doctrine in the case of Juliana v. US Government cannot allow substantial impairment of resources Plaintiffs denied access to beaches, crab on Oregon coast Constitutional injury = loss of home + mental health impacts [26:54] Why Our Children’s Trust seeks to hold executive agencies liable Obligated to implement authority in way that doesn’t violate constitutional rights Seeks declaratory + injunctive relief (as opposed to damages) [28:37] Andrea’s insight on the court’s ability to influence policy Cannot dictate how legislative, executive branch implement policy No way to force elimination of fossil fuel subsidies [29:54] The role of the judicial branch in setting new precedents Liberal courts willing to expand notion of individual rights Constitutional traditionalists hesitate to apply discretion in interpreting law  [32:27] How Juliana v. US provides a framework for decarbonization Must show that injuries redressable 21 experts developing pathways to get US off fossil fuels [36:29] The other issues that might use Juliana v. US as precedent Gun violence Institutional reform  [41:18] The role of the Supreme Court Bulwark to protect constitutional rights Expected to change with societal norms [44:18] The government’s argument regarding Juliana v. US Children not harmed differently from anyone else Contest what experts say economically, technically feasible [46:00] The grounds on which Our Children’s Trust might lose their case Standing (youth must show personal injury differs from others) Must prove US energy policy responsible for problem Court must accept role to review executive, legislative actions

With several organizations from the climate movement, Our Children’s Trust hosted an event called “Changing Tactics in the Face of Climate Emergency.” The program’s main event included a roundtable discussion with co-counsel for the Juliana v. United States case, Julia Olson, and climate activist and plaintiff Vic Barrett. They shared the stage with 350.org’s Communications Manager, and the Co-Founder of the Sunrise Movement. In this bonus episode, we offer an edited version of that roundtable discussion.Many thanks to the co-sponsors, the New York Society for Ethical Culture and 350 NYC.Partners: www.350.org, NYC Grassroots Alliance, People's Climate Movement NY, 350 Brooklyn, Climate Psychology Association U.S., www.GreenOwls.org, Zero Hour NYC, Sunrise NYC, and more.No Ordinary Lawsuit offers the inside story of a constitutional lawsuit over the future of the planet. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.#GovernmentKnew #youthvgov #TrialoftheCentury #SeeYouInCourt #climatechange #civilrights #environment #climate #youth #activism #youthactivism #sciencematters #trial #lawsuitFollow the lawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: @youthvgovFor more information visit: noordinarylawsuit.org

3/2/19 Toward a Better Future: Transforming the Climate Crisis 8:45-9am Morning Observance and Poetry "Multiple Choice Test after the Hurricane" by Jackson Neal, Houston Youth Poet Laureate and National Youth Poet Laureate Ambassador "Young Activists Speak Out" Panel Juan Elizondo, 31-year-old from Houston, Texas, Partnerships Coordinator and Instructional Specialist at Furr High School Jayden Foytlin, 15-year-old from Rayne, Louisiana, an indigenous climate activist, and a plaintiff in the case, Juliana v. United States Nadia Nazar, 16-year old from Baltimore, Maryland, Co-Founder, Co-Executive Director, and Art Director of Zero Hour Moderator: Estrella Sainburg, GreenFaith Organizer The people who are the least responsible for climate change are the ones who will be the most impacted long-term. Knowing this, they are taking the lead in making their demands for a livable climate known to the leaders of our cities and countries. This panel will explore what young leaders from different parts of the country are doing to lead us toward a better climate future. Examples include a class action lawsuit against the government, a national youth-led protest march, and joining local advocacy groups and empowering young people to make change. This program was a part of "Toward a Better Future: Transforming the Climate Crisis." The Rothko Chapel and University of St. Thomas hosted a three day symposium exploring the current climate crisis, its impact on vulnerable communities, and mitigation efforts being implemented locally and nationally. Given the global interconnectedness of the climate crisis, the symposium explored how best to move to a zero emission, low carbon economy through the engagement of presenters from religious, Indigenous, public health, energy, government, philanthropic, academic and arts sectors and communities. A central focus was on individual and institutional actions, practices and policies that must be taken to create a more livable and equitable future.

Episode 2: Origin StoriesThis episode reflects on the pivotal moments that helped spark the constitutional case, Juliana v. United States. We talk to a teen from Alaska about his journey to become a plaintiff and to the legal minds that helped to launch this case. Subscribe and stay with us as we continue to tell the story of this landmark lawsuit.#youthvgov #TrialoftheCentury #SeeYouInCourt #climatechange #civilrights #environment #climate #youth #activism #youthactivism #sciencematters #trial #lawsuitFollow the lawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: @youthvgovFor more information visit: noordinarylawsuit.org

Episode 1: Against All OddsThe 21 young plaintiffs in the lawsuit Juliana v. United States say climate change is the greatest threat to their lives. They allege the U.S. government has deprived them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting a fossil fuel-driven energy system it’s known for decades would accelerate the effects of climate change. No Ordinary Lawsuit tells the inside story of this unusual case and the people, arguments and legal strategies behind it. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.Stay tuned for further updates and episodes from the No Ordinary Lawsuit series.#youthvgov #TrialoftheCentury #SeeYouInCourt #climatechange #civilrights #environment #climate #youth #activism #youthactivism #sciencematters #trial #lawsuitFollow the lawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: @youthvgovFor more information visit: noordinarylawsuit.org

Hundreds of Eugene students and community members marched to the federal courthouse on Monday morning to support the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, a landmark class-action lawsuit, after the federal case was put on pause by the U.S. Supreme Court. 21 plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22 are claiming that the federal government’s inaction on climate change has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. The case has been in process for three years and was set to go to trial Monday. Photo: Sarah Northrop Check out more photos from the rally: https://www.dailyemerald.com/multimedia/photos-hundreds-attend-the-eugene-rally-for-juliana-v-united/article_ef3cd156-dbd6-11e8-ae73-5f4c7e857992.html Produced and edited by Ryan Nguyen.

Less than two weeks before its trial date, a landmark constitutional case about climate change skidded to a halt, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 21 young plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States sued the federal government in 2015 claiming that it is knowingly endangering their rights to life, liberty and property by promoting a fossil fuel-driven economy. They hope that the halt is short-lived. Their attorneys and one of the plaintiffs in the case respond to the trial delay in No Ordinary Lawsuit, the inside story of what observers call a Hail Mary pass for the future of the planet.Stay tuned for further updates and episodes from the No Ordinary Lawsuit series.#youthvgov #TrialoftheCentury #SeeYouInCourt #climatechange #civilrights #environment #climate #youth #activism #youthactivism #sciencematters #trial #lawsuit #SCOTUSFollow the lawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: @youthvgovFor more information visit: noordinarylawsuit.org

We start with a discussion of a landmark court ruling out of The Hague ordering the Dutch government to be much more aggressive on its emissions targets, and its implications for Juliana v. United States. Guest host Krystyna Henke gives a 30-minute interview with Rob Burton, “The Greenest Mayor in Canada,” after which Stefan angrily refutes his perspective.

On December 11, a Ninth Circuit panel heard argument in San Francisco in an unusual appellate proceeding that presents the question whether the U.S. Constitution provides judicially enforceable protection to individual citizens against governmental actions that are alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.In June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a rare mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit in Juliana v. United States, a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Juliana plaintiffs claim that the President and other federal government officials have violated their right to a stable climate, which the plaintiffs characterize as a fundamental, unenumerated right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs separately claim, on a public-trust theory, that the federal government has an enforceable obligation to ensure that the atmosphere and other resources are protected from climate change. In November 2016, the district court denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss the complaint. DOJ requested permission for an interlocutory appeal. After the district court denied that request, DOJ filed its mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit. In its petition, DOJ asks the Ninth Circuit to direct the district court to dismiss the Juliana case. DOJ argues that the district court’s decision upholds an “amorphous and sweeping right” as judicially enforceable, and would permit that court “to dictate and manage – indefinitely – all federal policy decisions related to fossil fuels, energy production, alternative energy sources, public lands, and air quality standards.” The plaintiffs respond that their constitutional claim is grounded in established, fundamental rights to life and personal security; property; autonomy; and dignity. They further argue that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is not needed to short-circuit the case. A wide range of non-governmental organizations, plus a group of several dozen law professors, submitted eight proposed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs. Professor Jim May and Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation discuss the oral arguments and potential impacts of the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decision, including possible implications for climate-change litigation pending in other courts. The Ninth Circuit may weigh in on a number of very important questions, including questions about justiciability (Article III standing and the political-question doctrine); the substantive reach of the substantive due-process and public-trust doctrines; and the criteria for granting mandamus relief. Featuring:James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolDamien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On December 11, a Ninth Circuit panel heard argument in San Francisco in an unusual appellate proceeding that presents the question whether the U.S. Constitution provides judicially enforceable protection to individual citizens against governmental actions that are alleged to cause or contribute to climate change.In June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a rare mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit in Juliana v. United States, a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Juliana plaintiffs claim that the President and other federal government officials have violated their right to a stable climate, which the plaintiffs characterize as a fundamental, unenumerated right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiffs separately claim, on a public-trust theory, that the federal government has an enforceable obligation to ensure that the atmosphere and other resources are protected from climate change. In November 2016, the district court denied DOJ’s motion to dismiss the complaint. DOJ requested permission for an interlocutory appeal. After the district court denied that request, DOJ filed its mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit. In its petition, DOJ asks the Ninth Circuit to direct the district court to dismiss the Juliana case. DOJ argues that the district court’s decision upholds an “amorphous and sweeping right” as judicially enforceable, and would permit that court “to dictate and manage – indefinitely – all federal policy decisions related to fossil fuels, energy production, alternative energy sources, public lands, and air quality standards.” The plaintiffs respond that their constitutional claim is grounded in established, fundamental rights to life and personal security; property; autonomy; and dignity. They further argue that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is not needed to short-circuit the case. A wide range of non-governmental organizations, plus a group of several dozen law professors, submitted eight proposed amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs. Professor Jim May and Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation discuss the oral arguments and potential impacts of the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming decision, including possible implications for climate-change litigation pending in other courts. The Ninth Circuit may weigh in on a number of very important questions, including questions about justiciability (Article III standing and the political-question doctrine); the substantive reach of the substantive due-process and public-trust doctrines; and the criteria for granting mandamus relief. Featuring:James R. May, Distinguished Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware Law SchoolDamien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In this episode from the Emerald Podcast Network, news editor Max Thornberry and senior news reporter Andy Field discuss the Trump administration's calls to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a decision to move Juliana v. United States federal trial. Plus: there've been 15 cases of students shoplifting from the Duck Store this term! This episode was produced by Emerson Malone.