On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in a rating climate case submitted by 21 young men against the federal government, and ended its journey for 10 years through the courts.
However, the case has made a plan for many other climate -related lawsuits, which has achieved greater success.
Juliana has argued against the United States that the government has violated the constitutional rights of prosecutors with policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels. However, it was rejected by the United States Appeals Court for the ninth district, where the rulers decreed that the courts were not the right place to address climate change.
“Instead, the impressive case of prosecutors must be presented to the political branches of the government,” Judge Andrew d. Opinion 2020.
Our Children’s Law Fund, Eugene, Ore. The prosecutors, on a final legal maneuver in the case last year, when she asked the Supreme Court to evacuate the stadium ruling and allow Juliana to move forward in a trial in the lower court. This petition was rejected on Monday.
Some observers also considered that it is risky to ask the Supreme Court to consider the appeal, out of concern that the conservative court may use the case to abandon long -term environmental protection.
The case that was named the case was named, Kelissi Cascadi Rose Juliana, who is now 29 years old and teacher in Oregon, is the daughter of environmental advocates and a long -term climate activist. The story of how it came to participate in the lawsuit in the documentary “Youth V. GOV.”
The legal framework for Juliana has since been repeated in many lawsuits and legal procedures throughout the country. Last year, the confidence of our children, which provided many cases, recorded two prominent wins.
The group has reached a settlement in the Mavahin case against the Ministry of Transport in Hawaii, which the state agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas that heats the planet, from the transportation system within 20 years. She won against the Montana case, in which the judge stipulated that the state should consider climate change when agreeing to fossil fuel projects. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in December.
The prosecutor whose case was called, Ricky, 23, was raised at a cattle farm in Montana, where she saw the traces of climate change directly, which led to her decision to participate in the lawsuit. She is now a scientific teacher in Kenya through the Peace Corps.
On Monday, she said that the Juliana case paved the way for her. “Juliana, through the fixed dedication of the plaintiffs and her legal team, left an indelible sign of the scene of the climate litigation,” she said.
Julia Olson, the founder of our children’s fund, called on the Biden administration to discuss a settlement in the Juliana case, noting expressions of support from legislators and academics. On Monday, Juliana “ignited a legal movement.”
However, the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the court was not the correct preparation to address climate change, because the judge was unable to order or impose a “practical treatment” of the problem.
Some experts have raised concerns about the organization’s strategy in the Supreme Court, noting that the majority of the conservative court in the case would take Juliana as a way to review the legal precedent that is subject to environmental protection.
“Be careful of what you require from this court,” said Patrick Peronto, an expert on environmental law in the state of Vermont and the College of Graduate Studies in an interview last year. “If you want to answer this question, you may not like the answer you will get.”
But he added that he still revives the efforts of the youth and their lawyers.
Ms. Olson said that environmental protection advocates should not be ashamed of the courts. She said: “If we do not appear and do not make claims forward, and we do not shed light on injustice, then the other forces will always prevail.”
adxpro.online