Trump administration asks Supreme Court to stop teenagers' climate lawsuit

climate change
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

WASHINGTON—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.

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.


Explore further

October trial set for US kids' climate change lawsuit

©2018 Bloomberg News
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Citation: Trump administration asks Supreme Court to stop teenagers' climate lawsuit (2018, October 19) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-10-trump-administration-supreme-court-teenagers.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
191 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 19, 2018
Among other things, to demand legal action to stop a development because of what it, frankly, might result in in the future can be called questionable at best. Something may not result in a bad development. Something might produce bad and good results, with the good outweighing the bad. Something good now might turn bad later and that could put in question the entire process of bringing suit like this.
Also, the sense and competency of those bringing suit. The law tends to view askance lawsuits by those who can't easily write their own name, for fear it will cause a disruption in the life of another basically innocent. Too, the witless, in great numbers, can bring about a bad result. Face it, most "children and teenagers" can't even find America on a map and what they have been "taught" is Democratic Rackets propaganda. They don't know chemtrails, not "fossil fuels", are changing the weather. This becomes a political tool.

Oct 20, 2018
The Supreme Court should think very carefully where they want to stand on the issue of climate change.

They have allowed special interests to corrupt the USA political system through their choices on Citizens United which has resulted in a good portion of the chaos we see today both nationally and internationally.

In the case of anthropogenic climate change, these will be decisions that affect the word on a scale that no past court members have had to deal with during their tenure. If they (and others in positions of power across the world) get this one wrong, the damage to civilization as we know it will be beyond anything they can imagine.

Oct 20, 2018
The case the children are bringing is valid, no government has done enough to address the issue and this inaction will harm the people the government is responsible for. The Obama administration has attempted to do something, this is now being dismantled by the current administration. Such backwards and forwards on this issue will not do.

To be absolutely clear, the above is no longer a case of "might cause damage" in the colloquial sense. It is a case of "will likely cause damage" in the scientific sense which in colloquial terms is more or less a certainty.

Oct 20, 2018
Whether or not there is noticeable, substantial or extreme damage depends entirely on the what our civilization decides to do now.

Just 18 - 40 years from now, we may be at a point where the choice is only between extreme or catastrophic damage and beyond the 40 year mark at our current emissions level, lies a potential dead zone that could be out of our general control. The latter dead zone is what is currently under the "might happen" category.

Oct 20, 2018
Soon, Republicans will be shot on site - executed in the streets - for the crime of Treason against their own nation and mankind.


Oct 20, 2018
V4 your hatred of everything that the US stands for is frightening. You and your ignorant anarchist friends never learn from history.

Oct 20, 2018
Yup, climate science will never run out of "Tipping Points"! As each one fails to materialize a new one appears just like magic. The so called science is so flawed that they do not even have enough temperature stations in rural areas to gather data that does not need to be "Adjusted"! In fact the data adjustments have changed historical records in order to make the past look cooler.

Oct 21, 2018
MR166 Attempting to question that data will not change the validity of the issue, it holds true across many points of logical scrutiny and with multiple basic data sets. Some independent of one another. It's possible to show how substantial our emissions are with only the atmospheric mass and our annual emissions. There is no doubt in the validity of this issue so I suggest you take a closer look.

But you are right on one point, as we move forward, new components will likely be discovered and further "tipping points" will be reached as natural protective mechanisms give way. These will not be predominantly positive when it comes to the consequences of the issue at hand.

The developments seem exponential in nature with cumulative damages as we move forward over the coming decades. It seems likely that once the "noticeable" effects are reached as they have been, that the rate of climate stability degradation will become far easier to observe even for the average person.

Oct 21, 2018
@MR. #denying only bolsters the court case.

Oct 21, 2018
They are using the "Now-now, unruly children" defense. What could mere children possibly know that adults do not? Maybe it's how not to value money more than the future of the planet.

Oct 21, 2018
They are basing Trillions of costs on something they cannot even measure properly and claiming that normal weather events have never occurred before today. Meanwhile Al Gore has become a climate billionaire by taking advantage of the gullible.

Oct 21, 2018
Mankind, the Harbinger of DOOOM

And in the America's
Did the justice of the land
A land that has survived
4billion years and half
In the vacuum of space
That is occupying a space of age
15billions in its vacuum
That the justice of this land
That is one quarter age of the vacuum
Judge calamity most dire will befall this land
If the justices judge that mankind
Is not the harbinger of doom
Our dear darlings, our offspring
Make out so to be

Oct 21, 2018
Yep "The Witless" pawns of Fuehrer Putin's machinations brought about the senile buffoon trumpenella to sit. rotting in the White House.

Bye the bye. What ever happened to "And the children shall lead them."?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more