A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed a case in which 21 young people asked the courts to demand federal government action on global warming. The panel did not deny the importance and urgency of taking measures to curb global warming, but rather concluded, with reluctance, that the claims were not redressable by the courts.
It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses, wrote Josephine Staton, the dissenting judge. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation. The courts, she implied, would not throw up their hands in the asteroid situationwhy, then, should the climate crisis be different? Given the urgency of the climate crisis, Statons analogy suggested, the majoritys argument that it is not our place to do something loses force.
The two judges in the majority were sympathetic to the young plaintiffs. They found that climate change was a crisis demanding immediate action and that the plaintiffs had demonstrated concrete injuries from climate change, injuries that arguably violated constitutional rights. They found that numerous federal policies, including actively encouraging and incentivizing industry use of fossil fuels, were substantial factors in the young peoples demonstrated injuries. They found that the young litigants had successfully demonstrated being harmedand being at risk of risk of further harmby human-caused climate change made worse by such governmental policies.
But the majority halted the case on the grounds that the policy decisions required to redress the harms of the young people were too complex and involved for the courts, and that it was properly the domain of the other branches to address such issues. On such grounds, they shifted the decision to the executive and legislative branches: the very branches responsible for the harmful policies in question.
Certainly the courts cannot solve the climate crisis by fiat, but neither was this the request. And complexity, as the dissenting judge observed, does not disqualify the courts from hearing cases otherwise suitable for judicial consideration. Brown v. Board, for example, ordered the racial desegregation of every U.S. public school, not balking at the fact that the particularities of doing so would be massively complicated. Though the court system cannot solve climate change by itself, a judgement finding that the government is engaging in unconstitutional behavior and ordering it into compliance could still be significant. Even limited moves such as ordering that the government cease to encourage the use of fossil fuels would constitute an important forward step.
The more central issues in the case, however, concern the magnitude of the harms and the urgency with which the harms would have to be redressed. Neither issue involves factual controversies: all three judges fully accepted the scientific consensus that great and irreparable harm will be wrought upon animals and their habitatsincluding humans and their cities and settlementsin the next 30 years. Nor did they deny that we are quickly approaching a point of no return, after which environmental degradation will be so severe that the worst effects of the climate crisis will be somewhere between very difficult and impossible to overcome.
An essential question of the case is when the court should, in the face of inaction by the other two branches, take matters into its own hands. Absent exceeding urgency, it may seem imperative for the courts to step back and urge the young litigants to call their members of Congress and perhaps even support alternative candidates in future election cycles, even if this means that the correction of wrongs may take a regrettably long period of time (91 years, for example, the timespan between the Emancipation Proclamation and the decision in Brown v. Board, as the dissenting judge noted). The two-judge majority echoed this reasoning, writing that the plaintiffs case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box, thereby declining to provide a judicial redress regarding the climate crisis for the young litigants, who will endure the effects of climate change more so than the more aged jurists on the bench.
Given the hostility the current administration and Congress have displayed toward matters of climate change, the suggestion that voters implore their legislators to take reparative steps regarding climate change is not reassuring. Many of the young plaintiffs will not even be able to vote in the next several national elections, so some of them would have to wait at least another two administrations to be able to address their demands for action to the legislative and executive branches. Besides, an essential aspect of the case is that the political branches have failed to act, thereby necessitating judicial intervention.
If the climate crisis were less urgent, the young litigants might have the time to wait for the political process to correct its own wrongs. But by 2028 human civilization will have passed the point of no return for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And since climate change works on timescales that exceed two-year election cycles, action is needed now (or better yet, yesterday), not later.
Herein lies an important distinction between this case and Brown v. Board. The 91 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and Brown were exemplative not of laudable judicial restraint but of the momentum of oppression. The injustice, however, could still be rectified 91 years later. School integration came late, but not never. We are not in a situation today to wait 91 years. Here more than ever, justice delayed may truly be justice irrevocably denied.
The fact that the litigants are not adults, and thus not voters, motivates another line of argument not included in the courts opinion or the dissent: an important function of the courts is to address the concerns of persons whose interests are not prioritized by the politicians of the day. While elected officials are not motivated to concern themselves with the worries of non-enfranchised persons, judges are uniquely positioned to ensure the rights of non-voters are observed, including the right to a livable habitat that is implicit in the fundamental right to life invoked in both the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment.
The argument that the courts cannot intervene in a normally political question even though the entire climate is at stake does not hold water to the rising sea levels, polluted air, decreased biodiversity, deadlier and more frequent natural disasters and other consequences of human-caused climate change. However slow-moving the climate crisis may seem on a day-to-day basis, its urgency means it would be a dereliction of judicial duty for the courts to stay silent.
Whether or not the young litigants will age in a livable habitat is not merely a political question but also a question of fundamental rights. Politics regards groups of people deciding together what to do and how to live. Courts abrogate their responsibility when they pretend their work does not implicate political affairs. The urgency of the climate crisis, coupled with the inaction of the political branches, justifies judicial intervention. As Judge Staton concluded her dissent: determining when a court must step in to protect fundamental rights is not an exact science. In this case, my colleagues say the time is never; I say it is now. We concur with her judgement.
See the original post here:
The climate crisis and the limitations of the courts - The Stanford Daily
- Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- 5th Amendment - Revolutionary War and Beyond - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- HST 330 fifth amendment presentation - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Police not sure if Sioux City murder suspect invoked 5th Amendment rights - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Christie Ally Samson Refuses to Give Documents to Lawmakers - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House votes to hold ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House holds Lois Lerner in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Articles about Fifth Amendment - Los Angeles Times - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Former PA Chairman Samson Pleads Fifth - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- GOP-led House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- No plans to arrest Lois Lerner, John Boehner says - May 13th, 2014 [May 13th, 2014]
- Im not going to testify: Witness pleads Fifth Amendment during Bangor triple murder trial - May 13th, 2014 [May 13th, 2014]
- Attorney: Defense told Corso will take Fifth - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Spokane County workers use Fifth Amendment in back-dating case - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST - May 22nd, 2014 [May 22nd, 2014]
- Shawn Vestal: County permit clerical mishap raises eyebrows - Fri, 23 May 2014 PST - May 23rd, 2014 [May 23rd, 2014]
- Sexual abuse measure could lead to wrongful convictions, attorneys say - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- 5th Amendment - Laws.com - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Wildstein takes the 5th - Video - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ... - September 2nd, 2014 [September 2nd, 2014]
- New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders - September 3rd, 2014 [September 3rd, 2014]
- Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies - Video - September 4th, 2014 [September 4th, 2014]
- Kansas Supreme Court: Grand jury violated man's Fifth Amendment rights - September 6th, 2014 [September 6th, 2014]
- Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon Petitions United States Supreme Court to Review Tenth Circuits Decision in Case of the IRP6 - September 9th, 2014 [September 9th, 2014]
- Texas man's conviction overturned because of Fifth Amendment violation - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Cop Says 'You Must Be Doing Something Wrong if You Invoke Your Rights' (Video) - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Public be damned Litchfield latest example - September 14th, 2014 [September 14th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: What the posse comitatus case might mean for the future of the exclusionary rule - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment - Video - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- The Fifth Amendment Eminent Domain - Video - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- Apple And Google Will Force A Legal Battle Over The Privacy Of Your Passcode - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Civics- The Fifth Amendment (Sarah Hutchinson) - Video - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Google and Apple Wont Unlock Your Phone, But a Court Can Make You Do It - September 22nd, 2014 [September 22nd, 2014]
- GOP fumes over Lerner remarks - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- Assistant to DeKalb CEO Ellis invokes 5th Amendment 30 times - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- GOP fumes as Lois Lerner talks to press but snubs Congress - September 24th, 2014 [September 24th, 2014]
- Cry us a river, Lois Lerner - September 24th, 2014 [September 24th, 2014]
- Can You Go to Jail for Refusing to Testify? - September 25th, 2014 [September 25th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment Projectb - Video - September 25th, 2014 [September 25th, 2014]
- The Commander Cody Band - Take The Fifth Amendment - 8/5/1977 - Convention Hall (Official) - Video - September 27th, 2014 [September 27th, 2014]
- Joey Gallo Takes The Fifth Amendment - Video - September 29th, 2014 [September 29th, 2014]
- Batavia High School teacher John Dryden retires from school district - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Batavia High School teacher John Dryden retires - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- The Fifth Amendment Please Don't Leave Me Now - Video - October 6th, 2014 [October 6th, 2014]
- Man Denied Fifth Amendment While In Court Wearing Anti-Police Shirt, Still Won His Case (Video) - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Batavia teacher previously involved in Fifth Amendment dispute retires - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- INFORMUCATE: THE FIFTH AMENDMENT - Video - October 8th, 2014 [October 8th, 2014]
- Fairholme Funds Appeals Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Verdict - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Code cases: Police want phone access, but some pass - October 12th, 2014 [October 12th, 2014]
- Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2 - Video - October 12th, 2014 [October 12th, 2014]
- Property Rights | Century Law Group - Video - October 20th, 2014 [October 20th, 2014]
- Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing - October 21st, 2014 [October 21st, 2014]
- Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- Detective dodges questions about allegations made during rape investigation - October 25th, 2014 [October 25th, 2014]
- Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date - Video - October 27th, 2014 [October 27th, 2014]
- Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required To Unlock Phone With Fingerprint - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Virginia Court: LEOs Can Force You To Provide Fingerprint To Unlock Your Phone - November 1st, 2014 [November 1st, 2014]
- Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent - Video - November 1st, 2014 [November 1st, 2014]
- Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment - Video - November 2nd, 2014 [November 2nd, 2014]
- All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video - November 2nd, 2014 [November 2nd, 2014]
- Log into Tax-News+ - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Editorial: Applying the Fifth Amendment in the era of smartphones - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment and smart phones - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Fingerprints: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment. - Video - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- New ruling may affect police access to smartphones - Video - November 6th, 2014 [November 6th, 2014]
- Why the Constitution Can Protect Passwords But Not Fingerprint Scans - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment ... - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- Is taking the fifth amendment a bad idea? - Video - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- IT Security TV Show 4 November 2014 - iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- the fifth amendment happy parody project song for connections - Video - November 8th, 2014 [November 8th, 2014]
- 13-year-olds murder conviction overturned - November 11th, 2014 [November 11th, 2014]
- Your Fifth Amendment Rights DO NOT Cover Biometrics - Video - November 11th, 2014 [November 11th, 2014]
- Philadelphia charter school officials pleaded Fifth 77 times - November 12th, 2014 [November 12th, 2014]