Washington judge throws out children’s climate change lawsuit
A judge in Washington state on Tuesday dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed against the state by a group of child activists.
King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott ruled in favor of the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Aji P. v. State of Washington. The 13 young activists in the suit argue that the state is violating their constitutional rights through actions that cause climate change.
Judge Scott ruled that issues brought up in the case are political questions that cannot be resolved by a court, and must be addressed by Congress and the president.
Attorneys representing the children said they would make a formal statement on the judge’s decision on Wednesday morning. An initial statement by Our Children’s Trust, the group representing the children, suggested Judge Scott erred in his decision.
“Given the significance of the Court’s decision and the pronounced departures from proper judicial procedure and consideration of Plaintiffs’ claims, Our Children’s Trust will issue a formal statement regarding the decision tomorrow,” the initial statement read.
The child plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they were both “saddened” and heartbroken” by the judge’s decision.
Full story at the Washington Examiner
This follows the other big dismissal that overzealous climate change activists recently had in California court. That’s going to set a legal precedent.
Here’s the “formal statement” from the “Our Children’s Trust” website:
Washington Court Places Washington’s Fossil Fuel Use Above the Constitutional Rights of Youth: Formal Statement to Follow
Seattle, Washington — Today, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott granted the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss Aji P. v. State of Washington, the constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 13 young plaintiffs. Given the significance of the Court’s decision and the pronounced departures from proper judicial procedure and consideration of Plaintiffs’ claims, Our Children’s Trust will issue a formal statement regarding the decision tomorrow. The immediate reactions of the Plaintiffs and their attorneys are set forth below.
Kailani, 13-year-old plaintiff from Spokane said:
“I am deeply saddened by the Court’s decision. My rights as a Native American person are being taken away because of climate change. Camas, huckleberries, salmon, and other traditional foods are disappearing and this is because of climate change that the government continues to contribute to. How long are people going to ignore that climate change is a real threat to my life and my culture? It’s very disappointing. The government is not taking the kind of action necessary to protect my rights. This is a fight that we will continue to fight. It’s not going to be easy, but this needs to change.”
Wren, 17-year-old plaintiff from Seattle said:
“As youth on this planet, we are absolutely heartbroken to hear that the judge in this ruling has decided to dismiss our case. In his ruling Judge Michael R. Scott decided that we do not have individual fundamental rights to a clean environment because this right is simply a “desirable objective” even though the legislature has already said we have this right. As plaintiffs on this case we believe that the ability to grow up and raise healthy families of our own on this planet is not simply desirable, but rather crucial to the prosperity of humanity on Earth. This summer alone, increasingly dangerous wildfires throughout the United States have destroyed communities and families, polluted and clouded our air, and taken human lives. I haven’t been able to leave the house without my inhaler this week because wildfire smoke has settled in Seattle. This is not the environment I believe any American deserves. What American youth deserve is to have their futures protected in our courts of law.”
James, 17-year-old plaintiff from Taholah said:
“It’s hard to capture the magnitude of the effects of Judge Scott’s decision. Our winters get more and more extreme. Our summers are drier. I miss our clean, crisp and pristine air on days like today when our clouds have a red overlay from wildfire smoke. We had another season without blueback sockeye salmon and our spring chinook is looking grim. This are only going to continue to get worse.”
Kylie, 13-year-old plaintiff from Taholah said:
“I am extremely disappointed with the Court’s decision. We have limited time to turn climate change around and every delay means more harm to me, my family, and my culture. We cannot continue down this path. I am hopeful that the appellate courts will do the right thing and allow this case to go to trial so that our voices can be heard.”
Andrea Rodgers, counsel for plaintiffs and senior staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust said:
“On a day when the sun in Seattle is shrouded in smoke from wildfires, the youth plaintiffs are devastated that Judge Scott declined to give them an opportunity to present their constitutional claims in a court of law. By deferring to the Executive and Legislative branches of government that have affirmatively placed these plaintiffs in harm’s way, without an appropriate legal analysis, the court has unfortunately chosen not to engage to protect the rights of these plaintiffs, to their detriment. The youth intend to continue to pursue the vindication of their constitutional rights before higher courts of law, as they have no other option.”
Andrew Welle, co-counsel for plaintiffs and staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust said:
“Plaintiffs intend to continue the pursuit of their urgent constitutional claims by appealing Judge Scott’s decision to Washington’s appellate courts. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that similar claims against the federal government must advance to the trial stage, affirming that the judiciary has a duty to resolve constitutional claims of this nature. Given the urgency of climate change and the important constitutional issues involved, the political branches of government cannot be immune from liability for the constitutional climate crisis of their own making.”
The youth filed the case because the state of Washington is violating their constitutional rights by perpetuating an energy and transportation system that is dependent upon fossil fuels. The case follows up on historic victories secured by young people in the case of Foster v. Ecology, which ultimately led to the adoption of Washington’s Clean Air Rule. In spite of the Foster court’s 2015 recognition that “the scientific evidence is clear that the current rates of reduction mandated by Washington law cannot achieve GHG reductions necessary to protect our environment and to ensure the survival of an environment in which [Youth] can grow to adulthood safely,” the State of Washington continues to pursue policies that cause dangerous levels of GHG emissions and harm the rights of young people.
The young plaintiffs, who range in age from 8 to 18, are supported by Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit that supports legal actions across the world, including the landmark lawsuit against the United States, Juliana v. United States, that seek science-based action by governments to secure a safe climate and healthy atmosphere for all present and future generations.
Our Children’s Trust is a nonprofit organization, leading a coordinated global human rights and environmental justice campaign to implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans that will return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to below 350 ppm by the year 2100. We elevate the voice of youth, those with most to lose in the climate crisis, to secure the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate on behalf of all present and future generations. www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate slimeballs using kids to advance their bogus, lie-based Cause. It’s the face of evil, folks. Pure evil.
If the climate in that state of Washington is not well suited to their desires then they should move to a state where the climate is more what they want. It is not the responsibility of the state of Washington to provide every resident with what each of them believes in the optimum climate.
Gov Jay Inslee believes it the state’s responsibility, and is intent on taxing us for billions with a “carbon” tax.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The “carbon” tax will have no effect on climate.
These kids need to clean a barn by hand, then watch a Bobcat clean one. Then explain to them such hand work was the rule before we started using fossil fuels, add in you worked hard over twelve hours a day. Somehow if they understood thy proposal is to return to twelve hours hand work a day I think they would have better understanding of how they are being used.
Then teach them how to keep a bobcat running ?
Step one, get a really big dog.
LOL
Hey Dawg … a medium size one can do it too. They will usually climb a tree ‘cept for some of the big toms.!
You drive down the back roads watching the sandy/gravely shoulders for tracks. Seeing one, you let the dogs out (a few of which have radio collars), then you track the signal with a directional antenna if they get out of hearing range. If the game they were chasing and treed were out of hunting season you take a picture and call it a good training day for all involved.
At least that was the way it was explained to me 15-20 years ago, before GPS.
Sometimes you lose a dog, drowned by a raccoon.
After that, when you see one on the road, you aim for it.
dog or raccoon?
Which you think smarty-pants.
I find it very odd that Washington State fought this, considering ALL of the leadership is fully in bed with the “humans are bad” philosophy. Unless, of course, you live in a tent under I5, break into people’s cars to support your drug habit, crap on the sidewalk, refuse services, etc. Then you’re A-OK with them.
Two kids from Tahola…which has a population under 1,000 (and has requested $60M to relocate away from rising seas, lol).
Nobody gives two chits about the plight of Native Americans until liberals trot them out for the occasional environmental issue. Pathetic.
ourchildrenstrust.org have a website which is slick and expensive looking, like a professional company.
Their “team” and ‘board of directors” probably pay themselves a wage.
Someone should sue them for using unpaid child labour to work for their money making cause.
I wonder how many of those kids have ever thrown a line in the water? How many know from first hand experience what the populations of salmon etc have been doing? How many have bothered to actually READ any research about such situations?
Or have ever heard of Russ George.
These kids statements smack of brain washed zombies where the words come out without any understanding of what is being said. How pathetic.
Suffer Snowflakes, and no go live in North Korea where you can practice what you preach and live a truly low carbon footprint lifestyle.
Too bad the children’s education failed to inform them that there is WEATHER in the world.
I’m not impressed with this. Climate has changed a lot over the millennia without regard to what people thought. Also, the judge, legally, can not turn the matter over to the federal government which, by law (Constitution) has no legal authority to deal with the subject. Start with article 1, section 1, and go on from there. There has been no amendment to change it.
The kids need a lesson in history so they wake up to the reality that they have been fed propaganda. Propaganda did NOT end with the second world war. People have been fooled-now we see possibly the grandest propaganda of all time from an outfit that wants to take over the entire planet by stealth.
The UN actually stands for United Nazis.
A victory, but how many millions of dollars did the defendants have to spend defending this facetious claim? How many thousands of executive hours were wasted on a completely unprofitable activity?
It proves the point, yet again. THE PROCESS IS THE PUNISHMENT.
It’s child abuse.
Q: What did Communists use for light before candles?
A: Electricity
This is tantamount to child abuse. These poor kids have been lied to so thoroughly, so completely brainwashed, that they actually believe the crap they are spewing.
Like that cartoon ad on UK TV showing a kids dog drowning, and aimed at inculcating kids into the CAGW scare story.
Fortunately that was banned. What hope is there for these poor sods to protect them from this BS?
My rights as a [fill in blank] person are being taken away because of [insert here]. “As [fill in blank] on this planet, we are absolutely heartbroken to hear that [insert here]. What [fill in blank] deserve is [fill in blank].” Someone should create a grievance generator app.
Isn’t this the Hansen tribe?
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/board-of-directors/
One director is a licnsed clinical social worker. Should have her licence revoked for this child abuse.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Childrens-Crusade
History repeating itself? When religion and reason go head to head!
Religious groups have a tragic history of exploiting young people to advance their dubious aims….
The plaintiffs’ appeal to pity didn’t work? Ah, what a . . . pity.
Little communists … aka useful idiots.
Nothing but indoctrination. Great decision by the judge!!
Now file child abuse and exploitation charges against the adults involved.
Too bad it didn’t go to trial. Can you imagine the destroyed egos of these young lapdogs if there
was a cross examination by a sharp, global arming wise defense attorney that exposed the sheer ignorance inside the no-too-bright heads of these kids?
When does the warm and fuzzy propaganda movie come out?