Commentary from Jonathan Adler (The Volokh Conspiracy)
Adler wrote about the case last June.
This afternoon, Judge Aiken on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon revived Juliana v. United States, aka the “Kids Climate Case,” by granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, some two years after the motion was filed.
This is a remarkable order because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously ordered the case dismissed due to a lack of standing. The original Ninth Circuit panel ruling was in January 2020, and the court denied en banc rehearing in February 2021. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend in March 2021, which was opposed by the Department of Justice on the grounds that “the mandate rule requires [the district] court to dismiss the case.” Despite the DOJ’s opposition, the district court further ordered a settlement conference, and whatever jurisdiction the district court may have retained over the case should have expired when the plaintiffs failed to petition for certiorari.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/01/district-court-judge-revives-kids-climate-case/
Adlers article quotes the judge’s reasoning and it’s worth a read, however Adler concludes, emphasis mine:
The Ninth Circuit’s initial decision dismissing the Juliana case was likely the best outcome the plaintiffs could have hoped for, as it avoided substantive Supreme Court intervention (after the justices had indicated their concern about the case). By reviving the case, Judge Aiken is tempting fate—and risking a broader legal judgment that could preclude a broader array of climate-related suits.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/01/district-court-judge-revives-kids-climate-case/
My take is that Judge Aiken is tempting the Supreme Court to smack down a whole array of Climate legal theories if the case makes it that far.
Expect breathless coverage congratulating them on their Climate Case and taking it to the man.
Virtue signaling by a judge?
Or maybe the judge wants to cut to the chase on all this fossil fuel stuff. She may believe that this is a way of forcing the elimination of fossil fuels from the economy. I suspect, however, that if the data is given a fair hearing in the courts, the data will win.
If that is the case, and this forces a wider array of cases to become adjudicated by the Supreme Court in favor of climate realism, it could turn around and feast upon her posterior
Seems her name is apropos, Ann L. Aiken.
2024 will be The Year Of Parasite.
Jurist activism. I don’t understand how minors can be granted standing to redress something that has not caused them an injury or loss. First off, it is their parents that should be asking for standing for the speculated harm their children may experience in the future. Secondly, the parents should be required show the harm or loss is inevitable and how much it is worth.
I can speculate that at sometime in my life I will suffer a loss from one of the 8 million illegal immigrants allowed into the country. Does that mean I should be granted standing to ask for compensation before the event takes place?
One of the parents is James Hansen.
I speculate that putting too many kids in school for too long doing (trying to do) too many abstract task will “schoolize” them, that is, make them moronic followers of what passes for the authority. (Like a trained ferocious animal lifting his paws when asked.)
Making them more susceptible to
So I call on judge to cut back on time in schools and on learning stuff (learning “scientific facts”, not practical skills).
Above all, I’m uneasy with the idea of doing a lot of “science” teaching to all kids. That is, teaching results of science, not practice of science.
I think it drives ignorance in the end.
CO2 is plant food.
25,000 people starve to death every day.
Can the parents of those dead children bring suit against the climate activist morons that are preventing atmospheric CO2 from reaching the optimal levels for the growth of cereal grains?
As an attorney, I have never seen or heard of such a thing. Should be easy to appeal and have the 9th smack the trial court down again.
I simply cannot understand what Judge Aiken is playing at. Even she must realise that this will go nowhere – the flaws in the case are still blatantly obvious, have not been addressed and will kill the case every time it is brought up. Pretty soon any higher court will dismiss with prejudice and block it from going before the courts ever again. Is this what she wants? A ruling that finishes it off once and for all but made by someone else rather than leave it in her hands? Is she just trying to dodge a bullet?
Perhaps she is simply Aiken to get shot down for the Ninth Time
She needs one of my Alma Mater’s most popular coffee mugs. I am a graduate of what is now called “The University of North Texas,” or UNT for short…..enjoy a cup of coffee, judge.
I rarely downvote anything but… come on.
That’s inappropriate and abusive.
??
Never mind
Where is the lightbulb emoji?
So you think my school’s name abbreviation and the most popular mug in the Student Union Book and Souvenir Shop are inappropriate and abusive? No hard feelings.
Yes, inappropriate and abusive because you are calling Judge Aiken an extemely offensive vulgarity, which, incidentally could get you fined or tossed in jail if you used it in her court, directed at her. A coffee mug popular for its accidental (now purposeful) use of a vulgarity is different from applying it to a person, which you did.
I disagree with her rulings on this case, but I don’t call her names.
Abusive (yes);
Appropriate (absolutely).
(and you know how, when the remnant coffee drys up and leaves a bit of a residual crust … the representative gift cup should be delivered to her that way)
I upvoted you because apparently someone doesn’t have a sense of humor, even if a little off-color (I hope that’s not a racist comment).
No, it is sexist. Go back and look at the picture. But, yes, liberals do seem to be humor impaired. And, they expect everyone else to act as though they are too.
Sigh, He was referring to the “off-color” comment as being potentially racist.
Passingly funny but extremely vulgar and misogynistic. Try that term on any of the women you know and see how they respond. It’s possible to criticize and passionately disagree without getting personal and ugly.
From the Dec 30 bit:
I’d throw out the case on that one-word assertion alone. Governments subsidize companies providing some kind of significant necessity where the companies would otherwise go bankrupt without infusions of cash until they get back on their feet, cut costs, reorganize, etc. The fossil fuel industry is routinely accused by the enviro-left of making excess profits, (which some say should be taken away to subsidize government-endorsed ‘clean energy’ operations) thus by default, they’re not eligible for government subsidies.
The plaintiffs just didn’thave a clear game plan as when to switch to ‘sue&settle’, from simply ‘sue’.
Aiken is a pice of crap and is willing to give both sides do-over with respect to the settle portion of the typical scam.
They don’t want to proceed with the case, they will just want collude with respect to fees, ‘official govt statements’, or even something of actual (perceived) use as precident.
Again, Aiken is a piece of crap (and her kids are parasites with interest). If she was in charge of the Hunter case she would have likely and knowlingly signed off on the initial deal.
(my disclaimer, my guesses)
Dr. Santer highlighted the need to educate the judiciary recently-
Ben Santer: 2023 Schneider Award Winner | Climate One
“Ben Santer: So I’ve interacted with the court system, for about the last two years or so, with federal judges, with judges here in California, with judges in Korea, as part of a bilateral U. S. Korean meeting. And it’s important. I think the courts need to understand best practices for introducing this complex scientific evidence in a court of law. But there are also forces of unreason out there who don’t want this to happen. They don’t want scientists to educate judges. And that’s where many of these specious open records requests have been coming from recently, from folks who don’t want scientists communicating with the court.”
“Climate Alarmist, Ben Santer: And it’s important. I think the courts need to understand best practices for introducing this complex scientific evidence in a court of law.”
Best Alarmist Climate Change practices = Speculation, Assumptions and Unsubstantiated Assertions.
They don’t have one shred of evidence that CO2 is doing anything to Earth’s weather or is the cause of extreme weather. Nothing. So Ben wants to explain to the judge how to look at the situation and see the “evidence” he sees.
The Climate Alarmists include CONfidence levels as part of their “evidence”. It’s all a con.
Can a judge figure out the difference between a CONfidence level and an actual established fact? I think an unbiased judge could do so. I would love to see that topic debated in a court room.
But it would have to be a judge that had not already pre-judged the situation in favor of climate alarmism. Otherwise, they will see what they want/expect to see, just like the climate change alarmists do.
Here’s a clue for clueless judges: A CONfidence level is a guess. A guess. It is speculation. It is not an established fact.
So if the climate alarmist plantiff starts citing CONfidence levels as evidence for anything, the judge should interrupt and say, “Just the facts, please.”
Earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada allowed a similar claim to proceed. Apparently, some judges think that the constitutions of Canada and the U.S. might obligate the governments of those countries to enact and maintain legislation to protect people from climate harms. Notice the underlying claim in the Juliana case, like the Canadian case, alleges that simply approving or allowing fossil fuel use is unlawful. If claims of that kind are justiciable, the judiciary becomes the legislature, because it can then decide what laws the governments must have to appropriately protect their citizens from the claimed climate harms. That’s dangerous territory in my opinion.
The Juliana v United States tried to get a ruling that it was unconstitutional rather than just unlawful which might have sidestepped the legislature entirely. Without the help of a compliant or complicit judge, these cases should have zero chance to do anything.
Wouldn’t simply apply to Climate Harms but could be applied to Any Perceived Harms.
Conservatism Harms Socialism…Conservatism is Illegal
Conservative Speech=Hate Speech…Conservative Speech is Illegal
Speaking freely against Democrat Politicians causes Presidential Verbal Diarrhea. Free Speech is Illegal
Which is one of the reasons it was stopped before – it was too broad in its implications.
In France, we had a “centrist” Prime who lowered the speed on many roads from 90 to 80 km/h. Drivers were unhappy and many locally elected politicians protested and were given the option to raise it back.
A (now deceased) lawyer promised to fight in the court for force 80 km/h.
And now the administrative courts are opposing the move to raise speed back.
The courts made themselves the authority on the extremely complex subject of “accidentologie“.
Don’t knock it. The devolved Welsh government (Senedd) passed a law in 2022 making the default speed limit on restricted roads 20mph, roughly about 32kmh. They have opposed any attempts to stop it and will be enforcing it on most roads (motorways excepted) across Wales.
Defendants should immediately file a restraining order against the judge and all the Plaintiffs and any future plaintiffs who join the case or who provide public or private support for the Plaintiffs lifetime barring them from entering any properties owned by or providing products and services offered by the Defendants or purchasing any such products and services….lawyers can wordsmith to make it proper.
But the defendant is the United States. That would deprive them of many citizen’s rights.
The Plaintiff is the loons bringing this suit, so THEY are the ones who would have to revert to a stone age existence and would be prohibited from use of anything associated with hydrocarbons or their byproducts.
It’s NOT me doing it, it’s the “future generation” in me!
I see it as just another case in the genre. ( Of absurd legal theory that I believe has been struck down many times in the past ) I had radical liberal professors in college that were famous for “pondering” cases such as this. Where would it end if allowed. What if the Supreme Court were to ever be populated by justices like .. oh I better not go there.
By my count we have two; and several teetering on the edge.
Climate loons are expecting every case to go their way. It is total war on civilization.
When they have corrupted every institution in the country, including the judiciary, they may get their wish.
If they got their way and precedent was set; ultimately we would just be suing ourselves into oblivion for ever and ever. The legal equivalent of the circular firing squad.
From the article: “it is the proper and peculiar province of the courts to impartially find facts”
In the case of human-caused climate change, there are no facts to verify, Judge. What we have instead is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about human-caused climate change that are not backed up by any facts.
A competent judge should be able to distinguish between the facts and speculation, assumptions and assertions. After all, that is the job of a judge.
If this judge, or any judge were to delve into the human-caused climate change situation impartially, it would be easy to tell that the plantiffs really have no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, and there is no evidence of any harm caused by CO2 anywhere in the world. Any claims of such are pure speculation.
But, I suspect this judge is not impartial. Just reviving the lawsuit demonstrates this.
Only slightly off topic:
It is hard these days to read any genre of fiction where the writer does NOT assume that a climate crisis exists and that previous generations are at fault, even if it is completely tangential to the story.
Kids are lionized for being aware of the actual “facts”.
Yes, the brainwashing has gone deep in society.
There’s a lot of “assuming” going on out there. Among the general public and among alarmist climate change scientists.