Downloaded from YTS.MX
Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX
Hello, my name is Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh
I'm six years old.
And I just said a prayer in my native language.
I was giving thanks to all the elements:
the water, the fire, the earth, the air.
Avery backpack
Yeah, there's Avery in her backpack.
Who's that? There's your sister.
Oh… Kelsey do you like being a big sister?
You do? Yeah…
I mean, I think for a lot of young people right now,
life is really scary,
because we've never seen a moment like this in history.
And our feelings about our life and our future
is all because of choices that we had no participation in.
And so the plaintiffs joined this case
because we all know who's to blame
and what needs to be done.
Our children will come of age
in the 21st century.
What kind of society, what kind of world
are we building for them?
It has fallen to us to begin the hard,
but necessary task, of building a better future
for our children.
We owe the generations of the future
the safekeeping of America's
precious environmental inheritance.
President Theodore Roosevelt
defined our great central task
as leaving this land even a better land for our descendants
than it is for us.
Our government could have done
something about climate change over 50 years ago,
but prioritized profits over the health and life
of our own children and their children's children.
Generations will know
if we kept our faith
and kept our word.
And when our children's children
look us in the eye
and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer,
more stable world,
I want us to be able to say, "Yes, we did."
Governments actions are inconsistent
with our most deeply held moral values.
Just as my family's farm is threatened by climate change,
so too are the very stability and vitality of our country.
Twenty one young people ages 11 to 22 are suing
the federal government.
Of all the cases working their way
through the federal court system,
none is more interesting or potentially more life-changing
than Juliana vs. the United States.
No justice, no peace.
Hey, Oliver.
How are you?
Twenty-one young Americans are arguing
that they have a right to a safe climate.
So, what's your argument here?
Why are you saying that the U.S. government should be sued?
So us 21 young people are suing
the U.S. federal government
for taking direct action to put our future
disproportionately at risk
by subsidizing fossil fuels,
perpetuating the global climate crisis.
Yes, at least my favorite tree survived.
Ever since I was a tiny little toddler,
I've been climbing on this tree.
And every time I've slipped or fallen,
I've landed on one of her branches.
I think it's because she acknowledges that I'm here.
We're not asking for money.
We're asking for the government to make a steady plan
of how we can stop climate change.
Our constitutional right to life, liberty, and
property has been violated.
And we feel that young people should be able
to bring this knowledge to the court
and really put it in front of them.
You know, I have ten binders full of authorities and cases,
and I pulled out all the key cases
from last time around.
They're in here and then these are new cases.
You ever have that feeling where you wake up in the morning,
and before you even have a single thought, you're anxious?
Rock and roll.
We are going down to the office
to do the first moot court, talking with everyone
about the best way to present the arguments.
Practice, practice court.
Okay…
Good morning, your honor.
May it please the court
I'm Julia Olson on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Your honor, this case is about government-imposed danger
and harm that shocks the conscience.
Just last week, defendant President Obama
said to the New York Times
that the reports he gets from his top science advisor
on climate change are "terrifying."
Given those concessions,
the question in this case is whether defendant's conduct
contributed to that monumental threat,
and if it rises to the level of a constitutional violation.
The plaintiffs who have brought this case forward
have such a personal stake in its outcome
that they are the most effective advocates
to bring these critical and timely constitutional questions
to the court.
14-year-old Jayden Foytlin in Rayne, Louisiana
woke to flood water and sewage pouring into her home.
18-year-old Nathan Baring in Fairbanks, Alaska
sees his hometown slowly melting with each warming winter.
And 17-year-old Jamie Butler,
from the Navajo Reservation in Arizona, faces drought.
Never before has a government taken actions
that they knew would destroy the planet
and are doing it very effectively.
Liberty and justice cannot exist if we have
a destabilized climate system.
The question for the court to decide
is whether young people have constitutional rights
to a climate that sustains life,
and ultimately find a solution and a remedy
that will force the federal government
to address climate change.
We first filed the case
against the Obama administration.
The trade associations for the fossil fuel industry
decided that they wanted to intervene in our case.
They felt that the Obama administration was not going
to protect their interests.
And so they filed motions to dismiss trying to get
the case thrown out.
Judge Coffin recommended rejecting
all of the defendants' arguments
and to fully deny the motions to dismiss.
In his ruling Judge Thomas Coffin wrote,
"the failure to regulate the emissions
has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions
to the public health."
I was like, "Oh my God."
Yeah, no, I was like screaming, I was flipping out.
Judge Coffin ruled in our favor.
He ruled in the favor of the young people
rather than with big money and the government.
The fossil fuel industry
didn't accept his ruling, and so they appealed
to the District Court Judge Ann Aiken.
If we can convince Judge Aiken
that our claims are properly brought,
we are confident that she will allow the case to go forward.
So Tuesday is incredibly important.
The 21 plaintiffs are coming out
from all around the country
and we'll be ready to rock it on Tuesday.
I'm here for a court case against climate change.
What are you gonna wear?
My bow tie that strangles me, and my long pants
that are way too wide,
and my shirt that is way too tight in the armpits.
Action!
Alright, we are out here
in front of the plaintiff's house,
and we're about to consume some pizza and some Pepsi.
First we have to go down to the gas station.
Yes, we do have to go down to the gas station.
Oh, oh, there's Tia, there's Hazel.
We're gonna start just by doing a real quick
reminders about tomorrow.
You've all heard it before.
So cell phones have to be off in the courtroom.
You're all gonna look sharp, I know,
'cause you looked awesome last time.
Can we bring any other pieces of paper
or information into the room?
Yes.
Okay, so if we got really bored,
we could stuff some math homework into our pockets and do it on the--
You can totally do math.
If you're bored to tears, please do math.
We're in a really good place right now.
We overcame the first huge hurdle last March
and April with Judge Coffin's decision.
The government is really sort of on the defense right now.
And so that's a really good position for us to be in.
And, you know, she may ask me really hard questions tomorrow.
-That's her job. -No, she will.
She will ask me really hard questions tomorrow.
And that's okay, and we're gonna be ready.
Alright, so you got some music for me?
You wanna do it, Aji?
Yeah, you guys take it.
Okay, okay, okay.
Go, go, go.
I was lucky to be working with youth from around the country
and bringing climate cases through Our Children's Trust
for about five years before we filed this case.
So we're using these stories to really get the message out there,
in addition to doing the legal work.
And from our connections to young people
around the country, we started getting names
of young people, who wanted to be a part of this case
against the United States government.
And Xiuhtezcatl Martinez was one of the first plaintiffs.
I grew up in the Aztec tradition,
learning that all life is sacred
and that all life needed to be protected.
And Kelsey Juliana.
I'm Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana. I'll be 16 in two weeks.
I live in Eugene, Oregon.
And I'm me.
Kelsey was the oldest.
She was like a big sister to everybody.
And so she humbly accepted
the first named plaintiff position.
All of the plaintiffs are part of this case,
because we as individuals, we're feeling the effects
of climate change and we wanted to do something.
Born into a world where everything that I am
is slipping into the sea.
My minister at my church, he told my mom
and she asked me if I would like to do it.
And I said, "Sure," because I love the environment.
A handful of the kids I taught summer camp to years ago.
I think that it's important that you stand up
and show the government that we have a voice
and we can change the world.
I'd reached out to Kiran.
Alex reached out to Jacob.
And then word spread.
We come from all corners of the United States,
from really different backgrounds, different cultures,
all working together on this.
And that's a really amazing feeling.
It's kind of nice, because I'm an only child,
to have other siblings
that care about all the same things that I do.
We can lean on each other.
It's like we're in this together, we understand.
One more bag of the kids'.
We must stand with the 21 kids
demanding government action
That's who?
That is Leo DiCaprio.
Are you sure that's him?
Let me see here, he has 15.9 million followers.
It's probably the same one.
That was nice.
It's been posted for ten minutes.
There's already people at the courthouse right now.
There's people standing outside.
Alright, here we go.
So these are your buddies in there, right?
-Yeah. -Yeah.
Good morning, Your Honor, may it please the court.
I'm Julia Olson, counsel for plaintiffs.
I want to begin with Jayden's story,
because it is illustrative of the injuries in fact
in this case.
Plaintiff Jayden is 13 years old.
She resides in Rayne, Louisiana.
In paragraph 87 of our complaint,
we allege that Jayden was threatened
with increased storm events and floods
that are created by the federal defendants' actions.
We are following this developing news
in the Gulf.
Millions of people on the coast,
they are preparing for a hurricane that is expected
to trigger life-threatening floods,
perhaps worse than we've seen in seven decades.
August 2016.
I hate that night.
My sister knocked on my door, while I was sleeping.
"It's flooding. Hurry up and get out of your room."
"We need help, blah, blah, blah."
"It's coming from your room."
And when I got out, I stepped into the water,
and it was up to about where my jeans are.
It was up to here.
It was really bad, and we didn't know what to do.
My mom was helping flood victims in different towns
because we didn't think that was gonna get here.
It's a pool in here Jayden.
We just got a whole bunch of blankets,
pillowcases, towels, wash rags.
We just got everything we could to soak up the water.
But of course, nothing could soak up that water.
Your honor, Jayden was living
through what has been measured
as a 1000-year-storm event.
Only these 500- and 1000-year-storm events
are not coming every 500 and 1000 years anymore.
We are preparing for hurricane Matthew.
I am very freaked out, it's my first hurricane.
Tonight, deadly Hurricane Matthew pummeling
the Central Florida coastline.
Power lines exploding and breaking under the wind,
leaving more than one million without power.
Hurricane Matthew hit Jacksonville head on.
And they've destroyed it.
And it's just so terrifying.
This case is about
government-imposed harm that rises
to the level of infringement of these plaintiffs'
inalienable constitutional rights.
We're seeing the very worst smoke
that we have ever seen out here,
since we started the farm 17 years ago.
All the animals are just outside in the smoke.
I've been getting headaches.
According to the Oregon Climate Assessment,
fire seasons in the Pacific Northwest
used to be about 23 days back in the 1970s.
And now they're around 120 days.
The Navajo really live off the land.
But because of the drought over a hundred horses died.
You have to get rid of the livestock.
And if this drought gets any worse,
I'm afraid that our way of life will dissolve.
These plaintiffs have their inalienable rights
to their personal security, to life,
to liberties, to property.
They are entitled to have this case heard on the merits.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
How did it go in there guys?
It was a hearing. No other comment.
The United States Federal Government
and the biggest coalition of fossil fuels in the world
may have just sat feet away from me
and tried to deny their responsibility for climate change.
And we will not allow multi-billion dollar
industries to silence our voices.
We will not allow the federal government to silence our voices.
We will continue to stand in our courts
to ensure a healthy, just, sustainable planet
for our generation and those to follow. Thank you.
I think I've always looked at this case as like,
wow you know, this is democracy in action.
That even if our president ignores us,
even if our Congress works directly against us
we still have the courts,
and we'll still seek justice that way.
My name is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana.
That's a pretty name.
And I was born in the forest,
and my mom and dad got married in the forest.
-Really? -Mm-hmm.
Tim's my papa and Catia is my mom.
Back in early 1990s, my parents met
helping to protect and defend old growth forest.
Some of the last actually in our entire nation.
And they were just absolute firecrackers.
There was a time when there was a liquidation
of the ancient forest.
It's being destroyed, by an out of control government.
It was a swirl of actions and energy.
No justice, no peace.
And we were able to get it protected permanently.
It was barely two weeks after we both graduated,
and all of a sudden we got the happy news
that we're gonna have a kid.
She was born in a little one-room cabin
in Fall Creek, Oregon.
There's Kelsey's role model.
I think there's a part of her that still feels
really connected to the cabin and Cascadia.
I grew up snowshoeing in the winter
and snow camping
But year after year, it's just getting
more increased severity droughts.
I mean this is February and this place would normally be
in quite a bit of snow.
You know, knowing that my kids might only know snow
through motion pictures.
That's very challenging to overcome.
We are threatened from wildfires and we get crises
in our agriculture because of the extreme drought
and I'm scared shitless for my future.
But then, I remember my parents
rising up over profits
and greed and illegal activity from our government.
And they inspire me every single day.
When opportunities arose,
she just said, "Like, I wanna do that."
You know, I always call her the "Yes Girl."
And as a parent, I did have a little bit of concern.
I just wanna make sure she was full on.
And that was coming from her impulse. And it was.
So she really took the leadership
and we just support her the best we can.
I saw my self-image from the history
that I knew of activism.
And I always pictured myself right along with them.
Like, in all black and hiking boots and in the long braid
with a megaphone in front of some sort of timber machine.
"Don't cut down these trees."
"I speak for the Earth."
And it's going to be as this one girl revolution.
You know, that was only ten years ago.
And now we're talking about defending our homes
and our food system and our culture.
It's gonna take a lot more than one girl with a megaphone.
It's cold.
I have a hood.
Like an old lady.
See what I just did for my ears.
What I want the government to do is,
I want them to kind of take us seriously
whenever we say, "My house is flooded or there's a drought."
And I want them to like care for their people.
Being an indigenous person, our environment
is something that's been part of our culture for years
and something that we've been protecting for years.
And I have a real deep love for all of the Gulf Coast
and the people who live there.
I don't have kids yet, but when I do have kids
I want to be able to come down here
and for them to see what it was like
when I was growing up.
The government, they still continue to
lease out the gulf or drill and frack.
That's just something that's like,
yo, I live here and you know that
the flood in 2016 was caused because of climate change
but y'all still don't do anything about it.
So I want them to take responsibility
and I want them to help Louisiana
and help the United States to get better.
And that's the reason why I'm suing.
I want our actions to tell every child
in every neighborhood, your life matters.
And we are committed to improving your life chances
as committed as we are to working on behalf of our own kids.
And no challenge, no challenge,
poses a greater threat to future generations
than climate change.
At the time we filed the case,
our hope was that the Obama administration
might take it seriously.
He had a lot of great rhetoric
and he understood the climate problem.
And he talked about the need to protect future generations.
He talked the language of our case.
We've subsidized oil companies,
for a century. That's long enough.
It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways
and double down on a clean energy industry
that never has been more promising.
There's great rhetoric.
But the actions do not match the words.
Hello Oklahoma! Under my administration,
America is producing more oil today
than at any time in the last eight years.
Over the last three years,
I've directed my administration to open up millions
of acres for gas and oil exploration
across 23 different states.
Quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high.
We've added enough pipeline to encircle the earth.
And then some.
We are drilling all over the place
He is subsidizing the industry,
permitting all the infrastructure,
opening up federal public lands.
And natural gas and oil production
in the U.S. just skyrocket.
You know that whole - suddenly America is
the biggest oil producer and the biggest ga…
That was me, people. I just want you to…
At the same time that Jayden
and my whole family were getting sick
from the contaminated floodwaters in their home,
President Obama's administration is holding an auction
to lease off more oil and gas drilling in the Gulf.
And so after almost two terms of this,
it became clear that we needed to file this lawsuit.
And if we don't act forcefully,
we'll continue to see…
But ultimately this case is not just
about the Obama administration.
America is addicted to oil.
Instead of following the recommendations
of science and scientists,
every administration just kept doubling down
on fossil fuel development.
And now we're the top oil and gas producer in the world.
They knew what they were doing,
but they still continue to do it for over 50 years.
They continue to violate my rights
and they know that they're violating my rights.
Do they care?
Well, from the looks of it, no, they don't.
Would they ever care?
We're going to make them.
Yeah, this is my room.
I kind of love it.
So here is my animals.
Yeah, I'm kind of obsessed with them.
We had a science fair last year in fifth grade,
and I did how ocean acidification
affects different mollusk shells.
And then this really cute calendar with donkeys.
Oh, Trump is elected.
Yeah, that's what I had to write,
'cause I was really, really sad.
Because he's definitely not gonna help
the climate change problem at all.
So Obama's talking about all of this
with the global warming and a lot of it is a hoax.
It's a hoax.
And by the way, it's supposed to be 70 degrees today.
It's freezing here.
Speaking of global warming. We need some global warming!
Before Trump was elected,
everything that happened that was against the environment,
that was all happening kind of behind closed doors.
People weren't paying as much attention to it.
And now that Trump is elected, it's all out in the open.
Climate denialism doesn't stand a chance in a court of law.
And so it will be very clear,
I think for anybody looking at the evidence,
that a President Trump is going to make decisions
that further endanger these youth plaintiffs,
in violation of their constitutional rights.
We're not gonna see any climate policy.
We're not gonna see climate ever mentioned
by our president, no.
The only shot we have is through the courts.
-Avery and Sahara. -Yeah?
I've got news.
What?
Ready?
"Exercising my reasoned judgment," says Judge Aiken,
"I have no doubt that the right to a climate system
capable of sustaining human life,
is fundamental to a free and ordered society."
The federal judge issued a favorable ruling
in your climate change lawsuit.
You guys are going to full trial.
See you in court government.
Judge Aiken denied the motions to dismiss, which means--
Thank you, Judge Aiken.
You have stood up for our future.
I am speechless right now.
I'm really excited. That's all I have to say.
Just really happy.
We did it.
The federal judge stunned the government
by denying its motion to dismiss the case
and ruling it could proceed to trial.
In what may become a landmark decision,
Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my reasoned judgment,
I have no doubt that the right to a climate system,
capable of sustaining human life, is fundamental
to a free and ordered society.
This action alleges the defendants
have so profoundly damaged our whole planet
that they threatened plaintiffs'
fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.
Just as marriage is the foundation of a family,
a stable climate system is quite literally
the foundation of society.
without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.
This part of the opinion, she recognizes, for the first time,
that there's a fundamental right to a climate system
capable of sustaining life.
And it wouldn't have meant a lot 200 years ago,
because we didn't have the threats
to the climate system we have.
But it matters immensely today,
because we are on the verge
of losing that fundamental right.
I look forward to standing in trial
against the hundreds of oil companies
that have filed against us.
I look forward to standing in court
with all my wonderful fellow plaintiffs.
I love you all.
For me this is proof that there is still good
and there is still justice in our system.
Hello, girl.
Samaaaantha!
Hey, there you are girl.
Easy, easy, easy. Whoa.
I was actually not born in the United States.
I was born in Quebec, Canada.
I moved here with my parents when I was four,
and we gained American citizenship.
Good morning girls.
They chose this place, because we're moderated
by the ocean and we have the mountains.
but we're not protected from droughts.
And we're also not protected from wildfires.
And that's something that could wipe out everything
that we've worked on for the past 15 years.
Growing up doing everything from going out
to feed the chickens and gather eggs,
to going out to pick food in the orchard
and even cooking meals from meat that comes
from our own animals that we raised ourselves.
Food that we've grown in our garden.
Tropical greenhouse.
One of our recent goals had been to grow bananas in Oregon.
And we actually succeeded.
These things are so essential
to life, Liberty, and property.
The ideals that this nation stands for.
The fact that we are bringing this case
and that the judge is moving this forward.
I love that in this country, you have those freedoms,
and that we can fight for our rights.
I mean, that is an amazing thing.
Are you guys ready?
Yeah, we're ready.
Quick update on what's happened
since last time we were on that video call.
The intervener lawyers,
they're asking for a lot of delays and we're saying "no"
to the delays.
You know, delay benefits them, right?
It's delay, delay, delay.
In the next several months, the case is really gonna heat up.
And so they are going to be coming at us.
They may ask you for documents.
And they may start asking people for depositions.
So your involvement is gonna change.
We're present for the videotaped deposition
in the matter of Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al.
plaintiffs vs. the United States of America.
Will, the court reporter, please swear in the witness.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give in the cause now pending
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
-I do. -I do.
Yes ma'am.
Let's jump into the declaration.
Oooh…double-sided.
Could you explain the relationship
between not enough snowfall
and the water level in the Mackenzie?
Have you studied the level of this particular aquifer?
Could you quantify what the likelihood
that the Marshall Islands will be underwater
in the near future?
Objection calls for expert testimony.
Can we agree, though,
that no doctor has told you
that your asthma is getting worse because of climate change?
They have told me that because of the smoke,
my asthma will get worse.
And my asthma is not getting any better
due to the wildfires, which is caused by climate change.
You haven't done any scientific research
into how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.
No, I have not performed
any scientific experiments myself.
Is there a different type
of climate change that is not caused by defendants?
Have you measured the snow pack?
No, that's not my job.
And so I'm wondering
if you've gone back and measured
the rest of human civilization when what exactly
the climate was like at various points in time?
Objection-- vague,
ambiguous, nonsensical.
I have not gone back and measured personally, but yeah.
So let's assume that
the United States no longer permitted
and authorized all fossil fuel emissions, what would happen?
That's such a speculative question.
I don't know how I could possibly answer that.
Do you know if defendants in this case
are denying that climate change is happening?
I know that the President has tweeted
that climate change is a hoax made up by the Chinese.
Would the winters be colder?
I don't know whether they'd be colder than today.
-I can't answer that. -Okay.
But they will be much, much warmer
if you keep doing what you're doing now.
what actions has the government taken
to enhance climate change?
Overwhelmingly supporting the industries
that are most responsible for emitting
these fossil fuel emissions that have created
our climate crisis.
When is the land in Manhattan threatened?
There'll be noticeable changes by 2050.
What is your basis for that understanding?
NOAA predictions as to how high sea level rise will be
by that time.
And I'd like to note for the record
that the questions of counsel
for defendants have been repetitive and redundant.
They've often asked questions that are questions
for experts, wasting both our time and your time,
that does border on harassment of the witnesses.
Okay, I think that's it.
Thank you. No questions.
We're off the record at47.
Thank you so much.
Congratulations to the Class of 2017.
Graduation, yup, I'm graduating high school today.
I'm not in high school anymore.
That's cool.
I'm happy that my dad is here.
He doesn't really believe in climate change.
We both grew up in the Upstate, in rural
predominantly white conservative areas.
Obviously we just responded to it differently.
Why is it that you have to go to government
to get your rights
for something that they have no control over?
Because they do have control.
The United States government actively takes action
that allows fossil fuel development in our country.
That is the reason that our carbon emissions are so high.
And that's why we so heavily contribute
to the global climate crisis.
I wish the urgency was explained a little better,
because it's almost like Little Chicken's running around,
"The sky is falling." And no one would believe her.
Someone builds their house in a flood zone
and it hasn't flooded for the past 50 years,
and all of a sudden it floods, is it
someone else's responsibility?
But you're literally trying to like rationalize
the displacement of millions of people.
I'm not rationalizing.
I'm just saying that there can be a catastrophe.
There can be anything that could happen to you.
But this is not something that just happened.
This is something that's being perpetuated
and something that can be stopped.
That's the difference.
You may be incredulous about my opinion
about some of these things,
but trying to influence me is going to be a test,
because for the next period of time with Trump
in the White House and conservatives
or whatever in control of a lot of things,
you're gonna have to convince them too.
And that's gonna be an undertaking.
The test for us continuing in the case is a test
around a legal doctrine called "Standing."
Based on injury, causation, and redressability.
Our evidence clearly established that the plaintiffs
have been injured.
But now the government wants to bore down,
in essence challenging whether or not
our plaintiffs' harm was caused by the federal defendants.
And so we really need to go out and determine
what did the government know,
when did it know it, and what did it do about it?
We found an expert by the name of Mike MacCracken,
who was the key climate scientists for decades.
For our complaint, documents that would be
most helpful to us would be ones from U.S. policy makers,
admitting that they had the knowledge
and yet they caused the damage, enhanced the danger
by continuing to permit the extraction of fossil fuels.
Oh dear.
There, see.
So I've got lots of potential documents.
This is great.
Wow.
So this whole shelf, pretty much
is National Academy of Science reports.
Oh, excellent.
Okay, and these are the official communications
from the United States to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change.
Carbon Dioxide Research Conference.
Well, I have two of these.
You know, aquatic resources, agriculture.
I mean, there's all these different reports.
They just knew all this was happening.
I mean, that's when they started editing climate reports.
This is-- Nicky was also involved in--
Technology policy, yeah, Nicky.
A friend of mine, Mike MacCracken, asked me
if I was willing to share some information
with the attorneys.
And I brought up just four of dozens of boxes
that I have downstairs.
And what do you have?
Climate Change Policies and Regulations.
Roughly from 1982 to 1990,
I worked for the Congressional Office
of Technology Assessment-- Congress' think tank.
And in the mid 80s, OTA started a study on climate change.
And I worked on that report.
There were documents that I had requested
or that were given to me.
Or that I picked up in a congressional hearing and so on.
Oh yes, yes, yes.
I've been working on it for 40 years.
So it goes back to the 1970s.
How could this be?
How could she have this much stuff?
And this is before the internet.
So a lot of this stuff isn't really available
in any other form, other than paper.
In every one of these boxes is evidence of the government's
longstanding knowledge of climate danger.
I need a staff.
We started exchanging the names of experts
to testify in court.
Jim Hansen has always been sort of one assessment round
ahead of everybody.
Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's--
The government's best known scientist
was called before the Senate subcommittee on Science today.
He said, he'd been ordered to…
Jim Hansen, he was one of the foremost scientists
and he sounded alarm bells in the 80s.
And he kept at it.
This evidence represents a very strong case
and that the greenhouse effect has been detected
and it is changing our climate now.
I met Gus Speth.
He was the head of CEQ during the Carter administration,
when the knowledge was deeply embedded in government.
It's hard for me to imagine
a more serious environmental issue.
So far, we have 20 experts,
and tens of thousands of pages of evidence
documenting all the relationships
between government and the fossil fuel industry.
'Cause we have Hansen saying
that they were concealing the dangers to the public.
That's in his expert report.
We have facts that they knew
that children were more vulnerable.
And then they did an opposite
of what a reasonable person would do
when the CDC tells you you have a crisis,
you wouldn't just sit there and say, "I don't care."
We may be able to win this thing.
It's gonna take us a good year to get to trial
with all of the discovery we have to do
and the evidence we need to accumulate
and get ready to present to the court.
We just wanna uncover as much as we can.
Paragraph 150, that's too important.
That's key.
We have evidence going back to the 50s
that both government and the fossil fuel industry knew
that if they continue to burn fossil fuels,
that it would melt the ice sheets, cause sea level rise,
it would intensify storms and hurricanes,
and cause catastrophic impacts.
So in the 60s the scientists are really starting
to send alarm bells off to government.
And what's amazing is how much they knew
and how much danger they were projecting.
They had the information we needed to invest
in these alternative technologies.
And Nixon was all about the electric vehicle.
Within four years,
the emissions from automobiles,
which pollute the environment, will be reduced by 90%.
At the time, we could have been on a totally
different pathway.
But then the oil crisis hits…
It has common in many states
in the East. Cars have been lining up before dawn,
…which was an opportunity to invest
in alternative energy sources.
This is when Gus Speth is the head of CEQ.
I'd had a chance to brief Carter.
It was just the two of us sitting in the room.
And I issued several major reports on what could be done
to change the trajectory of the country.
There is no longer any question that solar energy
is both feasible and also cost-effective.
Carter starts off great.
He puts solar panels on the White House and he says
we can have 2.5 million solar homes by 1985.
He's talking about mass transit and insulating homes
and all these alternative technologies.
But then he decides that really what we need to do
is develop the nation's coal resources
as a way to respond to the oil crisis.
I am asking for the most massive peace-time commitment
of funds and resources in our nation's history.
Increased reliance on coal is a crucial part of
the Carter Administration Energy Program.
There's this federal coal leasing program.
They open offshore lands for more drilling.
And those partnerships between government
and the fossil fuel industry start to really develop.
By the time we're in the Reagan administration,
that relationship is firmly sealed.
This nation is energy rich,
but we've got environmentalist,
who wouldn't let you build a house unless it looked
like a bird's nest and they must be restrained.
Inefficient and burdensome regulations.
The environmental protection agency
has gone to an extreme.
Reagan basically took a flame-thrower
to all the solar and renewable programs.
And there was an explosion of fossil fuel development.
You see this massive increase in US fossil fuel emissions.
Experts from within the industry and within government
really start freaking out.
Scientists like Jim Hansen were saying,
"We have to act now."
Over and over. "We have to act now."
Droughts will intensify at low and middle latitudes
as the greenhouse warming proceeds.
I was standing in the back of the room
when Hansen testified
I would like to draw three…
That was really a critical moment.
Number one, this evidence represents
a very strong case in my opinion,
that the greenhouse effect has been detected
and it is changing our climate now.
That information constituted a threat
to the fossil fuel industry.
And it turns out that there was pressure
to water down his testimony.
I told chairman Al Gore
that my testimony had been changed by the White House.
The last paragraph in that section was not a paragraph
which I wrote that was added to my testimony.
In essence, it says that I believe
that all the scientific conclusions that I just
discussed are not reliable.
And I certainly don't agree with that.
The federal science establishment was under attack.
Doctor, are you worried about retaliation?
The Reagan administration begins an era
of people working behind the scenes
trying to ignore and suppress the science.
And it continued throughout the Bush administration.
When George Herbert Walker Bush was campaigning,
he made a great speech.
Those who think we're powerless to do anything
about this greenhouse effect are forgetting
about the White House effect.
Meanwhile, more or less unnoticed was this team
in the White House.
His chief of staff, John Sununu,
and his science advisor, Allan Bromley.
They were discrediting science and scientists,
all for the almighty dollar.
George Bush had pledged to be
an environmental president.
But reportedly prodded by Chief of Staff John Sununu,
President Bush is backing off.
We're gonna sign the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
The federal government was forced, in a way,
to embrace the fossil fuel industry as a partner.
I believe that this act opens a new era
in which government acts not as the master,
but as a partner and a servant.
When Clinton came into office, there was a sense
that this was going to be a big opportunity
to make some real progress on climate change.
The United States has
less than 5% of the world's people,
but emits more than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases.
Heat waves, floods, and storms are but a hint
of what future generations may endure,
if we do not act now.
In the end, they perpetuated all the programs
that support fossil fuel development.
All the permitting programs, the leasing programs,
it all continued in the Clinton years.
And going on up through the George W. Bush administration.
Our nation must produce more oil.
And we must start now.
We should expand oil production by tapping into
the extraordinary potential of oil shale.
Expand and enhance our refining capacity,
increasing access to the outer continental shelf,
permitting exploration
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR.
The Bush administration installed what I would call
"gatekeepers," who systematically downplayed and censored
anything having to do with climate change.
A lobbyists for ExxonMobil wrote a memo
that recommended the Bush administration get rid of people
in the National Climate Assessment.
I mean, he actually identified them by name.
This whole period is a history
of good advice, ignored.
It was worse than neglect.
It was affirmative action that created the problem.
It was the effort of the federal government
to define energy policy in a way
that prioritized fossil development.
All the transportation and pipelines
and other systems that were needed.
It was a federal government subsidization,
even to this day of fossil fuel use.
Every administration.
No matter what they were saying about the climate issue
behind the scenes, it was all fossil.
Louisiana would be so pretty, but there's stuff like that
that's changing it for me and the people that live here.
They don't care for Louisiana.
They don't care about the people that live here.
They're not doing this for a brighter future
and they're not doing it so we can have the energy
they're doing it for money.
You know, we're bound by this
fossil fuel energy system.
We're locked into it.
Just like these kids are locked into the climate system.
So we gotta finish getting ready to leave.
Anything that you feel is of value
has got to be at least--
Ten inches off the ground?
Yeah.
Hurricane Irma is a massive Category 5 hurricane.
And this is the second time that there has been
a mandatory evacuation in one year.
Levi, can you go get the water pitcher?
I'm gonna need it to filter fresh water.
Lots of utility people.
Now we can open up our shutters.
My bedroom's fine. Don't judge it.
This is my shelf.
This is my all-time favorite place to go
when I was scared, because there was the hurricane.
I came up here, and this is where I felt safe.
Because I knew if it flooded that it couldn't wreck
anything here and everything.
So, I knew that I could trust this area right here.
Crap! This is new.
It's very frightening and disturbing
to see this giant tree down
in one of my best friend's yard.
I've lived with the hurricanes my whole entire life.
And even though it's reality, it's really scary.
All of our traditions and everything is based here.
And a lot of our origin stories are from here.
We can't just leave, because it's just too sacred for us.
It's all been a matter of choices,
and our feelings of despair and dread and anxiety
is all because of choices that we had no participation in.
Everything could have changed.
Like really before I was born. I was born in '71.
I think 1971 will be known as the year of action
for the future generations of America.
The history of this whole period has got to be
the saddest story ever told.
This huge failure to rise to the moment,
I think it's the greatest dereliction
of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic.
When I look back over that period of time,
I think in some sense, I've failed
to do really, to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish.
I'm very gratified that somebody
can make use of my documents.
This is why we need trial,
because the story has to come out.
And government can come in and make their case if they want.
But a judge needs to hear from both sides.
Because if it's as bad as we think it is,
and all the evidence we have indicates,
it's the biggest crime against humanity ever.
And it's a constitutional violation by any standard.
Yeah.
As soon as they realized this case
was not gonna be dismissed.
And it was looking like we were headed toward
a speedy trial,
the fossil fuel companies realized
that our legal team would be able to get at
the fossil fuel companies' internal documents.
Those documents would show the extent of the knowledge
and the coverup on the part of the fossil fuel companies.
So they requested to leave the case.
It's a big victory.
Because the point of this case is holding accountable
the US government.
So the status report,
we're getting three more requests
for production of documents out.
We're waiting for their response.
How do you want us to handle it, because--
Julia, I have no problem pushing back on it.
We sent this to them how many days ago?
Twenty.
So I've been practicing for 40 years
and I've never seen anything like the procedural shenanigans
the Department of Justice put us through
to keep this case from going to trial.
There were numerous writs filed with the Ninth Circuit.
Two petitions filed with the Supreme Court.
And any attorney will tell you that that's extraordinary.
They file a writ of mandamus saying
that the federal government is gonna be damaged
if the Department of Justice has to try this case.
Well, that's what lawyers at the Department of Justice
do for a living.
They try cases.
So the Ninth Circuit has decided
that it's going to have a hearing to determine
whether or not the case can move forward.
They can't demonstrate
that climate change is not happening. They're not gonna be able to prove
that they don't have a substantial role in it.
And, I think it's gonna be very hard
for them to put on a factual defense in this case,
which is why they want to avoid it.
All rise.
The United States Court of Appeals is now in session.
You may be seated.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen
Mr. Grant, you ready to proceed?
Your Honors, discovery is burdensome.
There are document requests that go back to 1965.
There are scheduled to be depositions
of eight cabinet agencies.
But we don't have a court order here.
We don't have any dispute about discovery,
except you say that it's burdensome.
So why does that justify mandamus?
Well, your Honor, again that's not the only burden.
After that will come a bifurcated trial.
A trial that the plaintiffs themselves
trumpet to the world will be the "trial of the century,"
and the clearly meritless character of the claims asserted
I think add up to the really extraordinary case
that justifies mandamus.
Your Honors, we know of no federal court ever dismissing
a constitutional case on the grounds of mandamus.
It would be extraordinary and unprecedented
for the court to do so here.
Particularly in light of the court--
There there's no precedent whatsoever.
The constitutional rights to avoid global warming?
Let me turn to that actually,
because the defendants here concede large portions
of the factual allegations in the case,
including the fact that climate change
poses a monumental threat to public health and safety
and that's…
You never answered my questions.
Well, your honor… taking that…
I think that's saying basically
there was no claim at all.
What the complaint alleges is that the federal defendants
collectively, and through the fossil fuel energy system,
are affirmatively depriving these young people
of their rights to life, liberty, and property.
But no different than anybody else.
Children are disproportionately experiencing
the impacts of climate change and will going forward.
In addition, your Honor, they will live far longer than you.
So the significance of the harm,
the monumental threat that these injuries pose
to these plaintiffs is very distinguishable
from the rest of the country.
We simply ask that the court send it back
to the District Court so that these young people
can go to trial and present their historical
and scientific evidence and make their case.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you both for your arguments today.
The case just heard will be submitted for decision
and we will be in recess for the morning.
Three, two.
What's up? I'm Gabby Wilson for MTV News.
And I'm here in Washington, DC with Alex Losnak.
How are you doing, man?
Good, good, it's nice weather.
I thought it'd we more like House of Cards or something,
but it's a nice day here.
What are you doing in DC this weekend and this week?
Yeah, so I'm one of a group of young people
who are suing the Trump administration
for the right to a livable climate.
And our group is here marching in the March for Science
and The People's Climate March.
We're taking our message directly to politicians,
people in power here in DC.
Okay, smile.
Alright, my favorite footnote at the bottom…
Smile.
To have our day in court,
to have our opportunity to testify,
you gotta stand up for our lawsuit,
for our voices, for our rights, and for our future.
Keeping hope alive is I think one of the most important things you gotta do.
-What do we want? -Climate justice.
-When do we want it? -Now!
I feel so happy to be here with my fellow plaintiffs.
I love these people, these people are my family.
It's extremely important for us young people
to stand up to our government
where the adults are doing nothing.
Levi, you look like a happy camper today,
so I have to believe…
The federal government has very knowingly and willfully
funded this climate crisis
and the way that they are continuing
to stall and delay our climate case
shows you exactly their priorities.
Climate science will get its day in court,
where facts are facts
and where alternative facts are perjury.
A lot of young people are ready for change.
I mean, our voices have been systemically disempowered
since the day that we're born.
But the way that I see is we're
one of the most powerful forces on the planet right now,
we gotta use that.
My name is Aji Piper.
I'm 18 years old and one of the 21 young Americans
who filed the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit,
Juliana v. The United States.
Mr. Piper, how would you respond
to this current administration's omissions
and outright denial of science?
Thank you for the question, and I sued them.
Sorry, on a less humorous note and a more serious note.
The government is taking actions that are directly
contributing to the destruction of our planet.
It is actively abusing the trust
of its most vulnerable citizens.
Like youth who have come before us
in the civil rights movement
and other social justice movements.
it is often the young among us that shine the light
on systems of injustice.
-Hello everybody! Good morning. -Good morning.
This lawsuit is so important, because when you get to court
spin and industry nonsense can be cross-examined.
When you get to court, conflicts of interest can be exposed.
When you get to court, facts matter.
The green generation standing behind me is going to win.
These are the people, who are leading the charge
for our next generation.
Thank you all so much.
I was in this lawsuit when it started--
Any time you try to do something big
and ambitious through the courts,
the odds are likely that it's not gonna work out.
But every once in a while, it does.
It's not an accident that Brown v. Board of Education,
which is the great moment of success
in the litigation campaign for Black civil rights,
happens in 1954.
You feel it's worth it going through this?
Yes, I do.
It's not because the constitution changed,
it's because the constitution requires equal protection of the laws.
And different people at different times
have different intuitions about what the common sense
of that means.
I ask no favor for my sex.
All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet
off our necks.
I say I think you marrying who you want to
is a right that no man should have anything to do with.
Success in the courts sometimes depends on
the relationship between the case
and the larger political movements in society.
Separate but equal would no longer
be the law of the land.
The United States Supreme Court struck down laws
banning interracial marriage.
Speaking to you from the steps of the Supreme Court.
There is a right to marriage equality,
read just from the bench.
Legalizing same sex marriage across the land.
The constitution is the repository
of the deepest values
and highest ideals of the American people.
The arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends towards justice.
But the deepest values and highest aspirations
of the American people change over time.
What will you tell your children about responsibility
if you fail to act now in the face of crisis?
You have a choice.
Will you deprive your children and young people
across the country of their fundamental right to liberty
or will you fight to protect us
and our nation for posterity?
My community and my future,
and that of my generation, is at stake.
This is the moment for heroism,
for standing with children around our country,
standing with me.
Thank you so much.
I mean, I guess you could look at it like
it's a hopeful sign,
like the tides are turning, you know?
This is the scene in the movie where, you know,
everything is sort of…
It's a turning point.
We had their eight experts, our 18 experts,
and the 21 youth plaintiffs all needing to be deposed.
We did close to 50 depositions in 60 days.
My team was all over the country.
I was frequently in three cities in one week.
The government finally under the court order had to disclose
their exhibit list.
And they told us they would have maybe 70 documents.
Turns out they had 1600 documents and about 80,000 pages.
And when you're preparing for argument,
you have to be ready to answer any question
about anything that's in front of them.
It's fine on knowledge.
The final challenge for us continuing in the case
is for the judge to determine if the courts can redress
or fix the injury to the plaintiffs.
One of the kinds of remedies that federal courts
are sometimes authorized to provide
is called "declaratory relief."
That's a fancy way of saying the court can say who's right
and who's entitled to what
without actually ordering that anything specific be done.
Declaratory relief can matter,
because a statement from a court that says,
"Hey this is happening.
It's life-threatening,
it's Republic threatening."
Is the sort of thing that people will pay attention to.
The court will then take the various
scientific evidence
and set fossil fuel emissions targets,
and require the federal government to develop
and implement a plan to hit those targets
in order to save the climate
for not only these young plaintiffs, but future generations.
The Supreme Court has blocked an unprecedented
climate change lawsuit in Oregon.
The trial was supposed to start,
but the case is now back in limbo.
The Supreme court will now have to decide
if the lawsuit can move forward.
Twenty-one young people,
ages 11 to 22, are suing the federal government.
Today's the day we've been scheduled
to go to trial for months.
But at the very last minute, the federal government
files a petition with the Supreme Court
to stop the case.
And so as a result, trial could not start
until the Supreme Court issued a further order.
We're here because this was supposed to be the start
of everything we've been working towards.
And it's not.
Courtroom One of our federal courthouse
is sitting empty right now.
Instead of being full of life,
with the lights on and justice being heard, it's dark.
So this case that should have had opening statements
today is a case of born of love and compassion
and equality and justice
against a political system that has deprived them,
not only of their voice,
but is depriving them of their equal rights under the law,
of safety in their homes, of their health,
of their schools that are being flooded.
And Levi, where are you?
Levi was so upset when his deposition was canceled,
because our government says
that if we don't stop this problem of fossil fuel pollution,
his island will be underwater in his lifetime.
And that is why the Supreme Court
of the United States cannot stop this case
against our government, so that they may stand trial
for the deprivations to these young people and their future.
Sometimes I feel like being a plaintiff
in this lawsuit.
It's very frustrating.
But I've never felt like quitting.
I always felt like I know what I'm doing is right.
I remember like a year after I joined the case,
some people supported me and some people would even
be like, "Oh, thank you."
But there were still a lot of people that were like,
"Oh if you're against the oil companies, you're against me."
I told my best friend that I was part of the case.
And she was actually very proud.
But her mom wasn't very supportive of what I was doing.
We all know it's about the fact that I'm going against
oil companies and the fact that I am against climate change.
And so she cut off all connections between me
and my best friend.
Yeah, I lost Madison, but I also gained Aji and Jamie
and Avery and Sahara and Isaac and Miko.
So I don't really mind losing Madison.
If I lose all of them, it would be like ten times worse.
'Cause they're the ones that fill me with comfort.
I have something to say.
This past week for me has been kind of difficult
just because I've been very frustrated and kind of sad.
There is a decent chance that because of
these latest developments, this case may never go to trial.
I always trying to think about the worst case scenario,
which in some cases it makes me feel a little bit better
at times, is that even if the worst does come to pass,
we can be the foundations for a lot of other legal cases.
And more importantly, we can show
how the current system is broken and the possible ways
it can be improved. It can be a beacon of hope to others.
We're out of options. We're out of choices.
We're out of time, we're out of places to look
and excuses to make.
We're out of, you know fingers to point and people to blame.
That's gone.
This planet isn't gonna support life anymore.
People don't get that.
My friends don't get that.
I feel like much of my family doesn't get that.
I feel like most of the world doesn't get that.
The US government says natural disasters
are worsening because of climate change.
The National Climate Assessment, compiled
by 13 federal agencies, was released Friday.
Scientists say by the end of the century,
the US could be up to 12 degrees warmer.
Experts say that we have until 2030 to avoid catastrophe.
Have you read the climate report yet?
Yeah, I don't believe it.
-You don't believe it? -No, no, I don't believe it.
We have people keeping track of every action
that the Trump administration is taking to double down
on fossil fuel energy and pull back on climate protections.
And so every time they take a new action,
it's more evidence to just prove up
the constitutional violation.
We have a system of checks and balances
with three branches of government.
If Congress or the Presidency, or both, are controlled
by people who are going to act oppressively in some way,
the court is supposed to be able to say,
"No, you can't do that."
So our next move is to file a motion to expedite
the appeal, saying that the case should move forward,
particularly given the urgency of climate change.
Youth are taking to the streets.
There's climate strike marches all over the headlines.
Youth and climate.
We're not willing to wait around
for someone else's timeline to dictate
the trajectory of our lives.
And whether we win the lawsuit or not,
we are already making ripples in the world
to show real change can come from young people
standing up for what they believe in.
Levi, come on.
It's time to get up.
-No. -Yes.
You have to get up.
You have pants on?
Okay, get out of bed please.
That's not right.
I look like a demon.
I know how to do it theoretically.
Yeah, it seems like everyone's pretty darn fatigued at this point.
Yeah, it's like we're all at the same place.
We're all tired of waiting.
Just like tensions definitely seem a bit high,
like across the board.
Okay, we give you all the complaints.
What's the time check?
46.
Do we have all our legal team?
You know, I think about what's at stake,
and it feels overwhelming.
We've always had important hearings
that have ramifications for our case,
but I think if I let it be as big as it actually is,
it's just gonna stress me out
more than I need to be stressed.
This hopefully is the last hearing before trial
and not the last hearing altogether.
But whatever happens, we've accomplished a lot.
And what else is there to do, but to go forward.
The reason I've been doing this from day one
the reason I still do it today,
is because I really do fundamentally believe
that climate change is the biggest issue of our time.
And if young people aren't doing something to stop it
it's not gonna be stopped.
And if it's not stopped, our existences in the future…
I don't even know what they'll look like,
but I don't think I wanna see it.
Yeah.
I think I'm ready.
Let's open up, everybody!
Our legal system is ultimately about
deeply held moral values.
It's a living entity.
So you have to strike a balance
between respecting the documents, like the Constitution,
and then finding out what was the life in these documents.
What was the truth, and how does it apply to us today?
And then I think we have a strong case, and you know,
and hopefully that's enough.
-All rise.
Please be seated.
We're ready to proceed with the case
Kelsey Rose Juliana v. the United States of America.
If the parties are ready to proceed, please come forward.
Good afternoon, your Honors, and may it please the court.
This is a suit that we believe is a direct attack
on the separation of powers.
Plaintiffs are essentially trying to constitutionalize
administrative law.
Is there no set of facts
that would allow a suit of this sort?
Let's take it out of its present context.
Let's assume that there was an immediate threat
to the life of various plaintiffs.
And that threat could only be averted
by Executive Branch action.
Are you saying that the plaintiffs
would have no option but to die?
That's not the institutional competence
of the Judicial Branch, your Honor, it's not to deal
with exigent threats like that.
That's what the Executive Branch is for.
See you're making separate arguments here,
and what I'm trying to figure out is,
would have an absence of standing argument
in that circumstance?
We would argue that there's an absence of standing
unless someone had independent standing
for an environmental harm that was direct
to them and more immediate.
Thanks very much, your Honors.
Good afternoon. May it please the court. I'm Julia Olson.
The stay in this case should be lifted
and the case should be remanded for trial.
And that would provide the best opportunity
for appellate review.
So, the only context where a government's failure to act
can constitute a fifth amendment violation
is in the context of state-created danger.
In this court's line of cases,
But can a state create a danger by failure to act?
No, I don't think the fifth amendment provides plaintiffs
with a claim for pure inaction,
but it does provide them a claim when the government
has affirmatively acted to promote
a fossil fuel energy system.
And when the federal government controls the system
facilitates it, subsidizes it, promotes it as it does,
that creates a claim for a substantive
due process violation.
Could the plan that you foresee
be undertaken without any congressional action?
Yes, your Honor. In fact, we have the expert evidence in the record
as to the feasibility of the remedy.
And there's abundant statutory authority
to manage the national energy system
that is based on fossil fuels.
You don't doubt that Congress
and the President could give you the relief you seek?
I don't think Congress and the President ever will without the--
Well, but you see, we may have the wrong Congress
and the wrong President.
That's occurred from time to time over history.
The real question for us is whether or not
we get to intervene because of that.
You present compelling evidence that we have a real problem.
You can make compelling evidence that we have inaction
by the other two branches of government.
It may even rise to the level of criminal neglect.
The tough question for me, and I suspect for my colleagues,
is do we get to act because of that?
I'm sympathetic to the problems you point out.
But you shouldn't say this is just an ordinary suit.
You're asking us to do a lot of new stuff, aren't you?
We're asking the court to apply bedrock constitutional law
and principles to a wholly new set of facts.
And this would be the first time
that it would have been done, except for the District Court?
It would be the first time that it has been done,
your Honor.
And as the Supreme Court said in Plyler v. Doe,
children are special and the court provides
a heightened level of review,
when government acts in ways that is harmful to children.
In cases like Brown v. Board of Education,
declaring that discrimination unconstitutional
can provide redress.
It tells government, you can't do that anymore.
We must be a nation that applies the rule of law
to harmful government conduct that threatens the lives
of our children, so that they can grow up
safe and free and pursue their happiness.
And that is what the founders intended.
So, we respectfully request that the court lift the stay
and remand for trial.
And thank you very much.
Thank you.
We are now in recess.
Thank you very much.
I really hope that these judges
can look at the evidence clearly
and also look at the history of our nation,
how it was founded, what it stands for,
what its people today are asking of their leaders…
…and what justice means to people today.
And I hope they look at all of that
and make the right decision.
Hey everyone, so I just woke up this morning
to the news that we had the case dismissed,
at least at face value.
That's what all the major headlines are saying.
Two of the three judges ruled that the court
actually doesn't have any power to intervene.
It's just so frustrating, because four years in
and we still haven't even gone to trial.
Yeah, it's really sad.
I don't understand the full implications of this,
but it feels like a death.
It feels very scary.
I'm just thinking about all those young voices
and um…
needing to be hopeful still for them.
So we had a three-judge panel.
Judges Hurwitz and Murguia wrote the majority opinion,
and their opinion addresses primarily the issue of standing.
They found that our evidence clearly established
our plaintiffs have been injured.
And that the federal government has had a significant role
in causing the injuries,
yet the federal courts can do nothing about it.
They wrote, "It is beyond the power
of an Article III Court to order, design, or implement
the plaintiffs' requested remedial plan."
So, that was an error in the way they viewed
our requested relief.
We did ask the court to order a remedial plan.
And then to oversee compliance with it.
So to make sure that the government was going
to actually develop a plan.
But the court was not going to have any role
in designing the remedy.
Again, the very first request for relief
was say what the constitution requires of government.
That is the duty of the court, declare the law.
And tell these children they have a right to live here
and be safe and secure without the government harming them.
Two of them voted against,
and then one of them voted for us.
And she, you know, kind of stood her ground.
Judge Staton said, "No, this case has standing.
And should go forward to trial."
So she says, "The government accepts as fact
that the United States has reached a tipping point
crying out for a concerted response,
yet presses ahead toward calamity."
"And while all would now readily agree that the 91 years
between the Emancipation Proclamation
and the decision in Brown v. Board was too long,
determining when a court must step in
to protect fundamental rights is not an exact science."
"In this case, my colleagues say that time is never,
I say it is now."
"Were we addressing a matter of social injustice,
one might sincerely lament any delay,
but take solace that the arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends toward justice."
…but it bends toward justice.
"Where is the hope in today's decision?"
"When the seas envelop our coastal cities,
fires and droughts haunt our interiors,
and storms ravage everything between,
those remaining will ask, why did so many do so little?"
"I would hold that plaintiffs have standing
to challenge the government's conduct,
have articulated claims under the Constitution,
and have presented sufficient evidence
to press those claims at trial."
"I would therefore affirm the District Court."
"With respect, I dissent."
Yeah
As far as, you know, me, where I go forward,
where do we plaintiffs go forward?
We can make choices about what we wanna do with our lives.
We can choose to make a difference,
to stand up for what's right,
and sometimes really big things happen.
In 2030, the history books will show
that faced with imminent destruction,
people on the front lines fought back.
That is why we're here.
We're here to write a new story.
A story in which our country is doing everything
in its power to address not only the climate crisis,
but the systemic injustices at its roots.
A story in which our constitutional right
to a safe climate is recognized by the highest court.
A story in which young people Rose up
around the world to demand immediate action.
That starting on this day, everything began to change.
Children like us, we haven't been given any say
in the decisions that are directly impacting
and taking away our future.
We're never gonna give up until we get climate action.
We are here today to show that we stand together united
in our commitment to climate justice.
We have come here to let you know that change is coming,
whether you like it or not.
No justice, no peace.
We're not done fighting.
This isn't over.
I hope these kids go down in history
as the kids who brought the Brown v. Board of Education
decision on climate.
I hope "Kelsey Juliana" is the name that people remember
and learn about 100 years from now.
So you believe that the climate has changed,
but you don't believe in climate change?
Oh, God.
I know you've been frustrated
when I open my mouth to speak on this issue,
but I can only say that I would endeavor to find out more
and to learn more.
So let's agree to have you teach me more.
Is that okay?
Okay, cool.
Now who wants to make a better future
for us and our children?
I can't hear you.
Yes, together we can do it.
The power of one.
Thank you.