The Lawsuit That Could Save the Planet
November 13, 2016 12:55 PM Subscribe
A while ago, several kids brought a lawsuit against the Obama administration for potentially ruining their futures with climate change. They just won the right to go to trial. If Obama’s people settle it before Jan. 20, “… Such a settlement would result in a court order that the Trump administration would then have to abide by — it could attempt to overturn the order, but that could take years.” If Obama doesn't settle, the case goes on to Trump. The main lawyer involved is an Oregon mom who has founded Our Childrens’ Trust to continue the litigation.
How about they make it a class action lawsuit where everyone in American can sign on?
posted by ZaneJ. at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by ZaneJ. at 1:15 PM on November 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's everyone's planet. Make it a class action with everyone on it?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 1:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 1:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wondered about this in another thread - what about a settlement against, e.g., mass deportation? (Or many settlements against individual cases of deportation?) Would that be possible? Why not tie the next US government up for as long as possible, just bounce things up and down the courts? (I saw this, about two people making use of the Federal Tort Claims Act, a while ago - one for an unlawful strip search at an immigration centre, the other for negligence around a car accident. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities for lawsuits in the years to come...)
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:41 PM on November 13, 2016
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:41 PM on November 13, 2016
God I need this to happen. Just any good climate news, really. This last week has been hell.
posted by Philipschall at 1:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Philipschall at 1:49 PM on November 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
Isn't this a conflict of powers? What mechanisms exist that would force the President to abide by a court decision? If it were the Supreme Court it'd be one thing, but shouldn't this be considered a Constitutional crisis? And even if Obama abides by it, what's to say that Trump will?
posted by JHarris at 2:40 PM on November 13, 2016
posted by JHarris at 2:40 PM on November 13, 2016
Would that be possible? Why not tie the next US government up for as long as possible, just bounce things up and down the courts?
This is one lesson hopefully liberals and the Democratic party has learned over the last 8 years. Republican lawsuits were able to successfully cripple Obamacare, and stop enforcement of many other policies. Democrats should do the same things, filibuster everything. Sue over everything. The more they can tie things up, the less can be destroyed.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [43 favorites]
This is one lesson hopefully liberals and the Democratic party has learned over the last 8 years. Republican lawsuits were able to successfully cripple Obamacare, and stop enforcement of many other policies. Democrats should do the same things, filibuster everything. Sue over everything. The more they can tie things up, the less can be destroyed.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:21 PM on November 13, 2016 [43 favorites]
> Isn't this a conflict of powers? What mechanisms exist that would force the President to abide by a court decision? If it were the Supreme Court it'd be one thing
There's nothing special about the White House that makes it immune to court orders, or requires those orders to be issued by the Supreme Court. If the order is appealed, it could eventually reach the Supreme Court, but there's nothing special here that requires the Supreme Court to participate. It's just a lawsuit, and the presiding court has the power to issue a court order as part of a judgement or settlement, as usual.
posted by a mirror and an encyclopedia at 3:30 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's nothing special about the White House that makes it immune to court orders, or requires those orders to be issued by the Supreme Court. If the order is appealed, it could eventually reach the Supreme Court, but there's nothing special here that requires the Supreme Court to participate. It's just a lawsuit, and the presiding court has the power to issue a court order as part of a judgement or settlement, as usual.
posted by a mirror and an encyclopedia at 3:30 PM on November 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
(but I should add that IANAL)
posted by a mirror and an encyclopedia at 3:34 PM on November 13, 2016
posted by a mirror and an encyclopedia at 3:34 PM on November 13, 2016
“Just as marriage is the ‘foundation of the family,’ a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.'”
Alrighty, then. I hope the rest of the case has better footing than that.
posted by klanawa at 3:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Alrighty, then. I hope the rest of the case has better footing than that.
posted by klanawa at 3:43 PM on November 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
I guess as a candian-kiwi I can donate to this because it is not political fundraising?
posted by piyushnz at 3:43 PM on November 13, 2016
posted by piyushnz at 3:43 PM on November 13, 2016
Interesting case. I imagine this decision will be challenged through the appellate court and all the way up to the Supremes if they grant cert. If plaintiffs prevail through that, they'll next need to prove the factual assertions in the complaint, in other words, that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. They'll be able to get discovery from the Defendants, so we may get more of a window into the scientific findings of the administration or even their political calculations about climate change policy.
posted by sallybrown at 4:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 4:38 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
they'll next need to prove the factual assertions in the complaint, in other words, that climate change exists and is caused by human activity.
The order allowing the case to go forward mentions this. Both parties apparently stipulate that climate change exists, so there's no problem with that. The defendants waffle about whether human-caused climate change is actually causing lots of damage - but since they acknowledge that humans cause *some* climate change (because in previous lawsuits that they mentioned as part of their defense, it was argued successfully that certain oil companies didn't cause enough damage to be sue-able), they're kinda stuck with admitting that it exists. Emphasis added>
The order allowing the case to go forward mentions this. Both parties apparently stipulate that climate change exists, so there's no problem with that. The defendants waffle about whether human-caused climate change is actually causing lots of damage - but since they acknowledge that humans cause *some* climate change (because in previous lawsuits that they mentioned as part of their defense, it was argued successfully that certain oil companies didn't cause enough damage to be sue-able), they're kinda stuck with admitting that it exists. Emphasis added>
For the purposes of this motion, I proceed on the understanding that climate change exists, is caused by humans, and poses a serious threat to our planet. Defendants open their Objections to Judge Coffin's F&R by stating that "[c]limate change poses a monumental threat to Americans' health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time." Fed. Defs.' Obj. to F&R 1 (doc. 78). In the 2015 State of the Union address, defendant President Barack Obama declared "[n]o challenge ... poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." President Barack Obama, Remarks in State of the Union Address (Jan. 20, 2015), available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015 (last visited Nov. 7, 2016). When asked at oral argument if they agreed that human-caused climate change poses a serious threat, intervenors declined to take a clear position. All parties agree, however, that a dispute over the existence of climate change is not at the heart of this case.posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:19 PM on November 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I wondered about this in another thread - what about a settlement against, e.g., mass deportation?
The White House hereby settles that Donald Trump is a doodyhead, and smells as such
posted by beerperson at 8:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
The White House hereby settles that Donald Trump is a doodyhead, and smells as such
posted by beerperson at 8:45 PM on November 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
. how about a "settlement" that progressive tax rates, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the National Labor Relations Act are unconstitutional...
These lawsuits still have to be based in reality, you know.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
These lawsuits still have to be based in reality, you know.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:46 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's nothing special about the White House that makes it immune to court orders, or requires those orders to be issued by the Supreme Court. If the order is appealed, it could eventually reach the Supreme Court, but there's nothing special here that requires the Supreme Court to participate. It's just a lawsuit, and the presiding court has the power to issue a court order as part of a judgement or settlement, as usual.
I expect we're about to see this argument tested. A court can order what it wants. Let them enforce it against Trump's White House.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I expect we're about to see this argument tested. A court can order what it wants. Let them enforce it against Trump's White House.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:20 PM on November 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
For those with a taste : Marbury v Madison , arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. - and it was a West Wing circus when it came to the politics on a new President, new administration and and new supreme court coming in.
The outgoing President Adams and his administration, including out going Secretary of State Marshal, packed the courts with its picks of judges . Marshall failed to handle the last bit of paper work on the appointment of one pick, named Marbury, and the new president Jefferson and his administrations' Secretary of State Madison refused to complete th paperwork, appoint Marbury a judge. So , in order to become a Judge, Marbury took Madison the incoming Secretary of State directly to the Supreme Court, which had a new chief Justice, former Secretary of state Marshall.
...
On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, a prosperous financier in Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.[ ]
On the following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams's personal request.[5]
...
On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision,[26] that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
posted by fewnix at 11:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The outgoing President Adams and his administration, including out going Secretary of State Marshal, packed the courts with its picks of judges . Marshall failed to handle the last bit of paper work on the appointment of one pick, named Marbury, and the new president Jefferson and his administrations' Secretary of State Madison refused to complete th paperwork, appoint Marbury a judge. So , in order to become a Judge, Marbury took Madison the incoming Secretary of State directly to the Supreme Court, which had a new chief Justice, former Secretary of state Marshall.
...
On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, a prosperous financier in Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.[ ]
On the following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams's personal request.[5]
...
On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision,[26] that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
posted by fewnix at 11:07 PM on November 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nobody rankles at "meet the mom"?
posted by Hal Mumkin at 4:38 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Hal Mumkin at 4:38 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
> There's nothing special about the White House that makes it immune to court orders, or requires those orders to be issued by the Supreme Court.
Except there's really not much that would compel a president to comply with court orders, other than tradition and respect for the separation of powers... certainly the executive can sit on their hands and not help enforcement.
I think the only actual recourse would be impeachment (by a friendly senate)... Somebody tell me I'm wrong about this... please?
Oh, and fun story ... guess who thinks that court rulings are optional as long as you really really disagree?
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 8:45 AM on November 14, 2016
Except there's really not much that would compel a president to comply with court orders, other than tradition and respect for the separation of powers... certainly the executive can sit on their hands and not help enforcement.
I think the only actual recourse would be impeachment (by a friendly senate)... Somebody tell me I'm wrong about this... please?
Oh, and fun story ... guess who thinks that court rulings are optional as long as you really really disagree?
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 8:45 AM on November 14, 2016
If the president won't comply with a court order, the courts have the ability to go around that. If everyone won't comply, there's not much that can be done - but if the courts allowed, f'rex, that since the president and congress won't enact legislation to reduce emissions, and the ruling requires for "emissions reduced by X," they could order the shutdown of plants causing emissions.
Plants might not comply, of course. In which case, they could order the *profits* shut down--in fact, monetary penalties are the core purpose of lawsuits; injunctions for/against actions are only supposed to be used in rare cases where money won't work.
And while plants might not be willing to shut down, you can damn well believe banks would be happy to freeze their accounts for a court order, hold on to all that money and collect interest on it. No income = no paychecks = no production of greenhouse gases. That's a long stretch for a court to get to, but faced with total non-compliance, the courts are allowed to make those stretches.
(IANAL)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:22 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Plants might not comply, of course. In which case, they could order the *profits* shut down--in fact, monetary penalties are the core purpose of lawsuits; injunctions for/against actions are only supposed to be used in rare cases where money won't work.
And while plants might not be willing to shut down, you can damn well believe banks would be happy to freeze their accounts for a court order, hold on to all that money and collect interest on it. No income = no paychecks = no production of greenhouse gases. That's a long stretch for a court to get to, but faced with total non-compliance, the courts are allowed to make those stretches.
(IANAL)
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:22 AM on November 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Just as marriage is the ‘foundation of the family,’ a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.'”
Alrighty, then. I hope the rest of the case has better footing than that.
This quote actually makes a great deal of sense in context. Judge Aiken is comparing the climate system to marriage because she is citing Obergefell vs Hodges as a precedent for the judicial system recognizing the existence of new rights that are fundamental to the functioning of society.
posted by phoenixy at 12:23 AM on November 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Alrighty, then. I hope the rest of the case has better footing than that.
This quote actually makes a great deal of sense in context. Judge Aiken is comparing the climate system to marriage because she is citing Obergefell vs Hodges as a precedent for the judicial system recognizing the existence of new rights that are fundamental to the functioning of society.
posted by phoenixy at 12:23 AM on November 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Something to do with drawing close | RIP, Master of Space and Time Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MattD at 1:08 PM on November 13, 2016 [10 favorites]