|
Dear Friends,
Today, in a 7-2 vote, the Washington Supreme Court unjustly shut their courthouse doors to the 13 youth plaintiffs of Aji P. v. Washington and the grave evidence they were prepared to present on the climate emergency and their state government’s complicity in the crisis.
An Irresponsible Decision
In a distressing demonstration of lack of concern for the plight of youth and a grave misunderstanding of the courts’ responsibility to hear difficult constitutional issues, the Washington Supreme Court refused to review a Court of Appeals’ decision issued earlier this year. In that earlier decision, despite acknowledging that “the right to a stable environment should be fundamental,” that “climate change poses a very serious threat to the future stability of our environment,” and that “the federal and state governments must act now to address climate change,” the state Court of Appeals ruled that the constitutional claims raised in the Aji P. case should be decided not in a courtroom, but in the political branches.
A Powerful Dissent
However, in a powerful dissent, Chief Justice Steven C. González and Justice G. Helen Whitener dissented, writing: “This case is an opportunity to decide whether Washington’s youth have a right to a stable climate system that sustains human life and liberty. We recite that we believe the children are our future, but we continue actions that could leave them a world with an environment on the brink of ruin and no mechanism to assert their rights or the rights of the natural world. This is our legacy to them described in the self-congratulatory words of judicial restraint. Today, the court declined the important responsibility to seriously examine their claims.”
|
|
|
|
Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven C. González and Justice G. Helen Whitener (courts.wa.gov)
|
|
The two Justices minced no words, and noted that the plaintiffs are, for the most part, unable to vote yet, and that they’ve asked the court “to recognize a fundamental right to a healthful and pleasant environment that may be inconsistent with our State’s maintenance of a fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation system that it knows will result in greenhouse gas emissions. These greenhouse gases hasten a rise in the earth’s temperature. This temperature change foreshadows the potential collapse of our environment. In its place is an unstable climate system, conceivably unable to sustain human life and continued enjoyment of ordered liberty under law.”
Chief Justice González and Justice Whitener continued: “A declaration of rights from this court is meaningful relief, even if it is not a magic wand that will eliminate climate change. Even though an 'issue is complex and no option may prove wholly satisfactory,' the judiciary should not 'throw up its hands and offer no remedy at all.' McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477, 546, 269 P.3d 227 (2012). The court should not avoid its constitutional obligations that protect not only the rights of these youths but all future generations who will suffer from the consequences of climate change. For these reasons, I would have granted review.”
|
|
|
Why Was This Decision So Unjust and Irresponsible?
Today’s decision makes even more clear what the youth plaintiffs have been saying from day one: that the State of Washington is not now, nor likely will be anytime soon, a leader in the fight against the climate crisis. Instead, Washington’s government continues to make promises to tackle the climate crisis without any meaningful follow through, all while the State’s emissions continue to rise. Despite devastating forest fires, unprecedented heat waves, and unbreathable air, the Supreme Court sided with the state government and told the youth that they are not entitled to their constitutional right or to their day in court. This is a mistake that will cost the state countless lives and billions of dollars.
It is the duty and responsibility of the courts to protect the constitutional rights of our children. As noted by former King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill in a The Seattle Times op-ed last week, “the youth behind the Aji P. case want…their constitutional right to a fair trial. This is, after all, foundational to American constitutional democracy. When the government denies the rights of the public, courts must step in, declare the law and order the political branches to comply with the constitution.” As long as Washington’s political branches continue to perpetuate the climate crisis, Our Children’s Trust will continue to seek justice for Washington’s youth.
|
|
|
“While the decision is disappointing it’s not surprising. I have gotten pretty used to having those in power deny me my future. At least two of the justices understand the gravity of the crisis and were willing to stand up for us. Hopefully others will follow their lead.” - Adonis, 16, Aji P. v. State of Washington youth plaintiff
|
|
|
Why Do Dissents Matter?
Despite the majority opinion’s abdication of its duty to hear the youth’s constitutional claims, today was more than just an unjust decision from a higher court. The dissent from Chief Justice Steven C. González and Justice G. Helen Whitener provided further evidence that judges across the nation are recognizing and accepting their judicial responsibility to hear evidence of youths’ climate claims. Like Chernaik v. Brown in Oregon last year, a Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court again issued a striking dissent, expressing frustration with the decision of their peers to shirk this responsibility. And like Judge Staton on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Juliana v. United States last year, who expressed in no uncertain terms the gravity of the climate crisis - and the critical role the courts must play in protecting the rights, health, and safety of our nation’s children.
These dissents matter. They demonstrate that the tide is turning, that courts in the United States - like their peers abroad - are increasingly recognizing that the climate crisis is here, now, on their courthouse steps - and that they must do their duty to hear evidence and declare the law. Judge Kathy Seeley accepted this judicial responsibility just last month in our Montana case, Held v. State of Montana and we remain optimistic that Judge Ann Aiken will follow the law as she has before and rule in favor of the Juliana youth soon, setting their path to trial. Today, Chief Justice González and Justice Whitener join the many other American judges who have accepted this responsibility, including Kathy Seeley, Ann Aiken, Martha Walters, Hollis Hill, Gisela Triana, Josephine Staton, Terry Fox, and JoAnn Vogt, all of whom found that these youth climate cases are appropriate for judicial resolution.
As hard as these moments are, this is what the arc of justice looks like.
|
|
|
We are not going away, Washington.
|
|
|
|
The Tide is Turning. And We Are Going to Win.
We want to thank our friends and partners who helped make this dissent as powerful as it was by submitting friend of the court briefs. They include: the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Quinault Nation, the Suquamish Tribe, the Fred. T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, the League of Women Voters, the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Cascadia Climate Action, Climate Action Bainbridge, East Shore Unitarian Church, Earth Law Center, Friends of Toppenish Creek, Kitsap Environmental Coalition, NoMethanol360, Olympic Climate Action, Puget Soundkeeper, Sierra Club, South Seattle Climate Action Network, 350 Eastside, 350 Seattle, 350 Tacoma, 350 Wenatchee, and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide.
And to our clients, the youth of Washington and across our nation: you are courageous and you are blazing the trail to climate justice. We may not be there just yet, but we will get there and the judges are listening. It is a deep honor to represent you and advocate alongside you!
What Happens Now?
Despite this outcome, the youth in Aji P. and their attorneys at Our Children’s Trust are not done fighting to protect Washington youths’ constitutional rights to a safe climate. The attorneys and youth plaintiffs will continue to pursue their many options for continued legal action in their state, seeking the most urgent and impactful pathways to sustain their efforts to secure climate justice in the Evergreen (at least for now) State.
What You Can Do!
While this is not the outcome the youth plaintiffs deserved, THESE YOUNG WASHINGTONIANS WILL NOT AND CANNOT GIVE UP. Stand with them in solidarity today, and make a contribution to Our Children’s Trust to take the next steps necessary to hold the State of Washington accountable for its central role in continuing to perpetuate this existential crisis.
Stand with them to make known the need for courts to protect these urgent constitutional rights. And help Our Children’s Trust advance related efforts at the federal level (Juliana v. U.S.) and in multiple other states and nations, including Held v. Montana, where the courts of the State of Montana, unlike those in the State of Washington, have already recognized their responsibility to hear evidence and declare the constitutional rights of youth to a safe climate.
Thanks to your generous support, we provide expert legal representation to these young people, all at no cost to them or their families. Donate today to fund their ongoing quest for climate justice in the Pacific Northwest.
As always, we thank you for your enduring support,
The Team at Our Children’s Trust
|
|
|
|
