Skip to content

Lawsuit

Supreme Court Decision Puts Landmark Climate Change Lawsuit Back On Track For Trial

By a 7-2 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Trump administration motion to stop a constitutional lawsuit filed by 21 young plaintiffs from going to trial. The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, asserts that the federal government is depriving youth of rights to life, liberty and property through an energy system contributing to climate change. Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit supporting the case, has described the Department of Justice’s numerous legal maneuvers to thwart the case from going to trial as attempts to “circumvent the ordinary procedures of federal litigation.” The trial was originally scheduled for October 29 in Oregon. The case has been winding its way through the courts for three years.

Halt To Youth Climate Lawsuit Inspires Nationwide Resistance

The three-year-long case has survived countless obstacles and the 21 youth plaintiffs don't plan on backing down now. This week should have been the start to the three-year-long landmark youth climate trial against the federal government, deemed the “trial of the century.”Instead, the Supreme Court halted the case in response to a last-ditch effort by the Trump administration to kill the case. Now the rest of the country is responding to the disgraceful decision. The 21 youth plaintiffs of the case, Juliana v. United States, have been joined by thousands across the country the past several days to “keep our government accountable for the effects of climate change.”

Youth Plaintiffs File Response With Supreme Court Pointing To Government’s Serious Mischaracterization Of ​​Juliana v. United States

Eugene, Oregon -- Today, attorneys for youth plaintiffs in the landmark climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, filed their response with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, requesting that the Court allow their trial to proceed on October 29 and pointing to numerous mischaracterizations of the lawsuit by the Trump administration in its recent filing with the Court. On Thursday, for the second time in three months and claiming harm only from costs of litigation, the Department of Justice filed an application for stay and a petition for writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court. On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative (temporary) stay of discovery and trial while the Court reviews the youth plaintiffs’ response.

Internet Provider Groups Sue Vermont Over Net Neutrality Law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five industry groups representing major internet providers and cable companies filed suit on Thursday seeking to block a Vermont law barring companies that do not abide by net neutrality rules from receiving state contracts. An AT&T logo is pictured in Pasadena, California, U.S., January 24, 2018. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont by groups representing major providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N). It followed a lawsuit by four of the groups earlier this month challenging a much broader California law mandating providers abide by net neutrality rules.

Illinois Prisons Sued For Unconstitutional Ban On LGBTQ Literature

The Uptown People’s Law Center and the MacArthur Justice Center filed a lawsuit on October 17 that alleges Illinois prisons are censoring correspondence and publications that have been mailed to prisoners by Black and Pink, a prisoners’ rights organization focused on supporting incarcerated LGBTQ and HIV-positive people. Jason Lydon founded Black and Pink in 2005 after his own incarceration and was the national director of the group until 2017. “Prisoners are entitled to communication with people on the outside and are entitled to knowledge and stories that validate their humanity,” Lydon told Truthout. “This lawsuit is about ensuring that.”

Strength In Numbers: Workers Banded Together To Sue A Local Trucking Company For Wage Theft

In order to get to the warehouse in Spokane Valley on time, she'd wake up around 5 or 6 am in her home in Kellogg, Idaho, where she lived with her mom and brother. She'd work all day, barely stopping to eat. Sometimes, she'd stay until 11 at night, knowing that she'd have to drive back in the morning, or that she'd get a call at 2 am from a driver who needed a problem solved. She says she easily worked 90 to 120 hours per week. Yet she was only paid for 40 hours a week, at $11 an hour. Other drivers for Diamond Freight, based in Yakima, had similar complaints. They were paid a flat rate of $110 per day, yet they were required to work more than 40 hours per week with no overtime pay, as mandated by state and federal law. "They were like, we're not paying you anything over 40 hours. Nobody's worth it," Thomas says. "But the job has to get done."

Indigenous Sue Over Violations Of Law In Permit Process For KXL Pipeline

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) and the Fort Belknap Indian Community (Assiniboine (Nakoda) and Gros Ventre (Aaniiih) Tribes) in coordination with their counsel, the Native American Rights Fund, on September 10, 2018, sued the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, for numerous violations of the law in the Keystone XL pipeline permitting process. The Tribes are asking the court to declare the review process in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and to rescind the illegal issuance of the Keystone XL pipeline presidential permit. On March 23, 2017, the U.S. Department of State granted TransCanada’s permit application and issued it a presidential permit to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline.

How SLAPP Lawsuits Are Letting Corporations Steal The Truth

All his life, Pete Kolbenschlag has been fighting for the Commons against wealthy people and corporations who want to own and destructively exploit nature. “Change happens all the time,” he told me, “and will long after you have shed the mortal coil. Shape what you can now in a positive direction.” Pete was my best friend's housemate when I first met him 20-ish years ago in Salt Lake City. He was already a troublemaker, heading up major environmental actions in Utah and networking with activists and organizations around the West. He lives in Colorado now, and runs Mountain West Strategies, providing support to groups struggling to protect land and natural resources in Rocky Mountain states. He’s still a troublemaker.

Federal Court Dismisses Pipeline Corporation’s Lawsuit Against The Earth First! Environmental Movement

August 23, 2018, North Dakota – Yesterday, a federal court dismissed the environmental movement Earth First! from a lawsuit by Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. One year ago, ETP, represented by Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, the firm that represents President Trump, filed a sprawling lawsuit, claiming Earth First! funded a violent terrorist presence and criminal enterprise at the Standing Rock protests, with half a million dollars and proceeds from drug sales in a conspiracy with mainstream environmental groups. “Earth First! should have never been named in this far-fetched suit in the first place,” said Pamela Spees, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Abused Asylum-Seekers Launch Legal Battle Against ICE And Its “Concentration Camp” Prisons

ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA – A group of refugees from Central America, who faced beatings and abuse while detained at a California detention center last year, are pursuing legal action in hopes of drawing attention to the systematic abuse of migrants who are being confined in a growing network of concentration camp-style facilities across the United States. The civil rights lawsuit alleges that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau, for-profit prison operator GEO Group, and the City of Adelanto are responsible for “considerable damages” inflicted on the group of eight asylum-seekers, one of whom remains imprisoned. The notorious GEO Group — a multinational for-profit prison operator with nearly 150 prisons across the globe, and one of the largest contractors for ICE...

Judge Dismisses Youth Climate Change Lawsuit In Washington State

A group of young climate advocates who sued the state of Washington to force it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lost their case on Tuesday when a judge sided with the state and agreed to dismiss it. The judge urged them to pursue their cause through other channels. King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott wrote that the issues at the heart of the case are political and should be considered by the state's legislative and executive branches, not settled by its courts. The Washington lawsuit is one of nine state-level cases involving youth advocates supported by Our Children's Trust, the group leading a federal youth lawsuit that heads to trial in a U.S. District Court in Oregon this October. Like the federal suit, known as Juliana v. U.S., the state lawsuits accuse the government of failing to protect the children from the dangers of climate change and pushing policies that favor fossil fuel use.

Lawsuit Confronts Extortion Of Prisoners By Electronic Monitoring Firm

Robert Jackson was four days into a 120-day sentence in an Alameda County, California, jail when his wife passed away unexpectedly, leaving their three young children without a parent in the home. He was compassionately released with the caveat that he submit to electronic monitoring by the for-profit Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA) company. Though his weekly paycheck was $400-$500, his weekly monitoring fees to LCA came to $250 per week — 50-65 percent of his total income. He ultimately paid around $4,500 for 113 days of monitoring, while being repeatedly threatened with violation and jail if he didn’t pay — something that would have left his children without a parent and at the mercy of the state. Jackson was forced to sell his car and eventually had to give up his apartment — leaving him homeless — just so he could pay off LCA.

Supreme Court Refuses To Halt A Climate Change Lawsuit Brought By Children And Teenagers

The United States Supreme Court on Monday refused to halt a lawsuit that represents a novel attempt by children and teenagers to sue the federal government over its inaction on climate change. First filed in 2015 by a group of young Americans in Oregon, the lawsuit claims that the federal government's refusal to address climate change threatens the constitutional rights of young people and future generations who will come of age in a world of greater scarcity and danger. As Pacific Standard reported in 2016, the 21 plaintiffs allege that "the U.S. government's knowing inaction on climate has violated their right to 'life, liberty, and property' as enshrined in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Fossil Fuels On Trial: Where The Major Climate Change Lawsuits Stand Today

A wave of legal challenges that is washing over the oil and gas industry, demanding accountability for climate change, started as a ripple after revelations that ExxonMobil had long recognized the threat fossil fuels pose to the world. Over the past few years: Two states have launched fraud investigations into Exxon over climate change. Nine cities and counties, from New York to San Francisco, have sued major fossil fuel companies, seeking compensation for climate change damages. And determined children have filed lawsuits against the federal government and various state governments, claiming the governments have an obligation to safeguard the environment. The litigation, reinforced by science, has the potential to reshape the way the world thinks about energy production and the consequences of global warming.

Hawaiian Kingdom Files Lawsuit Against President Trump In Washington, D.C.

On Monday morning, 25  June 2018, the Chairman of the acting Council of Regency for the Hawaiian Kingdom, H.E. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a Petition for an Emergency Writ of Mandamus against President Donald John Trump. This Petition concerns the illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands and the failure of the United States to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as mandated under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (36 Stat. 2199) and under Article 64 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (6 U.S.T. 3516). The United States has ratified both treaties.

Urgent End Of Year Fundraising Campaign

Online donations are back! Keep independent media alive. 

Due to the attacks on our fiscal sponsor, we were unable to raise funds online for nearly two years.  As the bills pile up, your help is needed now to cover the monthly costs of operating Popular Resistance.

Urgent End Of Year Fundraising Campaign

Online donations are back! 

Keep independent media alive. 

Due to the attacks on our fiscal sponsor, we were unable to raise funds online for nearly two years.  As the bills pile up, your help is needed now to cover the monthly costs of operating Popular Resistance.

Sign Up To Our Daily Digest

Independent media outlets are being suppressed and dropped by corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our daily email digest before it’s too late so you don’t miss the latest movement news.