Washington Throws Out Climate Lawsuit Brought By Environmentalists Using Children As Props 

Washington Throws Out Climate Lawsuit Brought By Environmentalists Using Children As Props

11:45 AM 08/15/2018

Tim Pearce | Energy Reporter

A Washington judge dismissed a climate change lawsuit Tuesday brought against the state by a group of children supported by the environmental group Our Children’s Trust (OCT).
King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott granted Washington’s motion to dismiss the case. The children sued the state for violating their constitutional rights by approving actions that lead to emissions and pollution that drives climate change, The Washington Examiner reports.
Scott ruled the court was the wrong venue to answer the questions raised by the litigants. Congress or the president should take action, if any is to be taken.
“On a day when the sun in Seattle is shrouded in smoke from wildfires, the youth plaintiffs are devastated that Judge Scott declined to give them an opportunity to present their constitutional claims in a court of law,” OCT senior staff attorney Andrea Rodgers said in a statement. “The youth intend to continue to pursue the vindication of their constitutional rights before higher courts of law, as they have no other option.”
While OCT’s climate case in Washington has fallen flat, another case by the group is tracing its way through the 9th Circuit Court. OCT attorneys are representing a group of 21 children suing the U.S. government for “its affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change.”
The court is scheduled to hear the case on Oct. 29, despite federal attorneys attempting to get the Supreme Court to stay the case. The Supreme Court rejected the motion to stay but cast doubts on the future success of the case and urged a “prompt ruling” in the court’s July 30 ruling. (RELATED: US Supreme Court Signals Serious Doubts About The Youth’s Global Warming Lawsuit Against Trump)
“The breadth of respondents’ claims is striking, however, and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” the Supreme Court ruled. “The District Court should take these concerns into account in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt ruling on the Government’s pending dispositive motions.”