Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of AEP v. Connecticut. The basis of Connecticut’s law suit was that power companies were emitting “green house’ gasses which were causing global warming, or climate change, or whatever it is called these days, and the courts, under the doctrine of public nuisance, should step in and regulate.
Although the Court has not yet ruled, the questions from the bench, particularly those of Justice Ginsburg, do not bode well for Connecticut’s claim.
Perhaps sensing that, a new organization was formed which, with a different legal theory, and an unusual “cast of characters” as plaintiffs, has filed a new law suit.
This claim has been brought against the federal government and ten states, although we are told that forty more states will soon find themselves as defendants.
is based on an obscure doctrine under common law known as public trust, which dates to the Roman Empire and protects property of communal value. Throughout history, that has mostly meant navigable waters or shorelines…
I have no problem with “obscure common law doctrines”, but, the same problem presented in AEP v. Connecticut exists here. If the problem is truly “global”, how can a court in, Montana, for example, do anything about it.
But, the story here is the “plaintiff”…Our Children’s Trust. It has
fielded kids to act as human shields, such as the California minor who has ‘snorkeled several times’ and ‘due to these experiences, he values the aesthetic and material properties of nature.”
And, he is not alone. Another plaintiff is a:
‘youth activist’ from Redmond, Washington, who wants ‘humans to live in peace and harmony with each other and the planet Earth.’
Don’t you just love what our children are being taught in schools?
But, the real point of this post is lawyers. It is anyone’s guess what American taxpayers will spend defending this junk litigation.
And, lawyers wonder why they have a bad name.