Summary of Argument

The panel erred in determining that no legal remedy is available to the youth in this case. The majority directed the children to the political process to bring climate grievances; however, children lack political power and therefore have no recourse there. Precedent recognizes a special judicial role in protecting children where children are explicitly excluded from influencing policies detrimental to them. The panel’s conclusion that there is no remedy available to these innocent children overlooked this precedent. Children are uniquely and disproportionately harmed by climate change. The government’s system of subsidies and programs promoting fossil fuel use causes climate change, yet children are unable to influence these harmful government policies. Historically, the Supreme Court has stepped in to protect vulnerable groups marginalized from the political process, including children punished because of circumstances beyond their control. This precedent demonstrates this Court’s obligation to step in to protect children from the detrimental harms of climate change. The Court’s role in protecting these children is even more vital because neither children nor our planet can withstand the irreversible damage that will arise from more decades of delay.

Summary of Argument

The panel's conclusion that legal remedies are unavailable to youth plaintiffs in climate change litigation is erroneous. The majority's suggestion that children seek recourse through political channels ignores their inherent lack of political influence. Case law establishes the judiciary's unique responsibility to safeguard children when they are marginalized from policy decisions that adversely affect them.

Children bear a disproportionate burden of the consequences of climate change. Government policies that promote fossil fuel consumption exacerbate climate change, but children lack the power to influence these detrimental policies. The Supreme Court has historically intervened to protect marginalized groups excluded from political processes, including children facing consequences beyond their control. This precedent underscores the judiciary's obligation to protect children from the harms of climate change.

The urgency of addressing climate change is paramount, as its irreversible effects threaten the well-being of children and the planet. The judiciary's role in safeguarding these vulnerable plaintiffs is crucial in preventing further decades of inaction and its devastating consequences.

Summary of Argument

The court made a mistake when it said that the young people in this case couldn't do anything about climate change through the legal system. The court told the kids to use politics to voice their concerns about the climate, but kids don't have much political power.

In the past, courts have recognized that they have a special duty to protect children when they can't protect themselves from harmful policies. The court ignored this precedent when it said that there was nothing it could do to help these kids, who are being hurt by climate change.

Climate change affects children more than any other group. The government encourages the use of fossil fuels, which causes climate change, but children can't do anything about it. Historically, the Supreme Court has protected vulnerable groups who have been left out of the political process, such as children who are punished for things they can't control. This shows that the Court has a responsibility to protect children from the harmful effects of climate change.

The Court needs to step in because children and our planet can't afford to wait any longer for action on climate change.

Summary of Argument

Some young people think the government isn't doing enough to stop climate change, so they sued. But the court said they couldn't do anything about it.

The court said the kids should talk to politicians to change the laws, but kids don't have much power in politics. And the court said it's not their job to protect kids from things that the government does, even if those things are bad for kids.

But other courts have stepped in to protect kids before, like when kids were being punished for things they couldn't control. The kids in this case say that climate change is hurting them more than adults, and they can't do anything about it because they can't vote or change the laws.

They also say that the government is making climate change worse by giving money to companies that use oil and gas. They argue that the court should protect them because they can't protect themselves. But the court said no, and that it's too late to stop climate change from getting worse.

Summary of Argument

The judges said that the kids who are worried about climate change should talk to politicians to fix the problem. But kids don't have much power in politics. They can't vote or make laws.

The judges should have known that there are other ways to protect kids when they can't help themselves. In the past, courts have stepped in to help kids who were being treated unfairly because they were too young to do anything about it.

Climate change is hurting kids more than anyone else. The government is making climate change worse by giving money to companies that burn oil and gas. But kids can't do anything to change these policies.

The Supreme Court has always protected people who don't have a voice in government, like kids. The Court needs to do the same thing for kids who are being hurt by climate change. If we don't stop climate change now, it will be too late for the kids and our planet.