change Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’ ends with Supreme Court’s cert denial

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:31:17 +0000

U.S. Supreme Court

Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’ ends with Supreme Court’s cert denial

March 25, 2025, 2:01 pm CDT

Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana of Oregon, the lead plaintiff in Juliana v. United States, speaks at a rally in June 2019. (Photo by Steve Dipaola/The Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a climate change lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 youths who contended that the government is a trustee of the environment and has a duty to preserve it.

The Supreme Court denied cert in Juliana v. United States, report Law360, Reuters, the New York Times, the Oregon Capital Chronicle and E&E News by Politico.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco had tossed the case in a 2020 opinion that said the issue should be taken to the political branches of government, rather than the courts. In May, the appeals court said a revised suit had not cured standing issues that prevented courts from deciding the case.

The name plaintiff in the suit, filed in 2015, is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, who is now 29 years old and a teacher in Oregon, according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a March 24 press release it has defended the case across three presidential administrations.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s cert denial brings this long saga to a conclusion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, in the press release.

The case was filed on behalf of the children by the nonprofit group Our Children’s Trust. Julia Olson, the group’s chief legal counsel, said in a March 24 statement the suit’s impact “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana has ignited a movement and created a powerful legal framework for future generations to assert their constitutional rights in the face of the climate crisis,” she said.

In one success for the group in late 2024, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a state law banning consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil-fuel-permitting decisions. The state supreme court cited a state constitutional provision that guarantees a “clean and healthful environment.” The case was Held v. Montana.

In a second case in 2024, Hawaii agreed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide in its transportation system in a settlement with Our Children’s Trust.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’ ends with Supreme Court’s cert denial appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Thomas dissents in denial of climate change states case

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:33:32 +0000

Left: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas. Right: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Alito. (Alex Wong/Getty Images.)

Two of the Supreme Court’s stalwart conservative justices railed against the Court’s majority for not allowing Alabama and a coalition of Republican-led states to step in and attempt to block dozens of climate-change lawsuits filed by states led by Democrats against energy companies.

California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have filed over two dozen lawsuits against Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and other oil companies seeking to hold them responsible for deceiving customers about the risks posed by fossil fuels. The particularities of the lawsuits vary, as each raises a set of allegations arising under the laws of the relevant state.

In general though, the lawsuits charge that the companies have known for decades that greenhouse gas emissions from use of fossil fuels would contribute to climate change, and that the companies failed to warn consumers and used deceptive marketing practices that maximized profit, tricked consumers, and harmed the environment.

California was the first to file one of these lawsuits in 2023. At the time, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said the energy industry has been lying to citizens for over half a century. Newsom also said oil companies should be held accountable for “wildfires wiping out entire communities, toxic smoke clogging our air, deadly heat waves, record-breaking droughts parching our wells.”

Alabama and 18 other Republican-run states sought to block the climate change lawsuits on the basis that California and the others were unconstitutionally attempting to dictate interstate energy policy beyond their own borders via the use of tort lawsuits. The states argue that this practice infringes on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate interstate emissions. The group requested to file a complaint directly with the Supreme Court as a dispute between states themselves, invoking the Court’s rarely-used original jurisdiction.

California and the other defendant states challenged the filing and argues that the arguments Alabama and the others were seeking to raise could be raised by the energy companies in the climate change lawsuits themselves. In its brief, the California group argued that “Alabama’s desire to protect those private defendants from liability is not the kind of sovereign concern that warrants an exercise of this court’s original jurisdiction.”

The Court, without comment from the majority, declined to allow Alabama and the others to file their complaint before the justices Monday.

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissenting statement, joined in full by Justice Samuel Alito. in which Thomas chastised the justices for eschewing their responsibility to hear disputes between states. Thomas wrote that “the Court’s assumption that it has ‘discretion to decline review’ in suits between States is ‘suspect’ at best.”

According to Thomas, “This discretionary approach is a modern invention that the Court has never persuasively justified.” He wrote that the Court’s decision to make only “sparing use” of original jurisdiction is “part of a broader policy” that seeks to limit the Court’s caseload relating to disputes between states, which have the potential to become overwhelming in modern society.

Thomas, however, said that despite the rationale, decisions to decline review of disputes between states “are not ours to make,” as it is the Constitution that sets out the bounds of original jurisdiction. Further, he argued, the ruling, “leaves the 19 plaintiff States without any legal means of vindicating their claims against the 5 defendant States.”

A similar outcome occurred in the 2021 case of Texas v. California, in which Texas attempted to challenge a California law that prohibited the state from spending any money on travel to other states that fail to offer adequate protections for LGBTQ individuals. As in the climate change case, Texas alleged constitutional violations and asked the high court to weigh in. The justices declined to allow Texas to proceed with the filing, and Alito issued a scathing dissent — joined by Thomas — in which he said that the “economic warfare” between Texas and California is precisely the kind of case for which the Court has original jurisdiction.

The Court does occasionally exercise original jurisdiction, mostly in cases involving water rights, the dissent noted.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Colin Kalmbacher contributed to this article.

Source link

The post Thomas dissents in denial of climate change states case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Amicus brief portends huge change to White House press pool

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:13:39 +0000

FILE — President Donald Trump throws pens used to sign executive orders to the crowd during an indoor Presidential Inauguration parade event in Washington, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025 (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File).

The Trump administration on Tuesday announced a sea change in how media will be allowed to cover the presidency. That change was foreshadowed in a recent court filing — as part of a parade of horribles.

Standing behind a lectern and flanked by flags and screens in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the government itself would henceforth select the journalists who make up the White House “press pool.”

The press pool is a nearly 144-year-old institution whose members have, for decades, been under the purview of the 111-year-old White House Correspondents Association, a nonprofit that is famously responsible for their annual, eponymous, comedy-themed dinner.

“As you all know, a group of D.C.-based journalists, the White House Correspondents Association, has long dictated which journalists get to ask questions of the President of the United States in these intimate spaces,” Leavitt intoned. “Not anymore. I am proud to announce that we are giving the power back to the people who read your papers, who watch your television shows, and who listen to your radio stations. Moving forward, the White House press pool, will be determined by the White House Press Team.”

Reaction from the WHCA, other members of the media, and First Amendment experts was swift and all-but uniformly negative.

“This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States,” WHCA President Eugene Daniels said in a statement. “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

A White House adviser reportedly gloated, albeit anonymously, in comments to Axios — and attributed the press pool shift directly to a recent dispute with The Associated Press over certain terminology.

“The AP and the White House Correspondents Association wanted to f––– around,” the adviser told Axios. “Now it’s finding out time.”

Alex Morey, a First Amendment attorney who works for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, criticized this perspective in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

“[A] media outlet holding firm to its editorial standards in the face of explicit pressure to instead act as the government’s mouthpiece is, if I’m remembering my J-school lessons accurately, the exact opposite of f–––ing around,” she said.

Leavitt clarified that “legacy outlets” who have been part of the pool in the past “will still be allowed to join,” suggesting one upshot of the new policy is other “well-deserving outlets” will be granted access.

“New voices are going to be welcomed in,” Leavitt said, explaining that major broadcast news networks will take part, on a rotating basis, with “streaming services which reach different audiences.”

The makeup of the pool will, going forward, be made by White House officials — and will likely change on a daily basis.

Still, the move will likely serve as a stark and powerful example of how some Trump administration decision-making appears calibrated specifically to deter and enrage its opponents.

The shift in how the press pool will be chosen comes amid an ongoing legal battle in the federal court system over the Associated Press’ access to the institution it essentially founded.

On Feb. 11, White House officials informed the AP its reporters would be barred from entering certain areas as a member of the press pool “unless the AP began referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, following President Trump’s renaming of that body of water in Executive Order 14172,” which was titled, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness.”

On Feb. 21, the WHCA filed an 18-page lawsuit in D.C. federal court accusing the White House of engaging in “content- and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. The complaint, and an accompanying motion, requested a temporary restraining order — asking for the court to reverse the ban.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, declined to grant what he termed the “extraordinary relief” of a temporary restraining order due to the timing of the lawsuit and because the AP can still access pool reports prepared by other journalists.

At the same time, the judge mused that precedent was wholly on the plaintiffs’ side when, and if, the case comes down to the merits. To hear the judge tell it, the ban on the AP was clearly unconstitutional.

“It seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” McFadden said.

A 21-page amicus brief filed on Monday by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press staked out the exact same position.

“Here, the AP’s exclusion is not just arbitrary and unjustified but viewpoint-based, an ‘especially invidious’ form of discrimination often described as ‘poison’ to the free flow of information,” the brief argues. “To tolerate it in this case would undermine the central meaning of the First Amendment and the central purpose of the White House pool — to ensure that the public ‘never come[s] to depend on a president’s aides alone’ to understand the nation’s highest office.”

The filing elaborates on how the First Amendment likely applies in the case of the AP being singled out and ejected from what is, in terms of constitutional caselaw, considered a “public forum.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox

“Having implemented the pool system, then, the White House may not, consistent with the First Amendment, bar access to pool members on grounds that are repugnant to the principle of viewpoint neutrality,” the brief goes on. “And here the White House makes no secret of its motivation. It excluded the AP because it is targeting the substance of the AP’s reporting, which it perceives as ‘partisan.””

The brief also makes a public policy argument — premised on the idea that the press pool’s membership is self-regulated.

Again the friend of court filing, at length:

As a matter of longstanding policy, “[t]he White House does not pick the members of the press pool that goes in to the Oval Office” and other limited-access spaces; instead, to preserve the pool’s function as an independent chronicler of the presidency, “[t]he pool makeup is decided by the members of the press corps themselves.” And that independence is jealously guarded …

That longstanding policy, of course, is precisely what the White House put out to pasture the very next day.

Source link

The post Amicus brief portends huge change to White House press pool appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Probation and Pretrial Officers Help Bring Positive Change in the Community

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:27 +0000

Main content

U.S. probation and pretrial officers must balance two very important goals: protecting public safety and helping people they oversee make positive changes in their lives.

In recognition of National Pretrial, Probation, and Parole Supervision (PPPS) Week, a new video explains the work of officers and their unique roles in the administration of justice, providing insight into how they do their jobs effectively.

Video of In Their Own Words: U.S. Probation and Pretrial Officers

“It’s the probation officer’s job to help assess the person under supervision and find out what their needs are. And once we know what their needs are, it’s our job to help motivate them and to … help collaboratively come up with that road map to get them to where they need to be,” said Justin Adams, a special offender specialist for the Western District of North Carolina U.S. Probation Office.

Officers work hard to help individuals who have been convicted of federal crimes to fully reintegrate themselves into society. Many face a wide range of needs, including employment, mental health treatment and even getting a driver’s license after spending time in incarceration.

“Not only am I working to help preserve community safety and looking out for the public, but I’m also working every day to help people make positive changes in their lives,” said Amanda Knox, a sentencing guideline specialist for the District of Arizona U.S. Probation Office.

PPPS Week is honored annually during the third calendar week of July to recognize the public service of community corrections professionals.

Learn more about the federal probation and pretrial services system.

Related Topics: Probation and Pretrial Services

Source link

The post Probation and Pretrial Officers Help Bring Positive Change in the Community appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Is SCOTUS making it harder to teach constitutional law? Profs ‘depleted’ and taken aback by ‘velocity’ of change

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 04:41:09 +0000

Law Professors

Is SCOTUS making it harder to teach constitutional law? Profs ‘depleted’ and taken aback by ‘velocity’ of change

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2024, 3:10 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court’s “hard-right supermajority” is using the doctrine of originalism to overturn established precedent, making it difficult for constitutional law professors grappling with rapid change that they think is unprincipled. (Image from Shutterstock)

The New York Times spoke with several constitutional law professors, including professor Rebecca Brown of the University of Southern California.

“While I was working on my syllabus for this course, I literally burst into tears,” she told the New York Times author. “I couldn’t figure out how any of this makes sense. Why do we respect it? Why do we do any of it? I’m feeling very depleted by having to teach it.”

“What feels different at this moment,” said Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, “is the ambition and the velocity, how fast and aggressively it’s happening.”

As an example, the New York Times pointed to the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

According to the New York Times writer, the decision “featured the right-wing justices playing amateur historians, cherry-picking and distorting evidence from decades or centuries ago in order to justify their existing opinions.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California at Berkeley School of Law and an ABA Journal contributor, addressed the same topic in a March 2022 podcast. One of the guests was Jeffrey Abramson, a professor at the University of Texas who was teaching law students and undergraduates.

“I think we’re on the cusp of a disaster. I think we’re seeing almost a virtual collapse of the ability to teach con law as law,” Abramson said.

“I started this semester with Marbury v. Madison, as almost all of us do,” Abramson said. “I traditionally played devil’s advocate with judicial review. I didn’t have to. Before I had gotten 20 sentences out of my mouth, the students were already asking whether judicial review, both historically and today, serves any democratic purpose.”

Abramson also has students read a Franz Kafka story about a man from the country who finds a gatekeeper who won’t allow him to gain entry into the law.

“It’s a long story about whether there is a law inside that the doorkeeper is keeping students from getting into, or whether there is nothing in there, that it’s all a charade, it’s all a magic trick. They’re only doorkeepers and doorkeepers and doorkeepers.”

In the past, students believed in the law and thought that there was a difference between the law and its agents, who could be faithful or corrupt, Abramson said. But now, his students “share this vast cynicism” that there are only gatekeepers, and “there is no such thing as the law.”

Will Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, offers a different perspective at the Volokh Conspiracy, where he cited his presentation at a symposium that he has posted to SSRN.

There is a perception that teaching constitutional law is more difficult because the Supreme Court has been doing so many things so quickly. But the perception is wrong, Baude said.

The Supreme Court “has long been engaging in awe-inspiring power grabs,” he said, citing cases with liberal results on abortion, same-sex marriage, desegregation and the rights of criminal defendants.

“The court has always been making questionable calls in high-profile cases, likely for a mix of political reasons and genuine differences of opinion about the nature of the Constitution,” Baude wrote. “What has really changed is not that the court is newly imperial or newly lawless or newly political. What has changed is that many more folks inside the Ivory Tower have noticed and no longer see their values and ways of thinking represented as often by the court.”

Source link

The post Is SCOTUS making it harder to teach constitutional law? Profs ‘depleted’ and taken aback by ‘velocity’ of change appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Army secretary promises culture change after CBS News investigation

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 02 Jan 2024 05:16:00 +0000

Army secretary promises culture change after CBS News investigation – CBS News

Watch CBS News

In an exclusive interview, “CBS Evening News” anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell sat down with Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy to discuss the firings and changes following a probe at Fort Hood, as well as the year-and-a-half long investigation by CBS News into sexual assault within the U.S. military.

Source link

The post Army secretary promises culture change after CBS News investigation appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

How GPT and other large language models could change e-discovery

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:32:45 +0000

Large language models such as ChatGPT are all the rage these days. A lot of commentators, legal professionals, lawyers and media outlets, including this podcast, have spent a lot of time examining this game-changing technology.

This isn’t the first time that a promising piece of legal technology upended the legal industry. When technologically assisted review first started gaining traction in e-discovery in the 2010s, many of the same superlatives assigned to ChatGPT were used to describe this groundbreaking new process that purported to review documents faster and more accurately than humans. Lawyers would get hours and hours of time back, and clients would save tons of money.

But then a funny thing happened. Lawyers were reluctant to fully embrace it, citing concerns with the technology or the possibility that a court might punish them for using a new tool that hadn’t been widely accepted by the legal industry. Even today, many lawyers and law firms still rely on traditional methods of conducting e-discovery—armies of contract attorneys sifting through documents one at a time.

In that vein, large language models have already been more wholeheartedly embraced by lawyers and legal professionals than technologically assisted review. However, there have also been a lot of hiccups and problems with the technology—between false case citations and made up information, it’s clear that this technology still has a ways to go.

In this episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, e-discovery pioneer John Tredennick talks to the ABA Journal’s Victor Li about what it was like when technologically assisted review first came out, how it compares to the reception that ChatGPT got, and how large language models are affecting keyword searches.

Want to listen on the go? Legal Rebels is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

John Tredennick

" style="vertical-align:text-top; max-width:80px;"/>

John Tredennick

John Tredennick is the founder and CEO of Merlin Search Technologies. Before that, he was a litigator and a partner at Holland & Hart. While working as the chief technology officer of the law firm, he spun off the e-discovery group into a separate business in 2000, which he named Catalyst. In 2019, he sold Catalyst to OpenText for $75 million.

Source link

The post How GPT and other large language models could change e-discovery appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.