Purpose
- Investigates the causes of economic imbalances.
- Explores and develops market-based solutions.
Summary
We support legal actions and public education to secure the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate system at the federal, state and global domestic levels. We will establish the constitutional standard to a safe and stable climate under state and federal constitutions. We seek legally binding judicial declarations that will return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to below 350 parts per million (ppm), now known as the 350ppm standard by the year 2100: the scientific prescription for a safe climate defined by the planetary boundaries for Earth.
Description
Our groundbreaking victories, including Held v. State of Montana, and Navahine v. Hawai'i Department of Transportation, have redefined what’s possible in climate litigation advancing global strategic goals. Because of our litigation campaign, there are now two states, Montana and Hawai`i, that have enshrined the right to a safe climate in bedrock constitutional law, and our case against the federal government of Canada is set for trial in 2026.
We have inspired hundreds of rights-based climate cases among the 1,901 cases in the US and 994 cases globally from over 55 countries. Children and youth have driven a pivotal turn towards a rights-based approach to climate litigation and continue to advance the field of youth-led climate action in courts. In 2024, we represented 181 children across 15 states and 4 countries, advocating in state, federal, and international courts and judicial bodies. And their growing wins are historic. Our cases impact 75 million children in the U.S. and 2 billion worldwide.
For example, in 2020 inspired by the Juliana v. U.S. plaintiffs, Korean youth joined lawyers from Solutions for Our Climate and Seoul National University School of Law to sue their government for violating their constitutional rights to security, liberty, and a healthy environment. In a landmark ruling this year, Korea's Constitutional Court declared part of the nation’s climate law unconstitutional, marking Asia’s first partial victory in climate litigation. This ruling sets an important precedent for rights-based climate cases in the region.
Our work has also inspired the 2016 petition by senior women alleging that their government has failed to uphold its obligations under Swiss Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights by not lowering GHG emissions, negatively impacting a demographic group is especially vulnerable to heat waves expected to result from climate change. After exhausting national remedies, the plaintiffs took the Swiss government to the European Court of Human Rights. This year’s landmark decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, declared that climate change “poses a serious current and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights” and that States are “capable of taking measures to effectively address” the crisis. We submitted scientific evidence in this case, and the decision noted that governments must set and update emissions reduction targets “with due diligence and based on the best available evidence.”
JULIANA V. UNITED STATES
We began 2024 anticipating that Juliana v. U.S. would go to trial in light of the December 2023 decision from US District Court Judge Ann Aiken, setting an end to the DOJ’s delay tactics and putting the case back on the path to trial. Beginning February 2024, the DOJ filed a series of extraordinary requests to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to get the case dismissed. In May 2024, a three-judge panel—all appointed by former President Trump—blatantly broke judicial rules, ignored binding precedent, and ordered the case be dismissed. Without requiring the government to make the required showing and ignoring the youth plaintiffs’ amended complaint, it granted the government’s petition for writ of mandamus, instructing the District Court to dismiss the case for lack of standing
This unprecedented judicial action followed a global #SaveJuliana campaign that garnered opposition to the DOJ’s long-standing efforts to thwart Juliana from going to trial. Our youth plaintiffs and partners spearheaded an intergenerational #SaveJuliana rally at the White House on April 21, following two days of meetings with members of Congress.
In June, we submitted a petition for en banc review in June, securing the support of our nation’s legal experts, scholars, and members of Congress in the form of amicus briefs.
In September, we filed a petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to correct the decision by the Trump appointed, three-judge panel, which was denied in November. While the mandamus petition was pending, we drafted and filed an application to Justice Kagan for an extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was granted. In light of the results of the November election, we sent a settlement letter to the Biden administration asking that it come to the table in meaningful settlement talks.
While drafting a petition for writ of certiorari, in close consultation with numerous Supreme Court scholars and advocates, we determined that the clearest path to trial in Juliana was through a process called “GVR” or Grant, Vacate, Remand while the court considers the related case of Gutierrez v. Saenz which similarly addresses the issue of redressability in constitutional cases. Both Gutierrez and Juliana cases involve plaintiffs seeking relief from ongoing government actions that violate their fundamental rights—post-conviction DNA testing in Gutierrez and government-driven climate harm in Juliana. Like Juliana, the issue the Supreme Court granted cert on in Gutierrez, as well as in another case called Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA brought by fossil fuel producers, is whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III’s standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Longstanding Supreme Court precedent holds that judicial declarations of constitutional violations constitute partial redress, sufficient to establish standing. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity in Gutierrez, Diamond Alternative Energy, and Juliana to clarify that when plaintiffs demonstrate ongoing constitutional injuries caused by the government, declaratory relief can satisfy the redressability requirement.
A favorable ruling in Gutierrez and Diamond Energy would not only clarify redressability standards in the context of standing but also bolster the ability of courts to address systemic constitutional harms caused by the government. For Juliana, this would mean renewed legal grounding for holding the government accountable for violating young people’s rights to life, liberty, and property through its role in driving climate change. By establishing stronger precedents, these cases collectively underscore the judiciary's role in providing remedies for complex, ongoing injuries inflicted by unconstitutional government actions.
LA ROSE V. HIS MAJESTY THE KING
While the United States government has continued to fail its 75 million children by denying the Juliana 21 a trial, in Canada seven million children will finally have their day in court.
In December 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal delivered a historic decision unanimously affirming that the youth deserve their day in court to determine whether Canada is upholding its constitutional obligations to safeguard children’s rights to life, liberty, and security in the face of the climate crisis. We followed this pivotal ruling with an Amended Statement of Claim in May 2024, laying the groundwork to begin preparation for trial. The plaintiffs asked the Court to mandate a science-based climate recovery plan that includes realistic measures, interim targets, and a commitment to Canada’s fair share of global emissions reductions. In December, the government decided not to file a second motion to strike, and the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that the case will proceed to an eight-week trial, set to begin on October 26, 2026, in Vancouver, BC. A victory in this case could fundamentally redefine governmental accountability for climate action, setting a powerful precedent for youth-led climate justice efforts worldwide.
HELD V. STATE OF MONTANA
In a historic ruling the Montana Supreme Court affirmed 6-1 the decision of the district court in the landmark case, Held v. State of Montana, siding with the 16 youth plaintiffs who had sued the state over its promotion of fossil fuel extraction and its failure to consider climate change impacts in its decision-making. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests.
The Court wrote: “We reject the argument that the delegates—intending the strongest, all-encompassing environmental protections in the nation, both anticipatory and preventative, for present and future generations—would grant the State a free pass to pollute the Montana environment just because the rest of the world insisted on doing so. The District Court’s conclusion of law is affirmed: Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment.”
Montana now stands at a crossroads. It can continue to support fossil fuel extraction, transportation, and combustion with all the environmental, human health, and climate risks that entails, or it can rise to the challenge of creating a clean energy future.
We will now shift our legal work to enforcement and implementation campaigns, ensuring that every young person in the state understands their fundamental constitutional rights and power. During our June 2023 trial, Judge Kathy Seeley opened her courtroom to the world. To that end, this summer, we launched an award-winning Held v. State of Montana website, featuring courtroom videos, expert testimonials, and more to inspire and educate. Here is the link to the website: https://heldvmontana.ourchildrenstrust.org/
NAVAHINE V. HAWAI?I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Keiki o ka ‘aina (the children of this land) live with deep care and responsibility for Hawai?i which is on the front lines of the climate crisis. Navahine v. HDOT is the world’s first, youth-led case directed at stopping climate pollution from transportation. After years of development, the case was filed in 2022 and in 2024 it became the first settlement in a constitutional climate case that protects and centers the fundamental rights of children.
“The passion demonstrated by these young people in advocating for a healthy, sustainable future for their generation and those to come, is laudable. This settlement informs how we as a state can best move forward to achieve life-sustaining goals and further, we can surely expect to see these and other youth in Hawai?i continue to step up to build the type of future they desire.” - Governor Josh Green, MD
After collaborating with 13 youth plaintiffs, submitting 15 expert and rebuttal reports prepared by ten pro bono experts, and reviewing over 215,800 pages of documents exchanged in discovery, we reached the settlement in Navahine just two weeks before trial was set to begin. The settlement demonstrates that all areas of government – the executive, legislative and judicial branches – can and must work together to achieve climate stabilization.
The Hawaiian government has committed to take all actions necessary to achieve zero emissions no later than 2045 for ground, sea, and interisland air transportation. The court will retain jurisdiction through 2045, HDOT will reform its program and budget with dedicated leaders, a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan will offer a 20-year roadmap, and youth will have a seat at the table through the HDOT Youth Council with the ability to shape transformative policies through their feedback and vision for the future. Young people who serve on the Youth Council, including several Navahine plaintiffs, are Hawai?i’s future leaders – both in business and civic life – that will practice aloha ‘aina and aloha ‘ohana as elements of climate justice in Hawai?i. These leaders, and others, will educate their peers, parents, and community.
With our ten pro bono experts we charted cost-effective pathways and best practices that can be implemented by HDOT to decarbonize transportation, including electrifying light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicle sectors, reducing vehicle miles traveled, decarbonizing fuels, and increasing investments in multimodal transportation. Transportation has been the biggest barrier to a livable future for the children of Hawai‘i who live on the front lines of climate disasters.
The agreement sets deliverables such as investing an initial $40M into public EV charging stations by 2030; completing the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks within five years; and planting 1K+ native trees each year to sequester more carbon. The plan will have five-year targets with benchmarks and annual reporting to measure compliance. While the Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ obligations until 2045, Our Children’s Trust will work alongside the youth and their communities to ensure the agreement is fully implemented.
This first-of-its-kind victory is already changing lives: 165,000 public school students are learning about the 13 courageous young plaintiffs whose victory set a precedent for climate action. We are working with the Hawai?i Department of Education to ensure that young people understand and assert their rights, and with the Hawai?i Department of Transportation as it launches the Youth Council – to ensure young voices guide climate policies for the next 20 years – and we stand ready to enforce the binding plan to eliminate fossil fuels from transportation. The settlement was made possible by the Hawai?i Supreme Court’s recognition of a state constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate system, based on Judge Aiken’s groundbreaking ruling in the Juliana case.
The settlement sets a precedent for other states and nations to follow. “I realize now that we’ve settled, this case is monumental across the world. There are people internationally having conversations about what this case in Hawaii by 13 different youth plaintiffs is doing to the world.” – Pahonu, plaintiff
ADVANCING SCIENCE
In addition to our work in the courtroom, we joined conversations with advocates, lawyers, academics, policymakers, and scientists to advance the rights turn in strategic climate litigation and advocate for science-based climate rights before international tribunals and bodies, including the Committee on the Rights of the Child, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.
We filed an Amicus brief with the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in August 2023 urging the Court to use the best available scientific evidence as a basis for its advisory opinion on States’ human rights obligations in the midst of the climate crisis. In April 2024 Kalalapaikuanalu Winter (Navahine plaintiff) and Kelly Matheson testified during public hearings addressing the State’s obligation to protect fundamental rights, especially children’s rights, in the context of the climate emergency.
IN SUMMARY
We are so appreciative of the steadfast support of the Alex C. Walker Foundation who has championed our work on behalf of children. Our Children’s Trust advances the fundamental right to a livable climate for children using the best available science. We are revolutionizing constitutional climate law, creating a just, binding, and politician-proof system to phase out fossil fuels no later than 2050. The law centers adults with their power and profits. We are forcing a reckoning of that root problem. The law—and its guardians—must center children for a healthier and more just world. Youth deserve the best advocacy and representation. They deserve to be heard, listened to, and protected.
Purpose
We are investigating and addressing a major cause of economic imbalance: the climate. Presently, society does not accurately price the damages that stem from climate destabilizing activities and products. Present and future harms that come from such activities and products are not factored into their pricing, resulting in major economic imbalances today and in the future. Additionally, we are exploring and advocating for market approaches that will promote a sustainable economy and economic balance relating to ecosystem services, climate change, energy security, food production and other environmental issues. Economic imbalances that favor carbon intensive goods and services and perpetuate environmental degradation continue to dominate our economy. Our work will lead to court orders that require governments to realign those imbalances toward a sustainable economy, in accordance with scientific prescriptions to stabilize our climate system and de-acidify our oceans.
Scope
To solve the economic imbalance fueling the climate crisis, a federal-state strategy will shift the paradigm and end the reign of fossil fuels. The US government is responsible for 25% of cumulative global GHG emissions. A federal court win impacts 72M youth; stops 1,029,041MMT CO2 emissions and saves $2.2T in health and energy costs by 2050. Annual health savings are avoided lost life and its link to health costs. Annual energy savings is difference between keeping fossil fuel plants running versus cost of clean energy. A 25-state strategy impacts 39M youth; 719,379MMT CO2 emissions are stopped (equal to 19 years of 2021-level global fossil fuel/industrial emissions) and saves $1.24T in health and energy costs by 2050. Our project is designed to reach a national tipping point. Submissions to the world’s courts recognize that in the context of the climate emergency, law, and science are the inseparable bookends of climate rights, obligations, redress, and justice.
Information Dissemination
We disseminate information on our results and findings, through digital platforms (websites, social media campaigns, newsletters, virtual briefings); traditional media; community engagement (public forums, partnerships); academic and professional channels (conferences, law journals, publications); storytelling (blogs, podcasts); and advocacy and policy work (amicus briefs, toolkits).
DATA DRIVEN. We are driven by data and scientific studies, as well as the cost, health, climate and land benefits of transitioning to renewable energy. We work with researchers and experts that examine state level emissions that can be stopped through a combination of halting future emissions from extraction and new fossil-fuel based power plants plus emissions reduced by transition to clean wind-water-solar (WWS).
This is a critical data point that we examine as we develop new constitutional claims. For example, in Montana, we intend to stop the extraction of >100 billion metrics of tons of fossil fuels, driving a paradigm shift to clean WWS energy which greatly reduces the energy consumption of the state and other jurisdictions reliant on Montana’s coal and oil reserves.
For example, as we consider a new case in Texas, our research shows that a transition away from fossil fuels will mitigate the climate crisis and improve the lives of Texans by: (1) generating 813,000 more jobs; (2) saving 4,400 lives each year; (3) reducing annual State emissions by 882,000,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gasses; and (4) reducing annual energy, health and climate damage costs in Texas by 77-83%. Fortunately, Texas is already a national leader in renewable energy development, so this transition is not just a theoretical possibility, but an attainable way to safeguard children’s constitutional rights.
ENGAGEMENT. We engage diverse experts and volunteers in the development of our cases, and we calculate the value of this support each year. In 2024, 19 Amicus briefs were filed on our plaintiffs’ behalf, 22 experts provided pro bono testimony and scientific advice to courts, 25 attorneys joined us as pro bono counsel and 18 pediatric associations representing one million medical professionals in over 120 countries stood behind our testimony to Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Amicus briefs were submitted from children’s rights advocates and scholars; economists; faith-based organizations; lawyers’ associations, legal scholars and law school clinics; doctors, psychiatrists, public health leaders and organizations; members of Congress; recreation industry and elite athletes; retired Supreme Court justices, Tribal Nations; and world-renowned experts on climate rights.
Staff and plaintiffs presented our work at over 90 events, both virtually and in person, in venues ranging from schools to churches to conference centers. We delivered formal presentations, led workshops, taught classes, engaged in collaborative conversations, and accepted ten awards.
MEDIA. Our message resonated far and wide securing over 330 pieces of earned media in more than ten languages, generating 25.3M impressions across national and international outlets. We also launched a blog in April with over 30 stories throughout the year. Through this visibility, we’re amplifying the voices of youth leaders and their pursuit of climate justice.
Project Link https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/end-of-year-2024
Amount Approved$100,000.00
on 5/15/2024
