(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) After a district court judge in Montana sided with a group of 16 child-activists last August in a long-running lawsuit intended to force compliance with a radical environmentalist agenda, the same environmental lawfare organization announced plans last month to wage a new suit in California against the federal government.
The decision in Held v. Montana asserted that state-level representatives violated Montanan’s right to a clean and healthy environment, as guaranteed by the state’s constitution after the judge ruled climate change would not be considered when making movements on energy projects.
The activist legal organization known as Our Children’s Trust represented the plaintiffs in the case, using the testimony of several indoctrinated children to guilt trip judges and the public.
The case relied on 16 plaintiffs between ages 2 and 18 years old, who were largely exploited by a group of well-funded environmental activists in what has become a routine tactic to gain sympathy for their cause, most notoriously through protest groups like the Sunrise Movement.
The ruling in Montana means state leaders must consider climate change when making decisions on either new or renewed fossil-fuel projects, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle.
There is no apparent explanation of what merits the state government’s consideration.
Our Children’s Trust recently picked up another case in California, claiming the Environmental Protection Agency interfered with the rights of 18 Californians’—between ages eight and 17—by allowing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lawyers for Our Children’s Trust are also using young child “activists” in a similar case in Oregon, known as Juliana v. United States of America.
Lawyers on the case said in a court filing after the Held ruling that the recent ruling indicated the need for a similar resolution in Oregon.
However, the Oregon case challenged federal laws, not state-level ones as the Montana case did, as pointed out by the Department of Justice.
“The claims in Held relied on provisions in the Montana state constitution that explicitly confer a fundamental right to a ‘clean and healthful environment’ and ‘environmental life support system,’” the DOJ said. “That state constitution is not relevant here, and no analogous fundamental right exists under the U.S. Constitution.”
View this post on Instagram
In June, the plaintiffs amended their case in order to avoid it being tossed altogether; the DOJ challenged the amendments in an attempt to avoid trial.
Julia Olsen, executive director and chief legal counsel of OCT, claimed the case is a “groundbreaking” effort to defend kids rights, and expressed surprise that the Biden administration continues to avoid taking the case to trial.
