

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Julia Olson, 415-786-4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org
To set up interviews with youth plaintiffs, contact:
Meg Ward, 503-341-8590, meg@ourchildrenstrust.org
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in the youth-brought lawsuit, Martinez v. COGCC and found, contrary to the arguments of the Commission and the youth, that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission cannot condition oil and gas development on protecting public health, safety, and welfare and the environment. Justice Gabriel, in a unanimous decision, acknowledged the civic engagement and concerns of the youth plaintiffs' and even found that their interpretation of the Act, which would have required the Commission to prioritize public health over oil and gas development, was reasonable. However, the Court ultimately rejected plaintiffs' reasonable interpretation of the Act, determined that the Act was ambiguous, and held that the Commission did not have authority to promulgate a rule protecting public health if it precluded new oil and gas development.
According to the Supreme Court:
"[T]he pertinent provisions make clear that the Commission is required (1) to foster the development of oil and gas resources, protecting and enforcing the rights of owners and producers, and (2) in doing so, to prevent and mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts to the extent necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, but only after taking into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility."
"In light of our above-described construction of the pertinent provisions of the Act, we conclude that the Commission correctly determined that it could not, consistent with those provisions, adopt such a rule. Specifically, as set forth above, we do not believe that the pertinent provisions of the Act allow the Commission to condition one legislative priority (here, oil and gas development) on another (here, the protection of public health and the environment). Accordingly, in our view, the Commission properly exercised its discretion in declining to engage in rulemaking to consider Respondents' proposed rule."
In describing the Act, the Court ignored the Act's clear requirement that the Commission promulgate rules to "protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public" (SS 34-60-106(11)) and instead found that if the Commission determines that is it not cost-effective or technically feasible to protect public health, the Commission cannot do so.
The case was brought by seven young Coloradans who are all members of Earth Guardians and are represented by Julia Olson, Dan Leftwich, and Kate Merlin, and supported by the organization Our Children's Trust.
Julia Olson, a Colorado native and the executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs, said:
"The Supreme Court's decisions in Fort Collins and Longmont, and now Martinez, make clear that until the Oil and Gas Conservation Act is amended or set aside as unconstitutional, the Oil and Gas Commission has unfettered discretion to promote Colorado's dangerous and pervasive oil and gas development at the expense of the people. The Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court today, is unconstitutional because it allows the State to deprive Coloradans of their health, safety, and basic security. We will not stop supporting and working to protect youth in Colorado in their fight against fossil fuel development. This is a call to action for the people to rise up."
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, 18-year-old plaintiff and plaintiff in Juliana v. United States, and Youth Director of Earth Guardians from Boulder, said:
"It is so disappointing for the youth and the people of Colorado to hear the decision form the Colorado Supreme Court today. To know that the judges in the highest court of my state believe that the interests of the oil and gas industry come before the public health, safety, and welfare of my fellow Coloradans is shameful. But I want you all to know that this fight for climate justice is far from over. My fellow plaintiffs, youth around the world, and I will continue to stand up for our right to a healthy future."
Emma Bray, 19-year-old plaintiff from Denver, said:
"The last couple years have proven that youth have the opportunity to be heard in the courts and the community. Not a single person, company or corporation can silence the young generation's voices. We will continue the fight for our earth and our future, despite the mountains we need to climb and the setbacks that we will overcome. Regardless of the Court's decision in our case, the fight will continue."
Itzcuauhtli M., 15-year-old plaintiff from Boulder, said:
"When my mom and dad grew up they were never faced with having to stand up to defend their communities, their states and their futures. It is unjust that the Supreme Court would jeopardize our future and the future of their own children by supporting the interests of the oil and gas industry."
Dan Leftwich, of MindDrive Legal Services, LLC and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs, said:
"The Court says the legislature did not intend to prioritize one policy goal over others, but its opinion does just that. Its interpretation of section 106(2)(d) of the Act gives the authority to the Commission to ignore significant adverse impacts to public health, safety and the environment if an operator claims such protections are not 'cost effective' or 'technically feasible.'"
Press Conference: Our Children's Trust will host a press conference today at 10:30 am PST via Facebook Live on the Our Children's Trust Facebook page. Hear from Julia Olson and ask your questions for her in the comments.
Martinez v. COGCC was one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, including the landmark federal lawsuit Juliana v. United States, all supported by Our Children's Trust, seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.
Counsel for plaintiffs include Colorado Environmental Law, LTD., Katherine Marlin, Boulder, Colorado; Minddrive Legal Services, LLC, James Daniel Leftwich, Boulder, Colorado; Wild Earth Advocates, Julia Olson, Eugene, Oregon.
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
While the company plans to challenge the decision, the state's attorney general said the figure "should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law."
Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and other child advocates on Tuesday celebrated a state jury's landmark verdict against Meta, despite the social media giant's plans to fight the decision requiring it to pay $375 million in civil penalties.
"The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety," said Torrez, who had accused the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp of violating the state's Unfair Practices Act. "Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough."
The Associated Press highlighted that "the landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case."
Torrez said that "New Mexico is proud to be the first state to hold Meta accountable in court for misleading parents, enabling child exploitation, and harming kids. In the next phase of this legal proceeding, we will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms that offer stronger protections for children."
"The substantial damages the jury ordered Meta to pay should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law," he added. "Policymakers and law enforcement officials across the country can help make this verdict a turning point in the fight for children's safety. This is a watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online—and this victory belongs to them."
Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit Fairplay, welcomed the verdict. He said in a statement that "we've known for years that Meta enables the sexual exploitation of children. Now, that has been proven by a jury."
"As an organization that fights to protect children from Big Tech's deadly business model, Fairplay thanks Attorney General Torrez for his leadership in taking Meta to court," Golin continued. "Between this case and the ongoing trial in Los Angeles, parents, survivors, and state officials are doing their part to hold Big Tech accountable. Now, it's time for our leaders in the US Congress to get off the sidelines and pass the Senate's version of the Kids Online Safety Act to force these companies to change their addictive and dangerous product designs."
As Common Dreams has reported, while a diverse coalition supports the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups have also expressed concerns about the legislation. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, warned last year that "the overbroad language in KOSA and similar legislation risks censoring everything from jokes and hyperbole to useful information about sex ed and suicide prevention."
Amid celebrations over the New Mexico jury's decision on Tuesday, Meta said in a statement that "we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."
NBC News noted that "separately, Meta is facing thousands of lawsuits accusing it and other social media companies of intentionally designing their products to be addictive to young people, leading to a nationwide mental health crisis. Some of the lawsuits, which have been filed in both state and federal courts, seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars, according to Meta’s filings with financial regulators."
Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya's imprisonment appears "to be flagrantly arbitrary and manifestly inconsistent with the Mandela Rules, which establish the obligation of states to ensure prisoners have access to healthcare.”
A pair of United Nations human rights experts on Tuesday called on Israel to immediately release Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, a Palestinian physician and hospital director who has been imprisoned for more than 450 days and allegedly tortured by his captors.
Israel must ensure Abu Safiya "is granted access to medical examination and treatment," UN Special Rapporteurs Tlaleng Mofokeng and Ben Saul said, adding that the doctor reportedly suffered "severe torture."
“We have received reports that Dr. Abu Safiya has been subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, and that his health condition remains dire,” the experts continued. “The conditions of his detention appear to be flagrantly arbitrary and manifestly inconsistent with the Mandela Rules, which establish the obligation of states to ensure prisoners have access to healthcare.”
“He has been systematically denied critical medical examination and treatment, and deprived of essential care to such an extent that his life, health, and well-being have been gravely endangered,” the pair added.
Israeli troops detained Abu Safiya, who is now 52 years old, on December 28, 2024 amid a prolonged siege and assault on Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia, where he served as director. Abu Safiya which refused to evacuate the facility as long as patients were still being treated.
Former detainees released from the notorious Sde Teiman torture prison in southern Israel said they met Abu Safiya there. According to testimonies gathered by the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Abu Safiya was tortured before his arrival at Sde Teiman and inside the facility.
Abu Safiya was subsequently transferred to Ofer Prison in the illegally occupied West Bank of Palestine, where another renowned Gaza physician, Dr. Adnan al-Bursh, died after reportedly enduring torture. UN Palestine expert Francesca Albanese cited reports that al-Bursh was “likely raped to death."
During a previous Israeli attack on Kamal Adwan Hospital, Abu Safiya’s 15-year-old son was killed in a drone strike. Abu Safiya was seriously wounded in a separate drone attack that left six pieces of shrapnel in his leg.
Shortly after Abu Safiya's detention, his mother died of a heart attack attributed to "severe sadness" by the medical charity for which the doctor worked.
A UN commission concluded in 2024 that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system as part of a broader assault on Gaza, committing war crimes and the crime against humanity of extermination with relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza—are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder and forced starvation.
"Violence against healthcare workers, destruction of health facilities, and underlying determinants of health continue unabated despite a so-called ceasefire in Gaza,” the UN experts said Tuesday. More than 650 Palestinian civilians, including medical professionals, have been killed by Israeli forces since the ceasefire took effect last October, according to Gaza officials.
Overall, more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded over 899 days of Israel's US-backed war, which UN experts, human rights groups, and many others argue is a genocide. Since South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late 2023, nearly 20 countries have formally intervened to support the proceedings.
Most of Gaza's over 2 million people have also been forcibly displaced—many of them multiple times—and many have suffered starvation and sickness.
The UN experts asserted that countries "have the power to end [Abu Safiya's] torment, and we call on them to use it."
"It is incumbent upon states with influence on Israel and the international community to use all avenues to ensure prevention, recourse, and justice," they added. "Israel must release Dr. Abu Safiya and all healthcare workers, and ensure they have access to appropriate medical care.”
"What happened to Adrián Rengel is government-sanctioned torture and a failure to recognize his humanity because he happened to be an immigrant."
One of the more than 200 Venezuelan men whom US President Donald Trump sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador last year, Neiyerver Adrián León Rengel, sued the United States of America in a federal court on Tuesday, seeking $1.3 million in damages.
León Rengel entered the United States at a port of entry in June 2023, during the Biden administration, for a pre-scheduled appointment, at which "he underwent screenings and provided his biometrics," according to the complaint, filed in Washington, DC. He was released and scheduled to appear before an immigration judge in April 2028.
However, the filing details, after Trump returned to office, León Rengel "was wrongly identified as a member of the gang Tren de Aragua (TDA), repeatedly denied due process, falsely imprisoned, intentionally deceived, and—ultimately—illegally sent to El Salvador in blatant violation of a court order."
León Rengel was sent to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), where Human Rights Watch found deportees were subjected to "systematic torture."
He told CBS News in Spanish that "there came a point when I thought about hanging myself with the sheet they gave us... It was hell. Total hell."
As CBS—which eventually aired an investigation into the prison despite interference from editor-in-chief Bari Weiss—reported Tuesday:
León Rengel was arrested once in the US after a traffic stop and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for possession of drug paraphernalia in Texas, documents show. León Rengel said the car where the material was found was not his. He said he paid a small fine.
Beyond that misdemeanor, León Rengel's lawyers said he has no criminal history, and that he was deported despite having an active immigration case and lacking a deportation order. Justice Department records reviewed by CBS News do not list a deportation order for León Rengel and show he had an immigration court hearing scheduled for April 2028.
León Rengel said he was identified as a Tren de Aragua gang member because of a tattoo on his left hand of a lion with a hair clipper on its mouth. He said he has cut hair in the US and Venezuela, and denies having any gang ties. Other former CECOT prisoners have similarly said they were accused of gang membership because of their tattoos.
DHS told the network that "this illegal alien was deemed a public safety threat as a confirmed associate of the Tren de Aragua gang and processed for removal from the US." The department declined to provide any evidence to support its claim that he is a TDA member, saying that doing so would "undermine" national security.
León Rengel was ultimately freed from CECOT and returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap last summer. He is the first of the deportees to file such a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
"This case reveals an illegal and morally bereft plan of action at the highest levels of our government to defy a federal court, strip a man of his rights, and hand him over to a foreign government for torture to prove a political point," said retired Amb. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, in a statement.
"Adrián Rengel spent four months in abhorrent, inhumane conditions because senior officials chose to flout the rule of law," he continued. "We are filing suit today to get justice for him. The rule of law applies no matter what the political aims of the administration."
In addition to Eisen's group, León Rengel is represented by the law firm Mariziani, Stevens & Gonzalez, with support from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).
"What happened to Adrián Rengel is government-sanctioned torture and a failure to recognize his humanity because he happened to be an immigrant. He deserves his day in court," said LULAC CEO Juan Proaño. "His four months of illegal confinement is the devastating outcome of a system designed to treat Latino immigrants as criminals simply because of where they were born or the color of their skin."
"Rengel and others were stripped of due process, lied to about where they were being sent, and handed over to a foreign dictatorship to be tortured in America's name," Proaño added. "The United States government had the power to stop this, and they chose not to. The court should deliver the justice the executive branch intentionally denied him."