

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.
"It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address," said the state attorney general.
The US Department of Justice on Monday continued President Donald Trump's crusade against transgender youth competing in sports in line with their identity by suing the Minnesota Department of Education and the state's high school league.
"The United States files this action to stop Minnesota's unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes," says the complaint, filed in a federal court in the state by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"The state of Minnesota, through its Department of Education, and the Minnesota State High School League require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and share intimate spaces, such as multiperson locker rooms and bathrooms, with boys," the complaint continues. "This unfair, intentionally discriminatory practice violates the very core of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."
The Associated Press noted that "the administration has filed similar lawsuits against Maine and California, and has threatened the federal funding of some universities over transgender athletes, including San José State in California and the University of Pennsylvania."
Tim Leighton, a spokesperson for the league, told the AP that it does not comment on threatened or pending lawsuits. According to The New York Times, Emily Buss, a spokesperson for the state department, said Minnesota's leadership was reviewing the complaint while remaining "committed to ensuring every child—regardless of background, ZIP code, or ability—has access to a world-class education."
While Trump and his allies have aimed to stop all trans women and girls from competing as they identify—including at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—the fight with Minnesota specifically traces back to the president's February 2025 executive order, after which the administration began investigating the state.
The Minnesota Department of Education gets over $3 billion in federal funding. Democratic state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued to stop the administration from pulling that money last April. In September, the US departments of Education and Health and Human Services concluded that the state agency and league violated Title IX, and the case was referred to the DOJ in January.
In a Monday statement, Ellison said that the DOJ's lawsuit "is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that's already been in litigation for months."
"Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight," Ellison said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address."
The DOJ filing about trans student-athletes came less than a week after Ellison and other Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
“Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," said one critic. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
Critics denounced the top Democrat on the US House Intelligence Committee after he said Monday that he would vote to extend a highly controversial authorization for warrantless government spying sought by President Donald Trump that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times under various administrations.
While acknowledging that many of his Democratic colleagues will vote against reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they do not trust Trump to use the provision's sweeping surveillance powers legally, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) signaled that he would support renewal and vote against any efforts for privacy protections.
“There’s a lot of people who are going to switch from yes two years ago to no today," Himes told The Hill. "Because even though Donald Trump’s been president for five years, and he has never abused the program—I would know it pretty much in real time if he did—even though that’s true, people don’t trust Donald Trump."
"And you know, that word came up a lot in the classified briefing; there’s a huge trust gap here," he added. "So there’s going to be a lot of people switching on the Democratic side from yes to no.”
While Section 702 ostensibly limits warrantless surveillance to non-US citizens, such spying also captures the communications of Americans. The measure has been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
“Donald Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," Sean Vitka, executive director of the pro-democracy group Demand Progress, said in a statement Monday. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
"But instead, Rep. Jim Himes is failing his critical role as an overseer of intelligence agencies and using his political power to lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda," Vitka continued. "It is unforgivably cynical and reckless for Rep. Himes to make it easier for this administration to spy on Americans, especially at a time when government agencies’ have made it clear that they intend to supercharge surveillance with [artificial intelligence], and when their misuse of these powers is horrifically on display.”
Nearly 100 civil society groups including Demand Progress are urging congressional Democrats to "stand firm" and vote against Section 702 reauthorization without reforms, including closing the so-called data broker loophole.
Among the Democratic lawmakers reportedly considering voting against the extension is Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who voted for reauthorizing Section 702 in 2024—when Congress extended the spying power until April 20, 2026.
“I supported it because I felt very comfortable that... additional guardrails were safeguarding Americans’ privacy in a sufficiently significant way as to justify the importance of getting this information on an urgent basis," he told The Hill. "And as a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it can be to get a search warrant, and especially in these cases where there often isn’t even probable cause, but my vote was taken on the expectation that the law would be implemented as written."
“And we now have an administration that has routinely, repeatedly, regularly—and seemingly and intentionally—violated numerous laws, undermined the Constitution, attacked our democracy, and simply cannot be trusted with the privacy information that is included in the materials gathered and potentially searched," Goldman continued.
"So unless I receive a lot more information about every single search for a US person that has been done by this administration since they came into office, I don’t see how I can possibly support the reauthorization," he added.
"Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran," said one professor. "Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Alarm mounted Monday over the Trump administration's "Greater North America" plan, a geopolitical blueprint for US imperial hegemony from Greenland to Guyana that's drawing comparisons with a messianic project being pushed by President Donald Trump's far-right allies and war partners in Israel.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth first unveiled the plan earlier this month, telling reporters: "Trump has drawn a new strategic map, from Greenland to the Gulf of America to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries. At the Department of War we call this strategic map the Greater North America."
"Why? Because every sovereign nation and territory north of the Equator, from Greenland to Ecuador and from Alaska to Guyana, is not part of the 'Global South,'" Hegseth added. "It is our immediate security perimeter in this great neighborhood that we all live in."
Graeme Garrard, a Canadian professor at Cardiff University in Wales, said Monday on social media in response to Hegseth's comments: "By 'Greater North America' he means 'Greater United States. The US is now and has long been a menace and threat to the sovereignty and independence of its hemispheric neighbors."
Numerous observers have compared Trump's "Greater America" with the "Greater Israel" movement, whose most zealous proponents want to conquer everything between the Nile and Euphrates rivers—that is, all of Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan; most of Syria and Kuwait; large parts of Egypt and Iraq; and some of Turkey—for Israel.
"Hesgeth's 'Greater North America' should be taken VERY seriously as a real threat," University of Lausanne professor Julia Steinberger, who is Swiss-American, said on social media. "Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran. Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Based on the biblical boundaries of ancient Jewish kingdoms, Greater Israel is rooted in the supremacist supposition that the Abrahamic deity figure God promised the Jews all of the lands between the Nile and Euphrates.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—and other prominent right-wing Israelis support the Greater Israel vision and are working to make it a reality by accelerating the illegal settler colonization and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, preparing to annex the dwindling Palestinian territories, and planning to occupy—perhaps permanently—parts of Syria and Lebanon.
For nearly two centuries, claims of divine favor have also underpinned US expansionism, most famously expressed in Manifest Destiny and mid-19th century plans to annex lands "from the Arctic to the Tropic." This notion drove the US conquest of half of Mexico, as well as later takeovers of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The US also took control over the Panama Canal, which it built at the cost of thousands of laborers' lives, most of them from Barbados and other West Indies isles.
"It is part of the great law of progress that the weak should give way to the strong, and that the superior should displace the inferior races," one New Orleans newspaper opined in 1848.
Nearly 178 years later, Hegseth echoed this supremacist ideology, telling Latin American leaders that the region must remain "Christian nations under God" and stand united in the face of "radical narco-communism."
Like the 19th century US imperialists, Trump has also repeatedly expressed his goal of "taking Cuba"—an objective that goes back over 200 years, when Thomas Jefferson, then a former president, called the island “the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states."