SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
"Wildfires are ravaging these children's communities in California, but the court claims that their suffering is too 'indirect' to matter," said the plaintiffs' lawyer. "This ruling is nothing short of judicial dereliction."
With Californians still reeling from what is expected to be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history," a federal judge in the state on Tuesday dismissed a constitutional climate case that young people brought against the U.S. government.
The firm Our Children's Trust filed the equal protection lawsuit on behalf of 18 children in the Central District of California on December 10, 2023. Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency initially just targeted the EPA and its administrator, but the plaintiffs later added the Office of Management and Budget and its director as defendants.
Since the beginning of the case, the Biden administration fought for its dismissal. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, previously dismissed the case last May but also allowed the youth plaintiffs' lawyers to amend their complaint. The judge dismissed the case again on Tuesday, the first major development since Republican President Donald Trump—a noted enemy of climate action—returned to the White House last month.
"We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
Responding in a Tuesday statement, Our Children's Trust slammed the "extraordinary decision to dismiss the case by disregarding key evidence showing the harmful effects of the EPA's policies and the unique vulnerability of children's bodies to climate pollution," highlighting expert testimony from economist Joseph Stiglitz and Dr. Elizabeth Pinsky, a psychiatrist and pediatrician.
"By dismissing this case, the court is turning a blind eye to the real-world harms youth are enduring right now. Wildfires are ravaging these children's communities in California, but the court claims that their suffering is too 'indirect' to matter," said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for the plaintiffs.
"This ruling is nothing short of judicial dereliction in the face of a climate emergency," she asserted. "The court refused to consider that the government's devaluation of children isn't just bad policy—it's a violation of fundamental equal rights."
The young plaintiffs also expressed disappointment with Fitzgerald's decision in the wake of January blazes that experts tied to the climate emergency—specifically, the World Weather Attribution found that fossil fuel-driven global warming made the weather conditions that caused the Los Angeles County fires 35% more probable.
"The court's decision to dismiss this case before we could even present our evidence is a gut punch," lead plaintiff Genesis B said Tuesday. "We are living with the consequences of these policies every single day—wildfires, choking smoke, evacuation orders. And now, with the strongest storm of the year set to hit Southern California this week, our case is more urgent than ever."
"Forecasters are warning of widespread flooding, landslides, and dangerous debris flows, especially in areas devastated by wildfires," Genesis B. explained. "We wanted the chance to show the court the science, the economics, and the lived experiences that prove the government's actions are harming us. Instead, we were denied that opportunity. He just shut the door on us, made up his own facts, and never listened to the real experts. He never gave us the opportunity to testify."
The 18 young plaintiffs are not backing down! They remain committed to fighting for their constitutional rights and will continue to pursue all available legal avenues to hold the U.S. government accountable for its actions. Read the PR: bit.ly/GenesisPR0225 #YouthvGov #GenesisvEPA
[image or embed]
— Our Children’s Trust (@youthvgov.bsky.social) February 11, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Despite the setback in court on Tuesday, the young plaintiffs in this case are determined to keep fighting and are now considering potential next steps with their lawyers.
"We are not backing down. This fight is about refusing to let our lives be discounted, and we won't stand by as our future is treated as expendable," declared plaintiff Maya W. "We are fighting not just for ourselves, but for every young person who deserves a world where their lives, their health, and their future matter."
This case is just one of many that young people have pursued in recent years, some of which are ongoing and many that involve Our Children's Trust. The group said that earlier Tuesday, attorneys representing a dozen youth plaintiffs in the constitutional climate case Layla H. v. Virginia presented their case virtually before the state Supreme Court.
In another Our Children's Trust case, Juliana v. United States, 43 members of Congress last month submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the 21 plaintiffs. That filing came less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 2023 decision that the state government's promotion of fossil fuels violates young residents' state constitutional rights. Earlier last year, Hawaii's governor and Department of Transportation announced an "unprecedented" settlement in another youth climate case.
If anyone celebrating this attack against transgender people were to spend time with the parents, children, and doctors affected, their feelings might change.
President Donald Trump's executive order prohibiting any hospital that receives federal funds from practicing gender-affirming care callously disregards the needs of children who are both gender and neurodiverse, putting them and their families at risk. If anyone celebrating this order were to spend time with the parents, children, and doctors affected, their feelings might change. They should meet Pearl who before receiving treatment was failing out of high school, contemplating suicide, and rarely left the house, and is now attending community college, teaching herself another language, and has developed deep friendships. Or the mathematically-gifted Ellen who after two deep depressive episodes in the last three years, finds safety, companionship, and stability in her gender support group. Or Jacob, a role model to all that meet him, who is attending college out of state and just performed in a concert on campus.
For three years my husband and I have been part of a support group with the parents of these children, who range in age from 14 to 25. Many are now scrambling for information to determine how far the order extends; where one can continue to receive care; what care, if any, the doctors they’ve trusted, relied on, and put faith in for years can still provide. Parents are counting prescription refills, checking if pharmacies will still honor them, searching for providers not impacted by the order, and compiling a list of states they could afford to travel to if other options don’t materialize. Some fear the order will destroy their children’s delicate mental health. Others fear it is a death sentence.
Our “community” includes some of the most thoughtful and loving caregivers I have ever known. Our children, who all have autism spectrum disorder (ASD), see and experience the world through a different yet remarkable lens. While some focus on their deficits, we see their creativity, honesty, strong sense of justice, loyalty, and enhanced focus as superpowers. But none of us deny that what makes them unique also presents challenges, including struggling with social interactions, poor executive functioning skills, or developmental delays. One challenge they all share is dealing with their gender diversity.
These are parents not boogeymen. These children are lovingly cared for and listened to, not abused.
Those with ASD are three to six times more likely than the general population to be gender diverse1—the umbrella term that includes non-binary and transgender. On top of their social, developmental, or communication issues, the added stress of feeling uncomfortable in their own bodies deeply impacts their well-being. We often talk about their “dark periods” when they’ve experienced debilitating depression, suicidal ideation, and elevated anxiety. Like any good parent, we sought advice from trusted medical professionals who provide the standard of care supported by leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Our children see a multidisciplinary team of fully licensed, board-certified, highly trained pediatric specialists at a world-renowned hospital. These neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, gynecologists, and social workers coordinate care plans tailored to each child, considering their unique developmental, mental, and emotional health needs. Every child is evaluated regularly over extended periods of time. The medical care they receive may include mental health treatment, executive functioning courses, and in-person or online groups where they play games like D&D and socialize with like-minded youth. Some children who are past puberty receive hormone therapy after an extensive evaluation process. No child under the age of 18 is provided with gender-affirming surgery.
Parents in our group run the gamut. Some struggled to accept their child’s gender diversity or ASD diagnosis. Some oppose using hormone therapy, despite their child’s repeated demands, because they believe their child couldn’t handle the responsibility. Some have once needed to hospitalize their suicidal children, but have watched them flourish since starting them on hormone therapy. All struggling and questioning. But no care decisions are made without extensive consultation with their doctors, whose paramount concern is that our children are happy, healthy, productive, and thriving.
My child does not receive hormone therapy or other treatments outlined in the order. I do not, cannot, fully understand the magnitude of their pain. All I can do is stand witness to this action’s cruelty. These are parents not boogeymen. These children are lovingly cared for and listened to, not abused. These doctors have dedicated their lives to improving the mental and physical health of some of the most vulnerable among us. They are saving them, not experimenting on them. We are all good, intelligent, informed, and, now, scared people, whose greatest concern is the welfare of our children.
Editor's Note: To protect privacy all names and identifying details of those mentioned in this piece have been changed.
Political opportunism, fearmongering, and xenophobia have conspired to transform birthright citizenship from a cherished right into a polarizing debate.
A child is born, and with that birth comes a promise that transcends borders, ideologies, and the divisions that too often define our world. In those first moments, a new life is not simply a biological miracle but a profound reminder of our shared humanity. Every child enters this world unmarked by political affiliation, nationality, or social status, bearing only the intrinsic dignity of existence. This truth binds us all—a universal covenant that every life matters, that every life belongs.
In the United States, birthright citizenship has long been the legal and moral embodiment of this sacred principle. Anchored in the 14th Amendment, it guarantees that any child born on U.S. soil is recognized as a citizen, regardless of their parents’ status or origin. It is a cornerstone of American democracy, an egalitarian promise that seeks to reflect the highest ideals of justice and fairness. For generations, this principle has been a beacon of hope for families striving for a better life, a testament to a nation that once boldly declared itself a refuge for the oppressed, the weary, and the hopeful.
To challenge birthright citizenship is to question the very notion that all people are created equal.
Yet, this promise is under siege—not from foreign adversaries, but from within. Political opportunism, fearmongering, and xenophobia have conspired to transform birthright citizenship from a cherished right into a polarizing debate. Opponents decry it as a loophole to be closed, weaponizing a foundational ideal to stoke fear and sow division.
This debate is not just about policy—it is about the soul of a nation. It compels us to confront fundamental questions about who we are and what we stand for: Are we a nation that values the humanity of every child born within our borders? Or are we a country willing to deny basic dignity based on fear, prejudice, and expedience?
The 14th Amendment, ratified in the ashes of the Civil War, was nothing short of revolutionary. It sought to upend centuries of exclusion and injustice by affirming a profound truth: that citizenship is not a privilege of the few but a birthright for all born within the nation’s borders. It declared that neither the color of one’s skin nor the circumstances of one’s birth could define one’s place in society.
This promise has been a lifeline for countless families, a declaration that opportunity and belonging are not reserved for the privileged few. Yet, detractors of birthright citizenship argue that it incentivizes illegal immigration, reducing children born here to what they call “anchor babies.” This language is not only dehumanizing but also deeply flawed. Studies repeatedly show that birthright citizenship does not drive immigration patterns in the way opponents claim. Instead, such rhetoric weaponizes fear to erode one of America’s most defining principles.
To challenge birthright citizenship is to question the very notion that all people are created equal. It undermines the belief that every child—no matter their heritage, no matter their lineage—deserves the right to belong.
In today’s polarized climate, even the sanctity of birth has become a casualty of political discourse. Children born into challenging circumstances are reduced to labels—“anchor babies,” “crack babies”—as though their lives can be defined or dismissed by a single phrase. These terms strip away humanity and cast children as problems or burdens rather than miracles of infinite potential.
This is a moment of moral clarity, a crossroads where we must decide who we are and what we stand for.
A child born to undocumented parents is not an “anchor” but a human being whose life holds immeasurable promise. A child born into poverty is not a statistic but a testament to resilience and possibility. By allowing such labels to persist, we rob these children of their dignity and blind ourselves to their potential.
Labels do more than dehumanize; they entrench division. They encourage us to see certain children as “other” rather than as fellow members of the human family. In doing so, they erode the shared empathy and moral clarity we need to build a just society.
Birthright citizenship is not merely a legal issue; it is a moral imperative. It is a recognition of the dignity inherent in every life, a reflection of our collective commitment to equality. To dismantle it would not only harm the lives of countless children but also unravel the moral fabric of our democracy.
Around the world, countries like Canada, Brazil, and Mexico affirm birthright citizenship as a testament to their belief in human dignity. The United States, long a leader in championing democratic ideals, must not falter in its commitment. To do so would signal a retreat from the principles that have defined this nation—a betrayal of the promise that every child born here belongs here.
The effort to revoke birthright citizenship is part of a broader campaign to sow fear and exclusion, to pit neighbor against neighbor. But we must resist. We must rise above the politics of division and reaffirm the sacredness of every life.
Frederick Douglass once wrote, “It is not the mere getting of freedom that makes the man, but his becoming a citizen of the United States.” Citizenship is not just a legal status; it is a profound acknowledgment of belonging. It says, “You matter. You are one of us.”
Today, we are called to defend this principle against forces that seek to diminish it. We must affirm that every child born in this nation is not just a number or a talking point but a miracle—an embodiment of hope, potential, and shared destiny.
This is a moment of moral clarity, a crossroads where we must decide who we are and what we stand for. Let us choose justice over fear, unity over division, and love over hate. Let us protect the promise of birthright citizenship—not as a relic of the past but as a foundation for a more compassionate and inclusive future.