SEATTLE – A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday rejected a long-running lawsuit brought by young Oregon-based climate activists who argued that the U.S. government’s role in climate change violated their constitutional rights.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ordered the case dismissed in 2020, saying that the job of determining the nation’s climate policies should fall to politicians, not judges. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, instead allowed the activists to amend their lawsuit and last year ruled the case could go to trial.

Acting on a request from the Biden administration, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued an order Wednesday requiring Aiken to dismiss the case, and she did. Julia Olson, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm representing the activists, said they were considering asking the 9th Circuit to rehear the matter with a larger slate of judges.

“I have been pleading for my government to hear our case since I was ten years old, and I am now nearly 19,” one of the activists, Avery McRae, said in a news release issued by the law firm. “A functioning democracy would not make a child beg for their rights to be protected in the courts, just to be ignored nearly a decade later. I am fed up with the continuous attempts to squash this case and silence our voices.”

The case — called Juliana v. United States after one of the plaintiffs, Kelsey Juliana — has been closely watched since it was filed in 2015. The 21 plaintiffs, who were between the ages of 8 and 18 at the time, said they have a constitutional right to a climate that sustains life. The U.S. government’s actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy, despite scientific warnings about global warming, is unconstitutional, they argued.

The lawsuit was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued the lawsuit sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of through the political process. At one point in 2018, a trial was halted by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts just days before it was to begin.

Another climate lawsuit brought by young people was successful: Early this year the Montana Supreme Court upheld a landmark decision requiring regulators to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions before issuing permits for fossil fuel development.

That case was also brought by Our Children’s Trust, which has filed climate lawsuits in every state on behalf of young plaintiffs since 2010.

The Biden administration is moving to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug, which would remove the plant from the “most dangerous” list and recognize that it has medical uses.

Portland attorney Amy Margolis sees the move as a way to get much-needed research on cannabis, but it could also pave the way for big pharmaceutical companies to get involved in the established industry in Oregon.

“They’re the ones who will be legally operating if they follow the final rules produced by the FDA and the standard FDA approval and sales process for pharmaceuticals,” Margolis says. “It certainly injects a concern that now we have real big pharmaceutical interests involved in the cannabis market.”

Margolis runs Margolis Legal, a Portland law firm that works with clients in the cannabis industry. She says this proposal doesn’t do what many in the industry have been advocating for; removal of cannabis from the schedule of illegal drugs entirely.

“I think it’s a remnant of the drug war, ” she says. “I think it’s kind of outdated perspectives on cannabis being a hard drug.”

Margolis spoke with OPB “All Things Considered” host Geoff Norcross:

Geoff Norcross: Basically speaking, the Biden administration is saying they want to officially recognize that cannabis is not as dangerous as the most dangerous drugs. Isn’t that a good thing?

Amy Margolis: Theoretically, that’s a good thing. We’ve long known that cannabis is not dangerous, should be treated like alcohol, which this does not do. But in theory, yes, that’s a good thing. How it impacts the market? We’re not so sure.

Norcross: Okay, what could happen?

Margolis: So what this did is it sent over the reclassification recommendation to the FDA to essentially rule make around it. And from my perspective, and I think the perspective of many of my peers, this simply opened up a pathway for pharmaceutical companies to get involved in the cannabis industry, whether through the development and sales of pharmaceutical cannabis or through the research component.

Norcross: And what would that mean for the local market, which doesn’t have a lot of big players like the pharmaceutical industry in it?

Margolis: Other than the DOJ, there was not too much outside interests who might care if prosecutions were happening, who might care if statewide industry is developing. I think the risk for Oregon — and this is sort of a worst-case scenario — is that pharmaceutical companies can now get involved. They’re the ones who will be legally operating if they follow the final rules produced by the FDA and the standard FDA approval and sales process for pharmaceuticals. Now you have a player beyond just the Department of Justice who could have some interest in owning that market. It certainly injects a concern that now we have real big pharmaceutical interests involved in the cannabis market. And they’re the only ones who can lawfully operate.

Norcross: One of the big problems for the cannabis industry here has been the lack of banking services or tax breaks that other businesses get. Would this move by the federal government this week change any of that?

Margolis: I think it remains to be seen. You know, the banking industry will look at this, federal regulators will look at this, and try and decide if this clears up the legality around the state licensed recreational and medical markets. And I do not believe this move by the Biden administration does that. I don’t believe it legalizes on a federal level what is currently happening in this state. And that is, aside from federal legislation, the path forward to safe banking.

Norcross: You touched on this a little bit earlier, that what the federal government could have done was to treat cannabis like it’s alcohol, and let an entirely different federal agency, the ATF, oversee its use and the regulations around it. I’m wondering if the Biden administration may have missed an opportunity to go all the way and just take it off the schedule of drugs entirely.

Margolis: I think “missed an opportunity” is how the industry will view it. I mean, the industry in Oregon and across the country has been advocating for cannabis to be declassified and not reclassified. And I think the Biden administration knows that and instead chose to go this direction. I think it’s a remnant of the drug war and I think it’s kind of outdated perspectives on cannabis being a hard drug. We’ll see if this is maybe the first step, but I’m concerned that, for the federal government, first steps can last a long time.

Norcross: Do you see any upside for the industry here in Oregon, if cannabis is reclassified in this way?

Margolis: I do think the upside is, you know, we have in the industry been talking about research and cannabis for a long time. And this does open the door to that, which I think will be a positive, even if it’s only a financial benefit to those in the pharmaceutical industry.

Click on the audio player above to hear the whole conversation.

The US Department of the Interior has announced two proposals for offshore wind energy auctions off the coast of Oregon and in the Gulf of Maine.

The two sales proposed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will have the potential to generate more than 18GW of offshore wind energy, enough to power more than 6m homes.

The first-ever offshore wind energy auction in the Gulf of Maine Wind Energy Area would include eight lease areas offshore Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, totalling nearly 4,046 sq km which have the potential to generate approximately 15GW of renewable energy and power more than 5m homes. 

BOEM is proposing to conduct simultaneous auctions for each of the eight lease areas using multiple-factor bidding. The Bureau is also seeking comments on providing bidding credits to bidders that commit to supporting workforce training programs or supply chain development, or a combination of both, as well as a credit for a fisheries compensatory mitigation fund.

The proposed lease sale in Oregon includes two lease areas totalling 789 sq km — one in the Coos Bay Wind Energy Area and the other in the Brookings Wind Energy Area.

During the Biden administration, the Department of Interior held four offshore wind lease auctions, including sales in the New York – New Jersey region, offshore the Carolinas, and the first-ever sales offshore the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

Last week, the Interior announced a new five-year offshore wind lease schedule, which includes up to 12 potential offshore wind energy lease sales through 2029. Future offshore wind energy lease sales from BOEM are anticipated in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and the waters offshore of the U.S. territories in the next five years.