Listen Now This past January 17 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Juliana v the US. Filed in 2015 by 21 children and others, the plaintiffs argued health harm caused by the federal government’s long support or promotion of the fossil fuel industry violates their Constitutional right to life and liberty, i.e., their right to a survivable climate. The plaintiffs argued further the court should redress this harm by issuing an injunction requiring the federal government to prepare a plan for judicial review and approval that would draw down green house gas emissions. In its defense the federal government argued there is no fundamental constitutional right to a stable climate system, or that the state of the climate has no connection to personal life and liberty. The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the US government, arguing the plaintiffs complaint was not redressable or was nonjusticiable, despite admitting "climate change was occurring at an increasingly rapid pace," "will wreak havoc on the Earth if left unchecked" and "may hasten an environmental apocalypse." The dissent argued the Constitution's perpetuity principle, that life and liberty is secured for both ourselves and posterity, does not "condone the Nation's willful destruction."