GENESIS V. EPA

On the Road to Justice

On December 10, 2023, 18 children from across the state of California, ranging from ages 8 to 17, filed their constitutional climate lawsuit Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); its administrator, Michael Regan; and the United States federal government. On May 20, the young plaintiffs added the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its director, Shalanda Young, as defendants.

The plaintiffs claim the EPA has discriminated against them as children by discounting the economic value of their lives and their future when it decides whether and how much climate pollution to allow. They also assert the EPA intentionally allows discriminatory and life-threatening climate pollution, which is emitted by the fossil fuel sources of greenhouse gases it regulates, harming children’s health and welfare.

The United States Constitution protects their rights to equal protection of the law, life, and a life-sustaining climate.

WHAT ARE THE YOUTH’S CLAIMS?

These 18 children filed their lawsuit because they are experiencing harmful discrimination by their government and life-threatening climate change injuries, such as the loss of homes from wildfire, adverse health effects, displacement from floods, and being exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution, with lifelong consequences.

Here are just a few of the young plaintiffs in this case - and the climate harms they are experiencing:

GENESIS
Extreme heat days are increasing in California and, without air conditioning, Genesis must keep the windows in her house open in the summer, exposing her to ash from wildfire smoke and more pollen, which worsens her allergies and results in frequent runny noses, coughing, and congestion.

ZUBAYR AND MUAAWIYAH
Zubayr and Muaawiyah are brothers who live near several oil and gas wells. About 5 miles from their home is one of their favorite parks, which is next to an oil field which has experienced a spill. As they try to enjoy the outdoors, their health and safety is threatened by climate pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure.

MAYA W.
Maya suffers from bronchospasms and, given her asthma, experiences chest pains and severe headaches due to increasing wildfire smoke, driven by the climate crisis. Maya loves to play soccer but is unable to compete as competitively as she would like due to these impacts.

NOAH
Noah has spent significant portions of their childhood running from fires. The 2017 Tubbs Fire, 2018 Campfire, and the 2019 Kincaid Fires caused Noah’s family to evacuate, preventing Noah from going to school several days at a time. After the 2020 Walbridge Fire, Noah’s family decided to relocate, but they still face heat, fire, and smoke.

WHAT ARE THE YOUNG PLAINTIFFS ASKING FOR?

The children who filed Genesis v. EPA are asking the federal court to hear and weigh their evidence, then ultimately issue a declaratory judgment that the EPA has violated their fundamental constitutional rights to equal protection of the law and their fundamental rights to life.

The plaintiffs also ask, for the first time, for the federal courts to clarify the standard of judicial review to protect the equal protection rights of children as a unique and protected class that is different from adults.

Ultimately, the children of California seek to stop EPA from continuing to allow life-threatening levels of fossil fuel climate pollution and do what scientists say is necessary—phase out fossil fuel pollution no later than 2050.

The young plaintiffs are represented by Julia Olson and Andrea Rodgers, of Our Children’s Trust; Catherine Smith, Of Counsel to Our Children’s Trust; Philip Gregory, Gregory Law Group; Paul Hoffman, Director of Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, UC Irvine School of Law; and John Washington, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.

Current Status

On September 30, 2024, the attorneys representing the 18 young plaintiffs in Genesis v. EPA presented oral arguments before Judge Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as to why the case should proceed to trial. They emphasized that the ongoing and escalating injuries faced by the children stem directly from the EPA’s discriminatory practices, which prioritize the interests of adults over the present health and futures of young people. They argued that the unequal treatment of children, who are a protected group of people under the Constitution, is an equal protection violation. Children, they argue, cannot be subject to a lifetime of harm and hardship under law. 

The attorneys also highlighted several critical harms arising from the EPA’s policies, including plaintiffs’ special physical and psychological harms owing to children’s vulnerable phase of development. They argued that the plaintiffs, as children, have constitutional rights and the discrimination they are experiencing represents a severe and ongoing violation of those rights as members of a protected class. 

The youth plaintiffs now await a ruling from Judge Fitzgerald.