Connect with us

World News

Australian court rules environment ministry has no obligation to protect against climate change – JURIST

Published

on

Australia’s Federal Court on Tuesday overturned a ruling that Australia’s Environment Ministry has a duty to protect young people from the effects of climate change when considering fossil fuel projects. That earlier ruling, decided in May 2021, resulted from a lawsuit filed by eight school students and a nun. The litigants sought an injunction to prevent the country’s environment minister, Sussan Ley, from granting an extension to a coal mine in the Australian state of New South Wales. While the judge dismissed the injunction claim, he accepted the fact that climate change was caused by carbon dioxide emissions and, if it continued, would cause devastating environmental destruction due to rising temperatures. He also asked the litigants to provide more information about the scope of the government’s duty of care. Australia has been particularly hard hit by rising temperatures. The country suffered one of its worst wildfire seasons in history during the summer of 2020 when thousands of acres of land and homes burned. The federal court reversed this decision on appeal from the Law Minister. While Chief Justice James Allsop wrote that the “threat of climate change and global warming was not and is not in dispute between the parties to this litigation,” he said that this was not a reason to impose a duty of care on the environment minister. The federal court gave several reasons for his decision. It found that the “posited duty raises for consideration at the point of noncompliance issues that are issues of central policy that are not appropriate in nature and character” for the courts to decide. Allsop wrote that it was difficult to determine the level of responsibility the environment minister incurred when she approved a project. In addition, the court found that the earlier ruling was inconsistent with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999, which gives the Minister of the Environment decision-making responsibility. While finding in Ley’s favor, the court rejected a submission by his attorneys that some of the court’s earlier conclusions were incorrect. According to a report in The Guardian, the lawyer representing the children called the court’s decision “disappointing” and said he would review the decision to determine next steps.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

US Supreme Court Grants Review of Federal Bankruptcy Case – JURIST

Published

on

On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, a case examining appellate court jurisdiction over sales orders in federal bankruptcy proceedings. The case revolves around the sale and transfer of a lease for a store in a shopping center. In 1991, Sears obtained a lease for a store in the Mall of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lease only cost Sears $10 a year and was supposed to last 100 years. Sears, however, went bankrupt in 2018. As part of federal bankruptcy proceedings, Sears sold its assets and the Mall of America lease was transferred to Transform Holdco LLC, a corporation formed by Sears’ new owners. Mall of America sought to prevent the transfer because they claim that Transform Holdco LLC does not intend to occupy the leased facilities but to sublet them to other companies. Transform Holdco LLC argues that the long-term lease constitutes a substantial portion of the value Sears was sold for in the bankruptcy proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred the lease as it was deemed “integral” to a court-approved bankruptcy sale. Mall of America filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that a remedy is available that would not affect the validity of the sale. Therefore, according to Mall of America, the appellate court should be allowed to intervene. Transform Holdco LLC responds that no such remedy exists, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling should stand. The US Supreme Court must now determine whether federal bankruptcy law limits appeals on sales orders deemed “comprehensive,” even when a remedy is available that will not affect the validity of the sale. The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Continue Reading

World News

US appeals court to rehear challenge to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine executive order – JURIST

Published

on

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Monday stating that the court will rehear Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, a challenge to President Joe Biden’s 2019 executive order that required federal employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or face termination. In late May and early June, America First Legal Foundation, America’s Frontline Doctors, Airline Employees For Freedom Health, and an additional group of vaccine plaintiffs filed four amicus briefs in favor of a new full hearing. The plaintiffs in Rodden v. Fauci also filed a class action lawsuit made up of federal employees who contracted COVID-19, developed COVID-19 antibodies, “but remain subject to the federal employee vaccination mandate.” The Rodden plaintiffs argue that Biden and the “agencies he directs have no power to direct the personal medical decisions of federal employees,” and therefore this executive order is like an illegal government mandate. In addition, the group asserts that the panel’s refusal to review executive employment decisions is unlawful and thus protects “the exercise of unlawful governmental power.” In January 2022, a Texas judge blocked Biden’s executive order. Other state judges have also blocked enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In December 2021, a Georgia judge blocked the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for government contractors after the Texas Governor ordered a statewide ban on all COVID-19 vaccination mandates in October 2021 .

Continue Reading

World News

Ukraine’s richest man sues Russia for loss of property and profits – JURIST

Published

on

Ukraine’s richest man on Monday filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights against Russia for “serious violations of his property rights during Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.” Rinat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian businessman who owns much of the country’s manufacturing infrastructure, says he has lost billions of dollars in business since the Russian invasion began. Akhmetov’s announcement highlighted both ongoing human rights violations and infrastructure destruction committed by Russia. He wrote: In addition to the untold human suffering he has caused, Russia’s invasion has resulted in massive destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure. The shelling of the Azovstal steel complex in Mariupol by Russian artillery seeking to eliminate the last vestiges of Ukrainian resistance in that city has become an international symbol of Russia’s disregard for international law and human rights. As the owner of the Azovstal steel complex, Akhmetov has suffered estimated losses of billions of dollars in both property and profits as a direct result of the Russian invasion. This lawsuit is one of the first initiated by a private individual against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Akhmetov stated several times throughout the announcement that he hopes the court will award him damages so that Ukraine can begin to rebuild.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022