The pandemic has seen politicians and courts promptly responding to life-saving interventions. The precedent created during the pandemic can be used by activists in the future to address “failure-to-protect” suits as well as fight "misinformation" by news media outlets. Judicial decisions have strength as once legal precedent is established, it can be used by future plaintiffs to shape cases.
The argument that the government has failed to protect its Constitutional duty to protect people has been used by convicts during the pandemic. Suits against correctional facilities have been filed all over the United States. The suits seek to release incarcerated persons who have committed minor crimes from correctional facilities in light of the pandemic. Its focus is people with high risk of life-threatening complications such as immunocompromised individuals. Plaintiffs argue that putting high-risk individuals in such risk is unconstitutional. The precedent could transfer to climate change cases. Similar rhetoric has been used and dismissed in Juliana v. United States. The youth-led suit claimed that the U.S. government has implemented an energy system knowing that it harms the environment and causes a threat to human-life. The case was dismissed in The Ninth Circuit and has been since then appealed. However, with the precedent of "failure-to-protect" formed during the COVID-19 pandemic, cases such as Juliana have legal precedent to make their claim.
Another suit that is forming promising precedent is the suit filed against Fox News for misinformation. During the pandemic, a nonprofit brought the news outlet before the court for violating state's consumer protection act as it misinformed viewers about the impact of COVID-19 and thus committed a tort of outrage. New media outlets also continuously misinform readers about climate change, despite the overwhelming consensus by scientists that climate change is human-caused. The possibility for a misinformation precedent gives hope to hold media outlets to a higher standard over climate change.
Precedents formed during the COVID-19 pandemic are promising tools for climate change activists. The pandemic has showed us the importance of measures taken to protect lives. The precedents formed by failure-to-protect and misinformation cases spark hope for future climate change lawsuits.
COVID-19 - New Precedents for Sustainability?
The pandemic has seen politicians and courts promptly responding to life-saving interventions. The precedent created during the pandemic can be used by activists in the future to address “failure-to-protect” suits as well as fight "misinformation" by news media outlets. Judicial decisions have strength as once legal precedent is established, it can be used by future plaintiffs to shape cases.
The argument that the government has failed to protect its Constitutional duty to protect people has been used by convicts during the pandemic. Suits against correctional facilities have been filed all over the United States. The suits seek to release incarcerated persons who have committed minor crimes from correctional facilities in light of the pandemic. Its focus is people with high risk of life-threatening complications such as immunocompromised individuals. Plaintiffs argue that putting high-risk individuals in such risk is unconstitutional. The precedent could transfer to climate change cases. Similar rhetoric has been used and dismissed in Juliana v. United States. The youth-led suit claimed that the U.S. government has implemented an energy system knowing that it harms the environment and causes a threat to human-life. The case was dismissed in The Ninth Circuit and has been since then appealed. However, with the precedent of "failure-to-protect" formed during the COVID-19 pandemic, cases such as Juliana have legal precedent to make their claim.
Another suit that is forming promising precedent is the suit filed against Fox News for misinformation. During the pandemic, a nonprofit brought the news outlet before the court for violating state's consumer protection act as it misinformed viewers about the impact of COVID-19 and thus committed a tort of outrage. New media outlets also continuously misinform readers about climate change, despite the overwhelming consensus by scientists that climate change is human-caused. The possibility for a misinformation precedent gives hope to hold media outlets to a higher standard over climate change.
Precedents formed during the COVID-19 pandemic are promising tools for climate change activists. The pandemic has showed us the importance of measures taken to protect lives. The precedents formed by failure-to-protect and misinformation cases spark hope for future climate change lawsuits.