By CLAIRE RUSH, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a petition filed by young climate activists who argued that the federal government’s role in climate change violated their constitutional rights, ending a decadelong legal battle that saw many of the plaintiffs grow from children and teenagers into adults.

The landmark case was filed in 2015 by 21 plaintiffs, the youngest 8 years old. They claimed the U.S. government’s actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy violated their right to a life-sustaining climate.

The case — called Juliana v. United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana — was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued it sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of the political process.

Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm that represented the plaintiffs, said the impact of the lawsuit “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow,” Olson said in a statement Monday. “It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future. We’ve already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward.”

What happened with the case?

The plaintiffs wanted the court to hold a trial on whether the U.S. government was violating their fundamental rights to life and liberty by operating a fossil-fuel based energy system.

The case wound its way through the legal system for years. 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.

Related Articles

Parkview Avenue residents file emergency injunction against St. Paul to save their trees

Ocean dumping – or a climate solution? A growing industry bets on the ocean to capture carbon

South St. Paul and animal rendering plant reach settlement that aims to stop the stink

Trump backs higher pay for wildland firefighters while DOGE cuts wildfire support staff

Jury finds Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions in case over Dakota Access protest activities

In 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case dismissed, saying 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 ruled the case could go to trial.

Last year, acting on a request from the Biden administration, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued an order requiring Aiken to dismiss the case, and she did. The plaintiffs then sought, unsuccessfully, to revive the lawsuit through their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our Children’s Trust, responding to new developments at the federal level, is now preparing a new federal action that is “rooted in the same constitutional principles that guided the Juliana case,” Olson said.

Who are the plaintiffs?

The plaintiffs now range from 17 to 29 years old and have continued their climate advocacy to various degrees, Olson said, adding that some are still in university. About half are from hometowns in Oregon, according to Our Children’s Trust’s website.

“They all have incredible stories,” Olson said. “They’re all doing incredible work.”

Juliana, who is now 29, became a primary school teacher in Oregon, said Helen Britto, associate communications director for Our Children’s Trust. Other plaintiffs include Alex Loznak, who became a lawyer focused on environmental and immigration work, and Nathan Baring, who now serves as the program director of a reindeer herding association in Alaska.

“We’re part of a wave, so this is not the end of the road by any means,” Baring said of the high court’s move.

Miko Vergun, who was born in the Marshall Islands and grew up in Beaverton, Oregon, is fighting for a future where the Pacific island nation can stay above sea level, according to Our Children’s Trust’s website. She recently graduated from Oregon State University with a degree in cultural anthropology, Britto said.

In Monday’s statement, Vergun said the U.S. Supreme Court decision wasn’t what the plaintiffs had hoped for, but there had been “many wins along the way.”

“For almost ten years, we’ve stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we cannot only survive, but thrive,” she said. “All great movements have faced obstacles, but what sets them apart is the perseverance of the people behind them. We’ve shown the world that young people will not be ignored, and I’m incredibly proud of the impact Juliana v. United States has made.”

What about other youth climate lawsuits?

Our Children’s Trust has filed climate legal actions on behalf of young people in all 50 states, including active cases in Florida, Utah and Alaska.

In a Montana case, the state Supreme Court in December upheld a landmark climate ruling that said the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming, and that regulators must consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing permits for fossil fuel development.

The case, brought by 16 youth plaintiffs, had gone to trial in state district court in 2023. The Montana Constitution requires agencies to “maintain and improve” a clean environment.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which issues permits for fossil fuel projects, has to abide by the state Supreme Court decision, Olson said, adding that Our Children’s Trust will seek to enforce the ruling in the event it is violated.

In a Hawaii case brought by 13 youth over the threat of climate change, both sides reached a settlement last year that requires the state government to achieve zero emissions in its transportation system by 2045. The settlement agreement applies to ground transportation, as well as sea and air transportation between islands. The court will supervise the implementation of the agreement for the next 20 years.

Internationally, the Oregon case has inspired over 60 youth-led climate lawsuits across the world, according to Our Children’s Trust.

Ann Regan, former editor-in-chief at the Minnesota Historical Society Press, is the winner of the 2025 Kay Sexton Award for her significant contributions to and leadership in Minnesota’s literary community.

The award is presented annually to an individual or organization in recognition of longstanding dedication and outstanding work in fostering books, reading and literary activity in Minnesota and is part of the 2025 Minnesota Book Awards, presented this year by sponsor Education Minnesota. Regan’s award was announced Tuesday by Friends of the St. Paul Public Library.

Regan grew up in Billings, Mont., and graduated from the University of Montana with a double major in history and Russian. While working as a summer volunteer for the Montana Historical Society, she was mentored by Vivian Paladin, editor of the society’s quarterly journal. That work led her to a temporary position as a research assistant at the Minnesota Historical Society Press, where she remained for 45 years in various positions, retiring as the editor-in-chief in 2024.

During her time with MNHS Press, Regan acquired approximately 350 books and was directly involved with the editing of close to 300 of those. She says Evelyn Fairbanks’ “Days of Rondo” was the book that “made (her) an editor” and taught her about the collaborative relationship that was possible between author and editor.

The authors she has worked with praised her intellectual engagement, literary integrity, flexibility and willingness to learn from them about areas outside her expertise. Native American writer Diane Wilson (author of “Spirit Car”) says, “Ann and I worked through challenging cultural questions in ways that left us both with a deeper understanding of the other’s perspective.”

Regan has been an advocate for Minnesota’s diverse voices by standing behind anthologies that highlight historically underrepresented communities and working to improve the relationship between MNHS Press and Native writers. Says Anton Treuer, “Her leadership in this effort transformed our understanding of Minnesota and Native American History.”

One of the most well-known of these anthologies is “A Good Time for the Truth: Race in Minnesota,” edited by Sun Yung Shin and published in 2016, just before the police killing of Philando Castile. It instantly became a discussion piece in book clubs and library groups around the state. The book has continued to “spark essential conversations,” according to Nina Archabal, director emerita, Minnesota Historical Society, in the years since its publication.

In addition to her work alongside Minnesota’s authors, Regan has shared her expertise with the literary community in Minnesota, not only through editing projects but through writing and public service. Her prose has been published in journals and anthologies as well as in the book “Irish in Minnesota.” She has served on boards and committees for the Minnesota Book Publishers’ Roundtable, the Western History Association, the Council of the Northern Great Plains History Conference, Friends of the St. Paul
Public Library and other organizations. She has regularly given presentations about editing and publishing at Augsburg University, the University of Minnesota and St. Catherine University, and has taught classes at the Loft Literary Center.

The Kay Sexton Award panel praised the way Regan has worked with writers and her willingness to take a chance on an idea and help an author or editor it into a book. The panel said Regan has exemplified “sheer dedication and devotion to literature… she is everything this award stands for.”

Regan lives on St. Paul’s West Side with her husband, Minnesota Book Award-winning historian Bruce White. She will be honored at the 37th annual Minnesota Book Awards ceremony on April 22 at the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts, 345 Washington St., St. Paul. Awards will also be presented to winners in 10 book categories. The preface begins at 6 p.m., followed by the Awards Ceremony at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are $27 and can be purchased at thefriends.org/mnba. The event will also be livestreamed. Registration for the free livestream is also thefriends.org/mnba.

Related Articles

Column: In ‘Cinema Her Way,’ female directors talk about struggle, survival and the industry

Literary calendar for week of March 23

Readers and writers: You say you want (to read about) a revolution?

Lori Barghini and Julia Cobbs to host first public event together since leaving MyTalk 107.1

Book Review: ‘Lincoln’s Peace’ offers lessons for these times from the Civil War

By COLLIN BINKLEY, Associated Press Education Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Governors in several Republican-led states are pressing the Trump administration to cut strings attached to their federal education aid, a goal conservatives have long dreamed of that now appears within reach as President Donald Trump moves to dismantle the Education Department.

Iowa put itself forward as a test case this month, asking the Education Department to consolidate its federal aid into a single grant with few spending requirements. The idea has failed to gain support in Congress in the past, but Iowa is suggesting the Trump administration has the power to act alone.

Related Articles

Early voting and spending surge in Wisconsin Supreme Court race that has drawn national attention

Watch live: Self-professed ‘DOGE person’ Frank Bisignano gets his confirmation hearing to lead Social Security

US infrastructure improved with Biden-era spending but there’s a long way to go

Watch live: Exposure of Trump administration war plans is ‘mind-boggling,’ top Democrat tells intel officials

Watch live: Mike Huckabee, Trump’s pick to be Israel ambassador, will face senators as war in Gaza restarts

Other Republican leaders are eager to follow. Oklahoma’s education office said it’s “actively investigating a comprehensive block grant solution.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote an opinion piece last week pushing for block grants. Conservatives are calling it the natural next step in Trump’s promise to shut down the Education Department and give more power to states.

“All states would like more flexibility and freedom,” said Jim Blew, a former Education Department official from Trump’s first term who has called for consolidating education aid. “This would be a full block grant, no strings attached.”

As many as a dozen other GOP-led states are planning to submit their own requests, said Blew, who now co-leads the Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies.

The Education Department channels billions of dollars a year to America’s public schools, but it’s divided into dozens of grants with different targets. The biggest is Title I, which uses a formula to direct more money to schools with high concentrations of poverty, while other programs focus on areas from teacher training to rural schools.

For years, Republicans have pushed block grants as a way to scale back federal involvement in education. They say it would save schools from onerous reporting requirements and allow them to steer federal money toward areas that need it most.

Opponents say say block grants would allow states to redirect money away from student groups now targeted by the federal aid, including low-income students and English learners, and toward Republican priorities.

“Congress created each of those individual grants for specific reasons to serve specific groups of students,” said Ivy Smith Morgan of EdTrust, a think tank that advocates for educational equity. “Over time, block grants reduce the connective thread between a source of funding and a particular student group.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has denounced “federal red tape” and said states should be empowered to take charge. When she was asked about block grants Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” she noted that model has been suggested but said federal aid for students with disabilities would not be consolidated with Title I money.

“No, that’s separate money that would go, because they would clearly have that responsibility to make sure that money does get to those students,” McMahon said.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon speaks to reporters at the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis)

In its proposal on March 7, Iowa’s education agency asked the Education Department for permission to consolidate 10 funding streams into a single grant that would be “locally managed” by districts, according to a summary provided by the Iowa Department of Education. It said the current system results in “fragmented local investments.”

Iowa also is asking to consolidate federal aid that’s given to the state to help administer grants. It would help invest in the state’s priorities, it said, including closing achievement gaps. State officials declined to disclose that proposal, saying it is not final and will be revised based on U.S. Education Department feedback.

The 10 grant programs sought to be consolidated include Title I, which provides more than $100 million a year to Iowa’s schools.

The U.S. Education Department declined to comment on Iowa’s proposal.

During Trump’s first term, former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed a budget combining K-12 money into block grants, but it was rejected with bipartisan pushback. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for Trump’s second term, calls for Title I to be converted into a block grant and then phased out over 10 years.

Instead of going through Congress, Iowa’s request asks the Education Department to waive some of the state’s requirements.

The law that governs federal funding for public schools — the Every Student Succeeds Act — gives the education secretary authority to waive certain provisions upon request from a state. The power was used during the Obama administration to allow states to deviate from the No Child Left Behind law, and many states received waivers allowing them to suspend academic testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Iowa’s request is believed to be the first requesting permission to consolidate aid into block grants, and opponents say it’s a clear overstep. If the request is approved, it’s almost certain to face a legal challenge.

“This is politically unfeasible — Congress is not going to move here,” Morgan said.

Republican governors and lawmakers have been promoting the idea in other states including Ohio and Kansas, where the Legislature passed a resolution this month urging the Trump administration to provide education aid as block grants.

Oklahoma’s education office said it’s exploring the idea “in preparation for a big announcement that will reshape how we approach education.” Officials did not elaborate.

Some conservative-led states said they have no plans to pursue the idea, including Idaho.

Iowa’s proposal pledges to uphold civil rights protections required by federal law, including support for English learners, homeless students and other groups.

In an op-ed in The Hill, a political newspaper, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said block grants would “give states the flexibility to stretch federal dollars further, rather than following the dictates of distant federal bureaucrats who don’t have the same visibility into our state’s needs.”

Blew argues the maneuver is legally sound, and he said there’s new political will to make it happen as the Trump administration looks to empower the states.

“The most common way to do that is to turn the money into a block grant,” Blew said, “and just give it to the states for them to deal with the money.”

Associated Press writers Annie Ma and Heather Hollingsworth contributed to this report.

republi

By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Turnout during the first week of early voting ahead of Wisconsin’s pivotal state Supreme Court race is far exceeding levels from another high-stakes election just two years ago, the latest sign of the intense interest in a contest that has obliterated spending records and drawn attention from President Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser, Elon Musk.

As of Tuesday, with just a week to go until the final day of voting, nearly 48% more early ballots have been cast compared with the same point two years ago, according to data from the Wisconsin Elections Commission. More than 345,000 voters had returned ballots, either by mail or in person, compared with about 233,000 at this point two years ago during another race for a Supreme Court seat.

The election will determine whether the court will remain under 4-3 liberal control or flip to a conservative majority. One of the current liberal justices is retiring.

This year’s race has morphed into a proxy battle over the nation’s politics, with Trump and Musk getting behind Brad Schimel, the Republican-backed candidate in a race that is officially nonpartisan.

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford participate in a debate Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

“All Voters who believe in Common Sense should GET OUT TO VOTE EARLY for Brad Schimel,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post late last week.

Total spending on the race has reached more than $73 million, including more than $14 million by groups funded by Musk, according to a tally Monday by the Brennan Center for Justice. That’s the most on record for any U.S. judicial race, breaking the $56 million spent on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court contest in 2023, when majority control also was on the line.

All that spending and attention has helped fuel early voting, said Kevin Kennedy, Wisconsin’s former top elections official who now works as a consultant. He spoke while taking a break from working at a Madison poll site where people could vote early.

“There’s just a lot of money being invested,” Kennedy said. “Everything seems to be focused on, ‘Let’s get out the vote.’”

After previously being critical of early voting, Trump and the Republican Party are urging their supporters to cast their ballots before the final day of voting on April 1. Early voting ends Sunday. The strategy, which they deployed with great success in last year’s presidential race, appears to be contributing to large turnout increases in more conservative counties across Wisconsin.

Schimel’s opponent, Democratic-backed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, has raised more than $25 million for the race to date, including $5.5 million from the state Democratic Party since early February. Her supporters include billionaire Democratic megadonor George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

A sign along a street in Milwaukee, Wis., Tuesday, March 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Phelps)

Schimel, a Waukesha County judge, had raised more than $12 million, which includes more than $6 million from the Wisconsin Republican Party since early February.

But outside groups have more than made up the difference in what the candidates have raised.

The roughly $28 million spent by the candidates as of Monday was far exceeded by the roughly $45 million spent so far by outside groups, according to the Brennan Center calculation. Schimel and his allies, which include groups backed by Musk, have spent about $41 million, while Crawford and her supporters have spent about $32 million.

Voters in Wisconsin do not register by political party, so it’s impossible to know how many of the ballots already submitted came from Republicans or Democrats. But the data shows that the largest increases are coming from both Democratic- and Republican-heavy counties.

Milwaukee County, the state’s largest county and the one that is home to the most Democrats, led all counties in ballots returned with 54,750. That is more than 46% ahead of this point two years ago. Liberal Dane County, the state’s second largest county and home to the state capital of Madison and the University of Wisconsin, has also seen a 46% increase.

But Republican parts of the state also have seen big jumps.

Voting was up in the three suburban Milwaukee counties of Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington, which are commonly referred to as the WOW counties. Ballot returns were up more than 62% in Waukesha and 51% in Ozaukee. In Washington, the most heavily Republican of the three counties, early voting was more than double two years ago.

In Brown County, the state’s fourth most populous one, which is reliably Republican, early turnout was up more than 34%.

Related Articles

Watch live: Self-professed ‘DOGE person’ Frank Bisignano gets his confirmation hearing to lead Social Security

US infrastructure improved with Biden-era spending but there’s a long way to go

Watch live: Exposure of Trump administration war plans is ‘mind-boggling,’ top Democrat tells intel officials

Watch live: Mike Huckabee, Trump’s pick to be Israel ambassador, will face senators as war in Gaza restarts

Greenlanders unite to fend off the US as Trump seeks control of the Arctic island

While the early voting is high for a spring election, it’s far from what battleground Wisconsin saw at this point before the presidential race. A week before the Nov. 5 election, nearly 1 million voters had cast their ballots, almost four times as many as in this race to date.

The race comes as the Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to rule on abortion rights, congressional redistricting, union power and voting rules.

On Monday night, Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told supporters that electing Crawford was important so she and other liberal justices can order a redraw of congressional boundary lines. Even though Wisconsin is a swing state, Republican-drawn lines have allowed the party to hold six of its eight congressional seats.

“As soon as possible, we need to be able to revisit that and have fair lines,” Jeffries said in a live discussion on the social media platform X. “The only way for that to be even a significant possibility is if you have an enlightened Supreme Court.”

Schimel has accused Crawford of promising to Democrats that she will redraw the lines. Crawford has denied that.