Hannah Wiseman, Penn State The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2025 ended a decade-old lawsuit filed by a group of children who sought to hold the federal government responsible for some of the consequences of climate change. But just two months earlier, the justices allowed a similar suit from the city and county of Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue against oil and gas companies. Evidence shows that fossil fuel companies, electric utilities and the federal government have known about climate change, its dangers and its human causes for at least 50 years. But the steps taken by fossil fuel companies, utilities and governments, including the U.S. government, have not been enough to meet international climate targets. So local and state governments and citizens have asked the courts to force companies and public agencies to act. Their results have varied, with limited victories to date. But the cases keep coming.

Attacking the emissions themselves

In general, legal claims in the U.S. can be based on the U.S. and state constitutions, federal and state laws, or what is called “common law” – legal principles created by courts over time. Lawsuits have used state and federal laws to try to limit greenhouse gas pollution itself and to seek financial compensation for alleged industry cover-ups of the dangers of fossil fuels, among many other types of claims. In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emitted from motor vehicles were a “pollutant” under the federal Clean Air Act. As a result, the court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to either determine whether greenhouse gases from new vehicles contribute to climate change, and therefore endanger human health, or justify its refusal to study the issue. In 2009 the EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions did in fact endanger human health – a decision called the “endangerment finding.” In 2010 it imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles and, later, from newly constructed power plants. But related EPA efforts to regulate emissions from older power plants – the ones that emit the most pollution – failed when challenged in court on the grounds that they went too far in limiting emissions beyond the power plants’ own properties. The Biden administration had finalized a new rule to clean up these older plants, but the Trump administration is now seeking to withdraw it. The Trump administration is also now beginning the complicated process of reviewing the 2009 endangerment finding. It could try to remove the legal basis for EPA greenhouse gas regulations.

A common-law approach

In response to this federal executive seesaw of climate action, some legal claims use a court-based, or common law, approach to address climate concerns. For instance, in Connecticut v. American Electric Power, filed in 2004, nine states asked a federal judge to order power plants to reduce their emissions. The states said those emissions contributed to global warming, which they argued met the federal common law definition of a “public nuisance.” That case ended when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the existence of a statute – the federal Clean Air Act – meant common law did not apply. Other plaintiffs have tried to use the “public nuisance” claim or a related common-law claim of “trespass” to force large power plants or oil and gas producers to pay climate-related damages. But in those cases, too, courts found that the Clean Air Act overrode the common-law grounds for those claims. With those case outcomes, many plaintiffs have shifted their strategies, focusing more on state courts and seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for allegedly deceiving the public about the causes and effects of climate change.

Examining deception

In many cases, state and local governments are arguing that the fossil fuel industry knew about the dangers of climate change and deceived the public about them, and that the industry exaggerated the extent of its investments in energy that doesn’t emit carbon. Rather than directly asking courts to order reduced carbon emissions, these cases tend to seek damages that will help governments cover the costs associated with climate change, such as construction of cooling centers and repair of roads damaged by increased precipitation. In legal terms, the lawsuits are saying oil and gas companies violated consumer-protection laws and committed common-law civil violations such as negligence. For instance, the city of Chicago alleges that major petroleum giants – along with the industry trade association the American Petroleum Institute – had “abundant knowledge” of the public harms of fossil fuels yet “actively campaigned” to hide that information and deceive consumers. Many other complaints by states and local governments make similar allegations. Another lawsuit, from the state of Maine, lists and provides photographs of a litany of internal industry documents showing industry knowledge of the threat of climate change. That lawsuit also cites a 1977 memo from an Exxon employee to Exxon executives, which stated that “current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil fuel consumption,” and a 1979 internal Exxon memo about the buildup of carbon dioxide emissions, which warned that “(t)he potential problem is great and urgent.” These complaints also show organizations supported by fossil fuel companies published ads as far back as the 1990s, with titles such as “Apocalypse No” and “Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?” Some of these ads – part of a broader campaign – were funded by a group called the Information Council for the Environment, supported by coal producers and electric utilities. Courts have dismissed some of these complaints, finding that federal laws overrule the principles those suits are based on. But many are still winding their way through the courts. In 2023 the Supreme Court of Hawaii found that federal laws do not prevent climate claims based on state common law. In January 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the case to continue.

Other approaches

Still other litigation approaches argue that governments inadequately reviewed the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, or even supported or subsidized those emissions caused by private industry. Those lawsuits – some of which were filed by children, with help from their parents or legal guardians – claim the governments’ actions violated people’s constitutional rights. For instance, children in the Juliana v. United States case, first filed in 2015, said 50 years of petroleum-supporting actions by presidents and various federal agencies had violated their fundamental “right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that their claim was a “political question” – meant for Congress, not the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to reconsider that ruling in March 2025. But children in Montana found more success. The Montana Constitution requires state officials and all residents to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment … for present and future generations.” In 2024 the Montana Supreme Court determined that this provision “includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties.” The Montana Supreme Court also reviewed a state law banning officials from considering greenhouse gas emissions of projects approved by the state. The court found that the ban violated the state constitution, too. Since then, the Montana Supreme Court has specifically required state officials to review the climate effects of a project for which permits were challenged. Concerned people and groups continue to file climate-related lawsuits across the country and around the world. They are seeing mixed results, but as the cases continue and more are filed, they are drawing attention to potential corporate and government wrongdoing, as well as the human costs of climate change. And they are inspiring shareholders and citizens to demand more accurate information and action from fossil fuel companies and electric utilities. Hannah Wiseman, Professor of Law, Penn State This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Christina Erickson, University of North Dakota Nearly a half-century after the Supreme Court ruled that school spankings are permissible and not “cruel and unusual punishment,” many U.S. states allow physical punishment for students who have misbehaved. Today, over a third of the states allow teachers to paddle or spank students. More than 100,000 students are paddled in U.S. schools each year. Christina Erickson, an associate dean and professor of social work at the University of North Dakota, wrote a book on the subject: “Spanked: How Hitting Our Children is Harming Ourselves.” She discussed the scope of the practice and its effects with The Conversation.

What spanking legislation exists worldwide?

Around the world, 68 countries have banned the hitting of children in any form, including spanking. This movement began in 1979 with Sweden’s ban on all forms of physical punishment, including spanking in any setting, and including in the family home. The pace of change quickened in the early 2000s when more countries adopted similar laws. For example, the legal language of countries like Nepal rests on an emerging definition of children as rights holders similar to adults and as humans worth protecting from harm.

What are US policies toward spanking?

Each state in the U.S. has its own child abuse laws, and all states, tribes and territories aim to protect children from abuse. But all state laws also allow parents to hit their children if it does not leave an injury or a mark. A typical example is Oklahoma’s definition of child abuse and neglect. It includes an exception that permits parents to use ordinary force as a means of discipline, including spanking, using an implement like a switch or a paddle. However, leaving evidence of hitting, such as welts, bruises, swelling or lacerations, is illegal and considered child abuse in all states. Parental spanking of children is considered unique from other physical violence because of the relational context and the purpose. Laws entitle parents to hit their children for the purpose of teaching a lesson or punishing them to improve behavior. Children are the only individuals in society who can be hit by another person and the law does not regard it as assault. Spanking’s impact on a child is unfortunately similar to abusive hitting. Spanking has been labeled as an “Adverse Childhood Experience,” or ACE. These are events that cause poor health outcomes over the span of one’s life. The practice of spanking also affects parents. Acceptance of the physical discipline of spanking puts parents at risk for the escalation of physical punishment that leads to abuse. Parents who spank their child have the potential to abuse them and be caught in a legal and child protection system that aims to protect children from harm. It is unclear what triggers a parent to cross over from discipline into abuse. Research shows that spanking at a young age, such as a 1-year-old, increases the chance of involvement by Child Protective Services by 33%. Some school districts require permission from parents to allow disciplinary paddling in school, while others do not require any communication. State law does not assure agreement between parents and school districts on what offenses warrant a paddling. Parents may feel they have no alternative but to keep their child in school, or fear reprisal from school administrators. Some students are old enough to denounce the punishment themselves.

Is spanking considered the same as hitting?

The term spank conceals the concept of hitting and is so commonplace it goes unquestioned, despite the fact that it is a grown adult hitting a person much smaller than them. The concept is further concealed because hitting a child’s bottom hides any injuries that may occur. Types of hitting that are categorized as spanking have narrowed over the years but still persist. Some parents still use implements such as tree switches, wooden spoons, shoes or paddles to “spank” children, raising the chances for abuse. Most spanking ends by the age of 12, partly because children this age are able to fight back. When a child turns 18, parental hitting becomes the same as hitting any other adult, a form of domestic violence or assault throughout the U.S. There is a lack of a consistent understanding of what constitutes a spanking. The definition of spanking is unique to each family. The number of hits, clothed or not, or using an implement, all reflect geographical or familial differences in understanding what a spanking is.

How do US adults view spanking?

People in the United States generally accept spanking as part of raising children: 56% of U.S. adults strongly agree or agree that “… it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking.” This view has been slowly changing since 1986, when 83% of adults agreed with that statement. The laws worldwide that protect children from being hit usually begin by disallowing nonparental adults to hit children. This is happening in the U.S. too, where 31 states have banned paddling in schools. At a national level, efforts have been made to end physical punishment in schools. However, 19 states still allow spanking of children in public schools, which was upheld by a 1977 Supreme Court case. With the slow but steady drop of parents who believe that sometimes children need a good hard spanking, as well as the ban of paddling in schools in 31 states, one could argue that the U.S. is moving toward a reduction in spanking.

What does research say about spanking?

Spanking’s negative influence on children’s behavior has been documented for decades. Spanking seems to work in the moment when it comes to changing or stopping the immediate behavior, but the negative effects are hidden in the short term and occur later in the child’s life. Yet because the spanking seemed to work at the time, the parent doesn’t connect the continued bad behavior of the child to the spanking. An abundance of research shows that spanking causes increased negative behaviors in childhood. Spanking lowers executive functioning for children, increases dating violence as teenagers and even increases struggles with mental health and substance abuse in adulthood. Spanking does not teach new or healthy behaviors, and is a stress-inducing event for the child and the adult hitting them. No studies have shown positive long-term benefits from spanking. Because of the long-standing and expansive research findings showing a range of harm from spanking and the increased association with child abuse, the American Psychological Association recommends that parents should never spank their children.

What are some resources for parents?

Consider these questions when choosing a discipline method for your child:

• Is the expectation of your child developmentally accurate? One of the most common reasons parents spank is because they are expecting a behavior the child is not developmentally able to execute.
• Can the discipline you choose grow with your child? Nearly all spanking ends by age 12, when kids are big enough to fight back. Choose discipline methods you can use over the long term, such as additional chores, apologies, difficult conversations and others that can grow with your child.
• Might there be another explanation for your child’s behavior? Difficulty of understanding, fear or miscommunication? Think of your child as a learner and use a growth mindset to help your child learn from their life experiences.

Parents are the leaders of their families. Good leaders show strength in nonthreatening ways, listen to others and explain their decisions. Don’t spoil your kids. But being firm does not have to include hitting.

Is spanking children good for parents?

Doubtful. Parents who hit their kids may be unaware that it influences their frustration in other relationships. Expressing aggression recharges an angry and short-tempered internal battery that transfers into other parts of the adults’ lives. Practicing calm when with your children will help you be calmer at work and in your other relationships. Listening to and speaking with a child about challenges, even from a very early age, is the best way to make it part of your relationship for the rest of your life. Choose a method that allows you to grow. Parents matter too. Christina Erickson, Associate Dean in the College of Nursing and Professional Disciplines, University of North Dakota This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jesse Rhoades, University of North Dakota and Rebecca Rhoades, University of North Dakota Humans will likely set foot on the Moon again in the coming decade. While many stories in this new chapter of lunar exploration will be reminiscent of the Apollo missions 50 years ago, others may look quite different. For instance, the European Space Agency is currently working to make space travel more accessible for people of a wide range of backgrounds and abilities. In this new era, the first footprint on the Moon could possibly be made by a prosthetic limb.

Historically, and even still today, astronauts selected to fly to space have had to fit a long list of physical requirements. However, many professionals in the field are beginning to acknowledge that these requirements stem from outdated assumptions. Some research, including studies by our multidisciplinary team of aerospace and biomechanics researchers, has begun to explore the possibilities for people with physical disabilities to venture into space, visit the Moon and eventually travel to Mars.

Current research

NASA has previously funded and is currently funding research on restraints and mobility aids to help everyone, regardless of their ability, move around in the crew cabin. Additionally, NASA has research programs to develop functional aids for individuals with disabilities in current U.S. spacecraft. A functional aid is any device that improves someone’s independence, mobility or daily living tasks by compensating for their physical limitations. The European Space Agency, or ESA, launched its Parastronaut Feasibility Project in 2022 to assess ways to include individuals with disabilities in human spaceflight. A parastronaut is an astronaut with a physical disability who has been selected and trained to participate in space missions. At the University of North Dakota, we conducted one of the first studies focused on parastronauts. This research examined how individuals with disabilities get into and get out of two current U.S. spacecraft designed to carry crew. The first was NASA’s Orion capsule, designed by Lockheed Martin, and the second was Boeing’s CST 100 Starliner. Alongside our colleagues Pablo De León, Keith Crisman, Komal Mangle and Kavya Manyapu, we uncovered valuable insights into the accessibility challenges future parastronauts may face. Our research indicated that individuals with physical disabilities are nearly as nimble in modern U.S. spacecraft as nondisabled individuals. This work focused on testing individuals who have experienced leg amputations. Now we are looking ahead to solutions that could benefit astronauts of all abilities.

Safety and inclusion

John McFall is the ESA’s first parastronaut. At the age of 19, Mcfall lost his right leg just above the knee from a motorcycle accident. Although McFall has not been assigned to a mission yet, he is the first person with a physical disability to be medically certified for an ISS mission.

Astronaut selection criteria currently prioritize peak physical fitness, with the goal of having multiple crew members who can do the same physical tasks. Integrating parastronauts into the crew has required balancing mission security and accessibility. However, with advancements in technology, spacecraft design and assistive tools, inclusion no longer needs to come at the expense of safety. These technologies are still in their infancy, but research and efforts like the ESA’s program will help improve them. Design and development of spacecraft can cost billions of dollars. Simple adaptations, such as adding handholds onto the walls in a spacecraft, can provide vital assistance. However, adding handles to existing spacecraft will be costly. Functional aids that don’t alter the spacecraft itself – such as accessories carried by each astronaut – could be another way forward. For example, adding Velcro to certain spots in the spacecraft or on prosthetic limbs could improve a parastronaut’s traction and help them anchor to the spacecraft’s surfaces. Engineers could design new prosthetics made for particular space environments, such as zero or partial gravity, or even tailored to specific spacecraft. This approach is kind of like designing specialized prosthetics for rock climbing, running or other sports.

Accessibility can help everyone

Future space exploration, particularly missions to the Moon and Mars that will take weeks, months and even years, may prompt new standards for astronaut fitness. During these long missions, astronauts could get injured, causing what can be considered incidental disability. An astronaut with an incidental disability begins a mission without a recognized disability but acquires one from a mission mishap. An astronaut suffering a broken arm or a traumatic brain injury during a mission would have a persistent impairment.

During long-duration missions, an astronaut crew will be too far away to receive outside medical help – they’ll have to deal with these issues on their own. Considering disability during mission planning goes beyond inclusion. It makes the mission safer for all astronauts by preparing them for anything that could go wrong. Any astronaut could suffer an incidental disability during their journey. Safety and inclusion in spaceflight don’t need to be at odds. Instead, agencies can reengineer systems and training processes to ensure that more people can safely participate in space missions. By addressing safety concerns through technology, innovative design and mission planning, the space industry can have inclusive and successful missions. Jesse Rhoades, Professor of Education, Heath & Behavior, University of North Dakota and Rebecca Rhoades, Researcher in Education, Health & Behavior, University of North Dakota This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.