Utah dismisses youth climate case. But it’s not over.
What the state court’s decision signals for other similar cases.
Last month, a Utah judge dismissed a suit brought by a group of children and teenagers who alleged that the state was shortening their lives by authorizing fossil fuel developments. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, however, say their fight is only beginning.
“It’s not a roadblock to us in pursuing litigation in states where we have lawsuits pending, or filing new cases for youth across the country,” said Andrew Welle, co-counsel and senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit law firm that exclusively represents youth plaintiffs in climate cases like this. The Oregon-based law firm pioneered this particular legal approach, which places the interests of children and young people at the center of climate action.
Judge Robert Faust’s ruling states that the Utah and the United States constitutions do not address “anything about fossil fuels or global climate change which would permit the court to grant a judicial remedy,” a familiar line of reasoning that has been used to block climate litigation in the U.S. before. Faust noted that the plaintiffs had “a valid concern,” but argued that the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary, are the proper venues for determining fossil fuel and climate change policy.
The ruling will not affect other similar lawsuits, including one in Montana, where youth climate activists continue to advance through the courts. Held v. State of Montana will become the first children’s climate lawsuit to go to trial in U.S. history; the trial starts June 12, 2023, at the 1st Judicial District Court in Helena, Montana.
While both cases face a legal system that has for years punted on or otherwise stymied similar cases — including the best-known predecessor, the federal case Juliana v. United States — the Montana Constitution offers different legal avenues.
Montana is one of six states — and the only one in the West — whose constitution enshrines environmental rights, including the right to “a clean and healthful environment.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that two Montana policies that favor fossil fuel development violate this right. “Courts in Montana have interpreted the right to a clean and healthful environment to be really important and meaningful, and have shown a willingness to invalidate statutes and agency conduct when it violates that right,” Nate Bellinger, a senior staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust and part of the Montana youths’ legal team, told High Country News in May.
The Utah Constitution lacks a similar provision regarding the environment, something Faust noted in his ruling, so that case focused instead on the plaintiffs’ right to life. As High Country News previously reported, experts agree that explicit constitutional language could help youth climate cases win. “It certainly is possible that the existence of a constitutional right will give an individual judge some greater comfort in making a bold decision,” said Michael Burger, the executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, earlier this year.
The judge’s decision does not set a legal precedent for deciding similar or subsequent cases in Utah. The youth plaintiffs and their attorneys are preparing an appeal, and oral arguments could begin by mid-2023. Welle said he is disappointed by the delay his clients face before their claims can be heard in court: “That’s time they can’t afford to lose.” In the meantime, some activist plaintiffs are drawing attention to their plight, and that of the planet, in other ways, including by holding a public funeral for the shrinking Great Salt Lake.
Kylie Mohr is an editorial fellow for High Country News writing from Montana. Email her at [email protected] or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.
