217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016)
On August 12, 2015, twenty-one youth plaintiffs between the ages of eight and nineteen, along with Earth Guardians and Dr. James Hansen acting as guardian for future generations, filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation, and others.1
The plaintiffs allege that defendants have known for more than fifty years that the combustion of fossil fuels causes global warming and dangerous climate disruption through increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.2 Despite this knowledge, defendants have permitted, authorized, and subsidized the development, production, consumption, and use of fossil fuels, resulting in the United States producing more than twenty-five percent of global CO2 emissions between 1751 and 2014.3
Individual plaintiffs describe concrete injuries from climate change, such as forced relocation due to flooding and erosion, exacerbation of asthma and respiratory illnesses, damage to family farms from drought and wildfires, and loss of recreational opportunities like skiing due to reduced snowpack.4 One plaintiff detailed how a 2016 flood, attributed to climate change, inundated her family's home in Louisiana with sewage water, rendering bedrooms uninhabitable.5
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that defendants have violated their constitutional and public trust rights, along with an injunction requiring defendants to prepare and implement a national plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions, draw down excess atmospheric CO2 to 350 parts per million by 2100, cease permitting and subsidizing fossil fuels, and take other actions to stabilize the climate system.6
Defendants and intervenors representing fossil fuel industry associations moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, nonjusticiable political questions, failure to state a claim, and separation of powers violations.7 Magistrate Judge Coffin recommended denying the motions. After de novo review, District Judge Ann Aiken adopted the recommendation with elaboration on November 10, 2016, denying the motions to dismiss except for dismissing the Ninth Amendment claim.8
Whether the youth plaintiffs, Earth Guardians, and Dr. James Hansen as guardian for future generations have Article III standing to pursue claims against the United States and federal agencies for injuries allegedly caused by climate change policies?9
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.10
Yes. The established facts establish that the twenty-one youth plaintiffs between the ages of eight and nineteen, along with Earth Guardians and Dr. James Hansen as guardian for future generations, have alleged concrete and particularized injuries.11 These injuries include forced relocation due to flooding and erosion.12 They also include exacerbation of asthma and respiratory illnesses from increased temperatures and pollution.13
Damage to family farms from drought and wildfires is alleged. Loss of recreational opportunities such as skiing due to reduced snowpack is described.14 The inundation of one plaintiff's home in Louisiana with sewage water during a 2016 flood attributed to climate change is detailed.15 These injuries are fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct.16
The established facts state that defendants have known for more than fifty years that fossil fuel combustion causes global warming.17 The United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global CO2 emissions between 1751 and 2014 through policies permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel development.18 The requested relief creates a substantial likelihood of redress.19 Reducing the defendants' substantial share of worldwide emissions would slow or reduce the pace of climate change and the associated injuries.20
The plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue their claims.21
Whether the plaintiffs' constitutional and public trust claims present nonjusticiable political questions under the Baker v. Carr factors?22
The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the legislative or executive branches. This doctrine is identified by the six Baker v. Carr factors.23
No. The established facts show that the plaintiffs challenge defendants' aggregate actions and inactions in permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel exploitation as violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and their public trust rights. They do not seek review of any specific foreign policy decision, military action, or legislative enactment. Although the case involves complex policy decisions regarding energy and environmental regulation, the core dispute is whether defendants have violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. That question lies squarely within the judiciary's competence to apply established due process standards and the public trust doctrine to new factual contexts.
None of the Baker factors is inextricable from the case. The Constitution contains no textually demonstrable commitment of climate policy to the political branches that would preclude judicial review of constitutional claims. Judicially manageable standards exist for evaluating due process and public trust violations. The requested declaratory and injunctive relief can be fashioned without expressing lack of respect for coordinate branches or requiring adherence to a prior political decision.
The plaintiffs' constitutional and public trust claims do not present nonjusticiable political questions.24
Whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim for violation of substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by alleging that federal fossil fuel policies affirmatively create danger to a stable climate system?25
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects fundamental liberty interests that are deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The danger creation exception permits a substantive due process claim when government conduct places a person in peril in deliberate indifference to their safety after the government has affirmatively created or enhanced the danger.26
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that plaintiffs have alleged defendants knowingly caused dangerous interference with a stable climate system.27 Defendants did so by permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel development, production, and combustion for more than fifty years despite awareness of the resulting global warming and climate disruption.28 This conduct affirmatively created a danger that threatens plaintiffs' rights to life, liberty, and property.29
Plaintiffs further allege that defendants acted with full appreciation of the consequences.30 These consequences include harm to plaintiffs' capacity to provide for basic human needs, maintain bodily integrity, and lead lives with access to clean air, water, and food.31 Defendants have failed to take necessary steps to address the known serious risks.32 These allegations, accepted as true at the motion to dismiss stage, state a plausible claim.33
Defendants' conduct shocks the conscience and infringes the fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.34 That right is essential to the exercise of other enumerated rights.35
The plaintiffs have stated a claim for violation of substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.36
Whether the public trust doctrine applies to the federal government with respect to natural resources including the territorial seas and atmosphere?37
The public trust doctrine imposes on the sovereign a fiduciary duty to protect essential natural resources for the benefit of the public and future generations. It prevents the government from abdicating its core sovereign powers or allowing depletion of trust assets. This doctrine applies to the federal government with respect to resources such as the territorial seas that are held in trust for the people.38
Yes. The established facts establish that plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their public trust obligations.39 Defendants allowed the depletion and destruction of essential natural resources including the atmosphere, territorial seas, and navigable waters.40 This occurred through policies that have caused atmospheric CO2 concentrations to reach levels unprecedented in human history.41
The federal government holds title to the submerged lands between three and twelve miles from the coastlines.42 It exercises sovereignty over the territorial seas.43 These resources have long been recognized as subject to public trust principles under American law derived from Roman and English common law traditions.44 Because the public trust doctrine concerns inherent aspects of sovereignty that predate the Constitution and cannot be legislated away, the doctrine applies to the federal government.45
It provides a basis for plaintiffs' claims that defendants have failed to protect these trust assets from damage.46
The public trust doctrine applies to the federal government with respect to natural resources including the territorial seas.47
Whether the plaintiffs' claims under the Ninth Amendment are cognizable as independent causes of action?48
The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration in the Constitution of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. It does not create independent substantive rights enforceable as standalone causes of action separate from the protections afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.49
No. The established facts indicate that plaintiffs asserted claims under the Ninth Amendment.50 Those claims alleged denial of rights to life, liberty, and property without adequate legal remedy and violation of public trust rights.51 The court dismissed the Ninth Amendment claim as an independent cause of action.52 Although the Ninth Amendment supports recognition of unenumerated fundamental rights that may be protected through the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process guarantee, it does not furnish a separate basis for relief.53
The underlying allegations are already encompassed within the due process and public trust claims that survive dismissal.54
The plaintiffs' claims under the Ninth Amendment are not cognizable as independent causes of action.55
Whether the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs, including an order directing preparation of a national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions, would violate separation of powers principles?56
The separation of powers doctrine prevents one branch of government from intruding upon the central prerogatives of another. Federal courts retain authority to declare that government actions violate the Constitution and to order appropriate remedial action without directing the legislative or executive branches to enact specific legislation or to exercise their discretion in a particular manner.57
No. The established facts show that plaintiffs seek a declaration that defendants have violated their constitutional and public trust rights.58 They also seek an injunction requiring defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.59 The injunction would require ceasing the permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels.60 Although the requested relief implicates complex policy decisions across multiple agencies, the court can issue a declaratory judgment that certain aggregate actions violate the Constitution.61
The court can direct defendants to take appropriate steps to remedy those violations without specifying the precise means by which the executive or legislative branches must achieve compliance.62 Such relief respects the separation of powers because it leaves the details of implementation to the political branches while enforcing constitutional limits on government conduct.63
The declaratory and injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs would not violate separation of powers principles.64