April 27, 2016 – In Oregon, a Federal District Court Magistrate Judge, Thomas Coffin ruled that the young people–the next generation of Americans voicing their opposition against the polluters driving climate change, have a constitutional right to move forward with their action.
The Judge rules against the federal government, and against the fossil fuel energy companies’ motion to dismiss, and decided in favor of the 21 young plaintiffs and Dr. James Hansen, scientist and climate change expert.
What this means?
This means that the case has a right to move forward in their legal action. A Motion to Dismiss is a major impediment to a legal action, but here the Judge ruled in favor of the students–allowing their case to progress forward.
Is the Public Trust Doctrine & Delegation of Rights Doctrine Applicable?
Under current law, there are rights delegated to Americans under the Public Trust doctrine. That is a doctrine upholds the principle that certain natural and cultural resources–including those preserved for public use, and which the government owns and must protect–must be maintained for the public’s use and enjoyment. Although in the past the public trust argument has been used for arguing and defining water rights–including defining rights from the low water line around the coast and submerged land under navigable waters up to 12 nautical miles from our US coastline, it is foreseeable to see an expanded application with regard to access to clean water and air as an expansion of governmental duty to care and protect its citizens and its resources within that sphere of protection. Furthermore, as governments claim rights to airspace even above one’s home–it is not an absurd to claim that the government has a duty to protect the air that all its citizens breathe. Therefore, just as the government has a duty to protect our nation’s navigable waters and resources–using the meaning and purpose of the Public Trust Doctrine–that care and protection should encompass protecting the air that we all breathed and the water that is available for consumption.
With regard to previously litigation issues and current policy, the sale of any government owned land must be in the public interest. Yet, it is clear to see that a further application of the doctrine to having clean air and water for drinking and bathing could fall also under the Public Trust Doctrine. In fact, many state constitutions provide additional rights for its citizens–to have access to a healthy and wholesome environment–which is in essence what the young peoples’ complaint puts forth.
To bolster that assertion, the court upheld the right of the young petitioners and held that because the next generation has constitutional rights to clean water and air, it is foreseeable these issues could partly fall under the purview of the Public Trust Doctrine.
Under this doctrine, the government holds title to all submerged land under navigable waters. Thus, any use or sale of such land must be in the public interest. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see how the broad-based effort led by the Oregon-based nonprofit ‘Our Children’s Trust‘ fares in its impending court battle on these ‘constitutional entitlement’ issue. It also appears that the group and its many allies have filed lawsuits and petitions to be heard in every state in the US. The complaint is that climate and atmosphere must be protected as is other natural resources–resources which are critical to survival and prosperity of the next generation of taxpayers.
The Judge hearing the matter wrote: “If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health,” He also called the lawsuit “unprecedented.”
There are three fossil fuel industry trade associations that in January were granted defendant status, and referred to the lawsuit as “extraordinary” and “a direct, substantial threat to [their] businesses.” Click here for more on industry statements and this groundbreaking lawsuit.
