Taking Climate Change to Court
Brendan Adamczyk and Makayla Dempsey sit and smile in the cold November air as other students walk by their table. The large banner that sits below them stands out against the concrete background reading "Climate Justice League." The two young climate change advocates petition for their right to enjoy clean air and to make changes in climate policy. Poised with information, they are ready to talk to anyone interested in climate change. They sit here to represent the Climate Justice League, but also other young students fighting for real change in climate legislation and action across the nation. It’s a fight that has sparked court cases all over the country with aid from groups such as Our Children’s Trust. Adamczyk believes in the work that organizations like Our Children’s Trust are doing to fight climate change in the court system. He agrees with their use of Public Trust law and said, “If I had a trust in my name, but it was managed by someone else, it would be their job to maintain it, and I’d want it done well.”
The organization Our Children’s Trust, with the help of its many young plaintiffs, is fighting climate change in the court system. Currently, their largest federal case features 21 young plaintiffs suing the government for climate change. These young plaintiffs claim “that the government is causing climate change through their actions,” according to Caitlin Howard, the Digital Storyteller for Our Children’s Trust. She included that their fight is for “their right to life, liberty and property and government responsibility under the Public Trust Doctrine.” The use of this doctrine to fight for climate change legislation is unique to this case, but this doctrine has been used in our legal system since the beginning of this country, according to Professor Mary Wood in an interview with On the Media about the case. Professor Wood is an environmental law professor who also wrote a book detailing best practices in environmental law. According to her student fellow Erin Yoder Logue, Professor Wood argues that legal action should use the Public Trust Doctrine as its main precedent. The Public Trust Doctrine states it is the government’s fiduciary duty to protect natural resources for the benefit of future generations, which currently includes water and shorelines. It functions like any other trust where these resources have been dedicated to current and future generations and the government functions as the trustee in charge of maintaining these resources.
According to Logue, this use of the Public Trust Doctrine is one reason this case is so important. She included that the federal case is arguing that the atmosphere should be included in this doctrine because the atmosphere affects the water and the water is protected in the doctrine. This process was brought to Our Children’s Trust by Environmental Law professor Mary Wood when she met with Julia Olson, the group's lawyer. This use of the Public Trust Doctrine is why the case is a federal case and not a state one. According to Logue, the case is fighting for the federal government as a whole to tackle these issues of climate change and make legal changes. This case is important whether it succeeds or not. “It shows the government that people are going to sue them if they don’t do something. It shows that the next generation is not willing to put up with this,” said Logue.
Logue stated that this use of the Public Trust Doctrine in climate litigation is being called Atmospheric Trust litigation and was mostly developed in part by Professor Wood. In her interview with On the Media, Wood said, “When Hurricane Katrina hit, I really woke up to this climate crisis. I started reading the science and was truly shocked at the urgency of the situation.” She continued saying she felt “something in the law must force them [the government] to carry out their obligations to the people. And that something is the public trust, it always has been.” This was her starting point in developing the Atmospheric Trust litigation method. Now, this method is being taken to the real court system with the federal case Juliana v. the United States and its 21 plaintiffs.
However, this case began in 2015 and has continually been stalled and reviewed. The government defendants have continually attempted to dismiss the case and have successfully acquired multiple stays to stall the case from going to trial. However, even if the case eventually gets dismissed, Logue and Howard said they are sure that it will set precedents for future cases. Adamczyk noted that the current Clean Air Act exists and so the goal of this case is to stretch the case law and the Public Trust Doctrine. “If the case can get the atmosphere included as a part of the Public Trust Doctrine, it will make it a law for people to litigate off of in future cases for climate change,” said Logue. The lead attorney for the case, Julia Olson, did an interview with the Hastings Environmental Law Journal saying, “I think our constitutional climate work will help set big-picture constitutional standards and a decarbonization mandate that will have a profound effect on issues of environmental justice at the local level.” The grand scale of the claims has gained the case media attention throughout the country, and it is not the only case in the court system fighting for climate change action.
Through Our Children’s Trust, there are cases in states including Alaska, Florida, and Washington. While each case has a unique aspect of climate change “the goal is the same for all of them,” said Olson in the Hastings Journal. The end goal is for government action against climate change. In Florida, according to Howard, the case being brought against the state is a constitutional rights climate change case. It focuses more on the immediately visible impacts of climate change and how they have impacted the plaintiffs’ lives. Overall, Our Children’s Trust has implemented cases in all 50 states since 2011. Each case is based on the circumstances of the state, but as Olson said in the Hastings Journal, “it’s a global strategy and [she] believes that even a few important wins will lead to transformative changes.”
Since Juliana went to court, a global range of cases have picked up that fight for climate change. Those among them include cases in the Netherlands and Germany. In the case in the Netherlands, the High Court of the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent by 2020. It said the fundamental rights of the citizens required such action, according to Mary Wood in her interview with On the Media. Action pertaining to the rights of citizens is exactly what the Atmospheric Trust litigation is about. While the Public Trust Doctrine only applies in the U.S., the idea that humans, in general, have a right to clean air is the overall goal of climate change lawsuits. In a survey by the United Nations Environmental Program and Columbia Law School, since March 2017, lawsuits against climate change have been filed in 24 countries worldwide. For Our Children’s Trust the “strategy is to target the most important governments because if some of the big ones transform fossil energy systems to clean energy and decarbonize, then there is going to be a ripple effect around the world,” said Olson in the Hastings Journal.
The federal case Juliana v. the United States is the biggest case going on for Our Children’s Trust now. According to Julia Olson in her interview with the Hasting’s Journal, “What makes this case extraordinary is the harm and the threat to generations that will last for millennia. That is really what we are looking at.” Despite being stayed many times, this case is still ongoing. In 2023, it is now on the path to go to trial thanks to a ruling by Federal Judge Ann Aiken. The case is nearing a decade in the making, and it shows no signs of stopping. After all, it’s all our futures that are on the line.
Sources used include in-class interviews and class material as well as the Our Children’s Trust website.
