Utah Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments from teens that state's fossil fuel policies violate their rights

Kyle Dunphey
Utah News Dispatch

Seven teens who say Utah’s policies promoting fossil fuels are impacting their constitutional rights took their argument to the state Supreme Court earlier this month, asking the justices to consider their case after it was dismissed by a lower court.

It’s the latest in several youth-led climate change lawsuits around the country, represented by the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust. Utah’s suit — Natalie R. v. State of Utah — argues the state’s energy policy promotes and maximizes fossil fuel development, which officials then carry out on a “system-wide basis.”

“And as a result, they are responsible for the hazardous air quality and increasingly dangerous climate conditions in Utah, from which they cannot escape,” Andrew Welle, attorney for the youth plaintiffs, said to Utah Supreme Court justices.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2022 but dismissed the following November by 3rd District Court Judge Robert Faust, who said the argument is better suited for the Legislature, not the courts. Attorneys for the plaintiffs appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which agreed in June to hear arguments.

“The state’s very clear in their energy policy about what they stand for … they’re not in the business of standing up for our rights,” said Dallin Rima, one of the youth plaintiffs, speaking outside the courtroom after the hearing. “If we have the opportunity to go to trial and we win, we’ll be able to stop that … This is our opportunity to change these disastrous energy policies, to require the state to consider our constitutional right to life when they’re making their decisions on their permitting.”

The lawsuit names Gov. Spencer Cox, as well as a number of state agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources; Office of Energy Development; and Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. During the hearing, Welle claimed that they promote policies that created inescapable conditions that harm the youth plaintiffs’ health.

But the hearing was focused on why the court should allow the case to move forward, rather than the actual merits of the teens’ arguments.

“The question before the court is not whether these policies violate Utah’s constitution. The question is whether these youth will have their constitutional right to their day in court to present evidence that these policies are being implemented and harming them, and to argue their constitutional claims,” Welle said.

Justice Diana Hagen questioned whether the lawsuit, if successful, would actually force the state to change course, asking Welle, “what would stop the division (of oil, gas and mining) from exercising its discretion in exactly the same way?”

Welle, in response, said a ruling would give the state a “constitutional standard” that would govern their conduct when making decisions and issuing permits related to the fossil fuel industry. Any activity that the state engages in that would result “in a level of emissions that would cause substantial harm and endangerment to youth plaintiffs, would be subject to strict scrutiny.”

The justices also seemed skeptical of the claim that Utah’s fossil fuel policies were harming the youths’ right to life, with Justice Paige Peterson questioning whether the argument was too abstract.

“Your allegation is it shortens life, but it’s further away, we don’t know exactly how long, we don’t know necessarily it has that cause for everyone. How do we consider the certainty of the shortening of life and the immediacy of that?” she asked.

Welle pushed back on the idea that the allegations were “distant,” telling the court that the current conditions are taking years off the youth plaintiffs’ lives, with more evidence to come if the case goes to trial.

Representing the state, Erin Middleton with the Utah attorney general’s office accused Welle of using a “generalized” legal argument in an attempt to move the case from the Legislature to the court.

Should the courts consider the lawsuit, Middleton warned, it would open a legal Pandora’s box for the state and the courts, subjecting various policy decisions to scrutiny.

“The court would be involved in all sorts of policy decisions that don’t have anything to do with fossil fuels,” she said.

If a court eventually sided with the youths, ruling that any amount of “molecules” could impact the health of the plaintiffs, that could have broad implications for the state, Middleton argued.

“Can it issue a business license to a dealer that only wants to sell gas-powered cars? Can it widen the freeway if there’s evidence that it might increase emissions?” she asked.

After the hearing, Welle addressed reporters outside the courtroom. Despite the scrutiny from the justices, he remained optimistic.

“I’m so happy with the way things went in the courtroom today. What we saw from the court is a level of engagement that indicates they are taking these claims and these issues seriously,” he said.

Our Children’s Trust case in Utah is one of six youth-led legal challenges around the country:

• Alaska, where oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 15.
• Florida, where new legal action is being considered after youth plaintiffs filed a rulemaking petition supporting renewable energy policies.
• Hawaii, where the state government recently announced a settlement agreement to decarbonize the state’s transportation system over the next 20 years.
• Montana, where a judge ruled in favor of youth plaintiffs, enshrining protections for their fundamental rights. The state is appealing the decision.
• Virginia, where a state Supreme Court appeal is pending following a lower court’s dismissal in June.

This story was originally published by Utah News Dispatch. It is reprinted here under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.