Aji P. v. State of Washington

The Washington Supreme Court denied a petition by youth plaintiffs seeking review of the dismissal of their case alleging that the State of Washington and State agencies and officials infringed on the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to a stable climate system. The Chief Justice dissented, joined by one other justice. The Chief Justice wrote that he would have granted review so that the court could decide the question of whether climate change impacts are harms that are remediable under Washington’s laws and constitution. He noted that the Court of Appeals had concluded that the youth plaintiffs’ claims were not justiciable because there was no remedy the court could provide. The Chief Justice viewed this as “a debatable issue” because a judicial declaration of rights “would be a final and conclusive determination of the controversy irrespective of whether any other relief is requested or granted.” The Chief Justice stated that “[a] declaration of rights from this court is meaningful relief, even if it is not a magic wand that will eliminate climate change.”

Although its opinion stated that “[w]e firmly believe that the right to a stable environment should be fundamental,” the Washington Court of Appeals nonetheless affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by 13 youths who asserted that the State of Washington and State agencies and officials infringed on their fundamental right to a stable climate system by creating and maintaining transportation and energy systems that relied on fossil fuels and resulted in greenhouse gas emissions. The court concluded that judicial resolution of the youths’ claims would violate the separation of powers doctrine and also rejected the youths’ substantive due process, equal protection, state-created danger, and public trust doctrine claims on the merits. With respect to separation of powers, the Court of Appeals found that to provide the relief sought by the youths—an order requiring the State to develop an enforceable “climate recovery plan”—the court would have to order the legislative and executive branches to create and implement the plan, which would contravene the Washington Constitution’s commitment of legislative power to the legislative branch. The court further found that there was no judicially manageable standard by which it could resolve the claims, noting that scientific expertise would be required to determine the appropriate amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions. In addition, the court found that the State had already made policy determinations regarding climate change and established and implemented a regulatory regime, and that judicial resolution of the lawsuit would “usurp the authority and responsibility of the other branches.” The court also rejected the youths’ argument that their claims were justiciable under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). The court reasoned that any remedy it granted would not be final and conclusive—and the claims therefore would not be justiciable under the UDJA—since the remedy would require the court to retain jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the climate recovery plan. In its consideration of the merits of the youths’ claims, the court held that neither the Washington Constitution nor Washington statutes provided a fundamental right to a healthful and peaceful environment or to a stable climate system. In addition, the court rejected the youths’ claims that the defendants violated their equal protection rights, both because they failed to establish that a fundamental right was implicated and also because they failed to establish youth as a suspect or quasi-suspect class with immutable characteristics. The court also found that the youths could not show that the State acted affirmatively to create a danger but instead alleged that their injuries resulted from a failure to act. Finally, the court rejected the youths’ public trust doctrine claim because it was based on the “climate system as a whole, including the atmosphere,” and Washington’s public trust doctrine had not been expanded to encompass the atmosphere.

–

–

A Washington Superior Court granted the State of Washington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a lawsuit brought by 12 Washington residents under the age of 18 to compel the State to develop and implement an enforceable climate recovery program. The plaintiffs also asked the court to declare that the State’s policies violated their “fundamental and inalienable constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, equal protection, and a healthful and pleasant environment, including a stable climate system.” The court noted that both sides in the case “agree that climate change is an urgent problem,” but that “they disagree on what action should be taken and how quickly it must be done.” The court concluded that issues raised in the case were “quintessentially political questions that must be addressed by the legislative and executive branches of government” and that “cannot appropriately be resolved by a court.” The court indicated that while the plaintiffs had attempted to “avoid the problem of nonjusticiability” by framing a constitutional claim, there was no right to a clean environment found in the Washington State constitution. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not stated a cognizable equal protection claim based on their age. The court said it appreciated the plaintiffs’ “concerns about climate change, and their passion for and commitment to urgent action” and hoped they would not be discouraged and would continue “to help solve the problems related to climate change” by advocating before the political branches.

–

–