Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of youth plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia and Virginia agencies and officials in which the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ permitting of fossil fuel infrastructure caused and contributed to the climate crisis and caused injuries to the plaintiffs, in violation of the plaintiffs’ jus publicum (i.e., public trust doctrine) rights and their substantive due process rights under the Virginia Constitution. Although the appellate court held that sovereign immunity did not bar the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims because immunity is waived for self-executing provisions of the Virginia Constitution, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing. First, the appellate court found that the plaintiffs did not establish “the necessary particularized injury” but instead presented “general policy disagreements” that fell within the legislature’s purview. Second, the appellate court found that “there is simply no basis to the claim that the Commonwealth’s policies of approving permits for certain facilities … are responsible for the heat rash, tick bites, reduced shellfish stocks, diminished access to places of recreation, and other injuries” alleged by the plaintiffs. Third, the appellate court found that courts were not capable of requiring the “global policy changes” needed to redress the alleged injuries. The court also found that the trial court correctly dismissed the jus publicum claims as barred by sovereign immunity.

The Virginia Supreme Court denied youth plaintiffs’ petition for appeal of an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming dismissal of their lawsuit alleging that the Commonwealth of Virginia defendants’ permitting of fossil fuel infrastructure caused and contributed to the climate crisis and caused injuries to the plaintiffs in violation of their substantive due process and public trust doctrine rights. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing for their substantive due process claim and that sovereign immunity barred the public trust claim. The Supreme Court stated that it was “of the opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of.”

Youth plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Virginia state court against the Commonwealth of Virginia and state agencies and officials alleging that the defendants’ permitting of fossil fuel infrastructure caused and contributed to the climate crisis and caused injuries to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted that the Virginia Gas and Oil Act’s directive requiring that the Virginia Department of Energy maximize exploration, development, production, recovery, and utilization of Virginia’s fossil fuel resources substantially impaired the plaintiffs’ constitutional and common law jus publicum (i.e., public trust doctrine) rights and violated their substantive due process rights under the Virginia constitution. The complaint also asserted that the defendants’ “historic and ongoing policy and practice of exercising their statutory discretion in such a manner as to favor the permitting of fossil fuel infrastructure projects” substantially impaired the plaintiffs’ jus publicum rights and violated their substantive due process rights. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, as well as in injunctive relief, “[i]f necessary and proper.” They contended that a declaratory judgment would have “immediate practical consequences” and “provide meaningful redress” because the defendants would “abide by any declaratory judgment order and bring their policy and practice of approving permits for fossil fuel infrastructure into constitutional compliance.”