- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Pennsylvania
- /
- Clean Air Council v. United States
Clean Air Council v. United States
Geography
Year
2017
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2017
Status
Defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
Geography
Docket number
2:17-cv-04977
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.)
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US) → Fifth Amendment (US)Public Trust Claims (US)
Principal law
United States → Fifth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited States → Public Trust Doctrine
At issue
Lawsuit against United States and other federal defendants asserting constitutional claims to block deregulatory actions by Trump administration.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
02/19/2019
Defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
The federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit brought by Clean Air Council and two minors seeking to block the Trump administration’s climate change deregulatory efforts on the grounds that they violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ claims because neither Clean Air Council nor the individual plaintiffs had established standing. Regarding Clean Air Council, the court found that neither the complaint nor an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs included specific harms suffered by the organization’s members. With respect to the individuals, the court found that while their alleged physical harms constituted particularized and concrete injuries, the injuries were not imminent or certain. The court further found that the alleged injuries could not be traced to the regulatory rollbacks and that a favorable decision by the court would not redress the injuries. In addition, the court said that prudential considerations regarding the separation of powers precluded jurisdiction. In the alternative, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim. The court said there was no legally cognizable due process right to environmental quality, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the right to a life-sustaining climate system was a liberty interest guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The court said the District of Oregon’s decision to the contrary in Juliana “certainly contravened or ignored longstanding authority.” The court also found that the plaintiffs’ claim did not meet the requirements for a state-created danger claim and that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim of invasion of their due process right to property. In addition, the court held that the Ninth Amendment did not provide substantive rights to sustain the plaintiffs’ action, and that the public trust claim had no basis in law.
Decision
–
01/17/2019
Reply filed by plaintiffs in support of motion to reopen discovery for purposes of deposing former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Reply
–
01/07/2019
Opposition filed by defendants to plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery for purposes of deposing former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Opposition
–
12/24/2018
Motion filed by plaintiffs to reopen discovery for purposes of deposing former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Motion
–
12/24/2018
Plaintiffs filed response to defendants' motion to strike and reply in support of request for status conference.
Response
–
12/18/2018
Motion filed by United States to strike plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority.
Motion
–
12/05/2018
Notice of supplemental authority and request for status conference filed by plaintiffs.
Notice
–
11/21/2018
Notice of supplemental authority filed by plaintiffs.
Notice
–
10/16/2018
Supplemental response filed by plaintiffs to defendants' notice of supplemental authority.
Response
–
09/19/2018
Response filed by plaintiffs to defendants' notice of supplemental authority.
Response
–
09/05/2018
Notice of supplemental authority filed by defendants.
Notice
–
05/11/2018
Plaintiffs filed sur-reply in opposition to motion to dismiss.
Reply
–
05/03/2018
Supplemental motion to dismiss and reply to plaintiffs' response to motion to dismiss filed by defendants.
Reply
–
04/19/2018
Plaintiffs filed response in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss.
Response
–
03/29/2018
Motion to dismiss filed.
Motion To Dismiss
–
11/06/2017
Complaint filed.
Clean Air Council and two children filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting claims of due process and public trust violations against the United States, the president, the Department of Energy, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The complaint seeks a declaration that the defendants cannot implement regulatory rollbacks that increase the frequency of or intensify the effects of climate change “based on junk science in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate system and the public trust doctrine.”
Complaint
–
Summary
Lawsuit against United States and other federal defendants asserting constitutional claims to block deregulatory actions by Trump administration.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance