Natalie R. v. State

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of youth plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeking a declaration that certain Utah statutory provisions and government conduct violated their rights to life and liberty under the Utah Constitution because the provisions and conduct were “designed to maximize fossil fuel development in Utah,” which the plaintiffs said “endangers their health and shortens their lifespans by exacerbating the effects of climate change.” The Supreme Court concluded, however, that because the dismissal was on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, the dismissal should be without prejudice. With respect to the plaintiffs’ challenge to a provision that provided that the State would promote “nonrenewable energy resources,” the Supreme Court held that the challenge was moot because the provision had been amended in 2024. With respect to the other statutory provisions challenged by the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing because the provisions did not limit the Utah defendants’ discretion in decision-making regarding fossil fuel development and declaring the provisions unconstitutional therefore would not be substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ alleged climate change harms. In response to the plaintiffs’ request that the court provide “guidance as to the constitutional parameters” governing the defendants “subsequent conduct” even if redressability was found to be lacking, the Supreme Court said it could not provide such guidance because it would be an impermissible advisory opinion. The court also found that plaintiffs’ claims regarding government conduct were not justiciable because the plaintiffs did not tie the claims to specific government actions such as granted permits or other regulatory decisions.

In a January letter requesting that the Supreme Court retain the appeal, the plaintiffs stated that the issues presented on appeal included: (1) Is deciding the constitutionality of statutes governing fossil fuel development a nonjusticiable political question?; (2) Can there be no possible set of facts under which fossil fuel policies can conceivably infringe the rights to life, liberty, and property under Utah’s due process clause?; and (3) Can a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute, without further relief, provide meaningful redress? The plaintiffs asserted that the Supreme Court should retain the appeal because the case involved important constitutional questions of first impression. The plaintiffs also contended that the case afforded the Supreme Court an opportunity to resolve confusion about the standard for whether a case presents a nonjusticiable political question.