Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah children, along with their family and friends, filed into a courtroom on Wednesday to hear their attorney argue before the Utah Supreme Court that they should have the right to use the court system to fight Utah's policies concerning the environment and fossil fuels.
The lawsuit — filed in 2022 by seven minors, then between 9 and 17 — was dismissed by 3rd District Judge Robert Faust later that year. He ruled the children have a "valid concern" but that the Utah Legislature has balanced interests in its policies, and a court striking the policies down violates the separation of powers in government.
Andrew Welle, an attorney with Our Children's Trust, an organization that has filed similar lawsuits in other states, argued that Utah's laws "are causing serious harms to their personal health and safety by taking years off their life."
He said this isn't a hypothetical future harm but is impacting them right now. Welle said Utah statute is maximizing fossil fuel development, which is not constitutional considering his clients' "health emergency."
"There's a scientific certainty that will be developed and proven at trial that they're losing years off of their lives today as they're exposed to these conditions," he said.
Welle said there is technology available to provide energy without causing substantial harm.
He argued that fundamental constitutional protections, specifically the right to life and liberty, restrict government from harming health.
"There are very clear fundamental rights at issue for these youth," Welle said.
Assistant Solicitor General Erin Middleton argued that the complaint filed by the plaintiffs cites harms that could not be addressed through this lawsuit, since any outcome the case has would only advise the government.
She said the lawsuit does not seek any affirmative action from the government because that would require a substantial likelihood that the relief they ask for would help the injury.
"They want some declaration that overall applies to fossil fuel policy across the state, and that is beyond the scope of any dispute that's before this court," she argued.
Middleton said Utah's policies do address health but also include access to reliable, affordable energy.
"The state of Utah is committed to ensuring that it has energy policies that consider human well-being," she said.
She said the youth have argued any amount of fossil fuels is harmful while any reduction is helpful. This standard, Middleton said, would bring constitutional scrutiny to any decisions involving fossil fuels, including business licenses for car dealerships or widening a freeway.
The Utah Supreme Court justices each asked questions, specifically asking both sides what it would look like if the court reverses the dismissal and the teenagers ultimately win the lawsuit.
Welle said it would "fundamentally change" the decision-making process and lead to some permits being denied that wouldn't otherwise be. He said it will not stop fossil fuel development overnight but would give guidance that not every fossil fuels permit should be granted.
Middleton disagreed. She said if the youth get everything they want, including a mandate to the government from the court, it would mean the courts would be involved in any policy decisions related to fossil fuels with claims about each permit.
However, she said just a declaration — which is what they have requested — would not cause any change at all.
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant asked about the impacts of a ruling here on other government policies, specifically if it were proven that lowering a speed limit could save lives, would a decision in favor of the plaintiffs in this case lead to requiring lower speed limits?
Welle replied that situation is more similar to whether the government was requiring drivers to travel at 100 mph. He said the law requires the government to grant permits that maximize the use of fossil fuels or "get as much fossil fuels out of the ground as possible."
He said the law directs the government to ensure the coal mining industry expands and is "economically healthy."
"These laws present an existential threat to the lives and the very futures of Utah's youth," Welle said. "And at this early stage, 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.
"And the answer to that question is clearly 'yes,'" he said.
A statement from Our Children's Trust said this is the first time a high court in the U.S. has considered a similar case.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Natalie Roussel, said in the statement that she and the others are grateful for the opportunity to be heard and hope the court recognizes the urgency of their lawsuit.
"This is a crucial moment for us as we fight for our constitutional right to life and challenge Utah's policies that exacerbate the climate crisis," she said.
