A. Funk O. Harrison, a minor, by his guardian A. Lee v. Tom Wolf, in his official capacity as Governor of Pennsylvania PA DEP
144 A.3d 228
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Youth petitioners sued Pennsylvania officials and agencies seeking declaratory and mandamus relief under Article I, § 27 (the Environmental Rights Amendment, ERA), asking the Commonwealth to study, plan for, and regulate CO2 and other GHG emissions to protect the atmosphere and public natural resources.
- Petitioners alleged present and future injuries from anthropogenic climate change (health, recreational, property, and flood risks) and asked the court to compel studies, a comprehensive plan, and regulations calibrated to climate science.
- Respondents filed preliminary objections arguing lack of jurisdiction (rulemaking belongs to EQB/appellate path), lack of standing, mandamus inappropriate (discretionary acts; alternative administrative remedies), exhaustion, sovereign immunity, non-justiciable political question, and that declaratory relief would be advisory.
- The Commonwealth Court accepted well-pleaded facts as true, found original jurisdiction proper (because petition sought a remedy not available through EQB rulemaking), and held at least one petitioner (minor McIntyre) had prudential standing.
- The court ruled mandamus relief could not issue because no statutory or regulatory provision made the specific acts requested (studies, specified regulations, or orders) mandatory rather than discretionary.
- The court also declined declaratory relief as effectively advisory (having no practical effect apart from mandamus), dismissed the petition with prejudice, and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction—original v. appellate | Petitioners: original mandamus jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 761; remedy not available via EQB rulemaking. | Respondents: relief seeks rulemaking; Court lacks original jurisdiction over matters in its appellate jurisdiction. | Court: original jurisdiction exists here because petition seeks a remedy (compel non‑specific studies/plans) not tenantable via EQB rulemaking process. |
| Standing | Petitioners: minors and youth have direct, substantial, immediate interests from present/future climate harms. | Respondents: alleged harms are generalized, speculative, shared by public. | Court: at least one petitioner (McIntyre) alleged concrete present and imminent injuries; standing sustained. |
| Mandamus | Petitioners: ERA imposes trustee duties; mandamus can compel performance of those duties (studies, plans, regs). | Respondents: requested acts are discretionary; no clear mandatory duty or statutory command; alternative administrative routes exist. | Court: mandamus unavailable—petitioners lack a clear legal right to compel the specific acts requested; POs sustained as to mandamus. |
| Declaratory relief | Petitioners: declarations that atmosphere and safe GHG levels are protected by ERA are necessary legal predicates. | Respondents: declarations would be advisory with no practical effect and would not prescribe concrete actions. | Court: declaratory relief would be advisory/no practical effect absent mandatory-duty relief; POs sustained as to declaratory relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cmty. Coll. of Delaware Cnty. v. Fox, 342 A.2d 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (discusses ERA structure and limits on agency powers absent enabling statute)
- Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (three‑part test for ERA challenges to government decisions)
- Payne v. Kassab, 361 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1976) (Payne II) (ERA creates public trust but duties are not absolute; courts must account for competing governmental duties)
- Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (plurality) (interpreting ERA and criticizing strict reliance on Payne test)
- Pa. Envtl. Def. Found. v. Commonwealth, 108 A.3d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (recent court framing of ERA duties and available theories of relief)
- Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (prudential standing principles)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (environmental injury and associational/individual standing principles)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (environmental and aesthetic interests cognizable for standing)
- Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (GHGs are "air pollutants" under Clean Air Act)
- Snelling v. Dep't of Transp., 366 A.2d 1298 (Pa. 1976) (Commonwealth duty to conserve public natural resources)
- Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n v. Casey, 600 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (executive order cannot displace comprehensive legislative/regulatory scheme)
- Fawber v. Cohen, 532 A.2d 429 (Pa. 1987) (sovereign immunity bars suits seeking to compel affirmative action of state officials)
- Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (mandamus cannot direct discretionary judgment)