Chernaik v. Brown
367 Or. 143
| Or. | 2020Background
- Two Oregon minors (and their guardians) sued the Governor and State asserting the public trust doctrine requires the State to protect natural resources — including the atmosphere — from substantial impairment caused by greenhouse‑gas emissions and climate change.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the atmosphere, waters, wildlife, and related resources are public trust assets, that the State breached fiduciary duties, and injunctive relief (annual CO2 accounting and a court‑supervised carbon‑reduction plan to return CO2 to 350 ppm by 2100).
- The State admitted many climate facts but moved for summary judgment, arguing the public trust is limited (to navigable waters and underlying lands), does not impose private‑trust fiduciary duties, and that relief would raise separation‑of‑powers and justiciability problems.
- The circuit court granted the State summary judgment, limiting the trust to submerged/submersible lands and denying an affirmative fiduciary duty to prevent climate change harms; the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, concluding the State has no fiduciary duty to affirmatively protect trust resources from climate change (but noting navigable waters are trust resources).
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: it held the public trust currently covers navigable waters and submerged/submersible lands, declined to expand the doctrine to include the atmosphere, all state waters, or wildlife, and declined to adopt private‑trust fiduciary duties (e.g., an affirmative duty to prevent substantial impairment from climate change).
- The case was remanded to the circuit court with instructions to enter declarations consistent with that holding (including that navigable waters are public trust resources).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of resources covered by the public trust doctrine | Chernaik: public trust should expand to include atmosphere, all waters, fish, wildlife | Brown: doctrine historically limited to navigable waters and underlying lands; expansion is unwarranted | Court: public trust currently covers navigable waters and submerged/submersible lands; decline to extend to atmosphere, all state waters, or wildlife now |
| Whether public trust imposes affirmative fiduciary duties like private trusts (to prevent substantial impairment from climate change) | Chernaik: state is trustee and owes fiduciary duty to protect trust resources; common‑law trust principles should apply | Brown: public trust is a limitation on alienation/use; it does not import private‑trust fiduciary obligations or authorize courts to compel policy | Court: decline to import generalized private trust fiduciary duties; no judicially imposed affirmative duty here to prevent climate change effects |
| Specific declaratory relief on CO2 thresholds and emission targets (e.g., 350 ppm, peak/reduction rates) | Chernaik: court should declare specific CO2 limits and mandate State action to meet them | Brown: such specific scientific/policy measures were not pleaded or appropriate for judicial declaration; separation of powers concerns | Held: because atmosphere is not a public trust resource here and no fiduciary duty was recognized, plaintiffs are not entitled to those CO2‑target declarations |
| Justiciability / separation of powers (ability of courts to order or supervise remedial policy) | Chernaik: courts can declare legal duties and supervise compliance; judicial review is appropriate | Brown: mandating affirmative statewide climate policy intrudes on legislative/executive roles and lacks judicially manageable standards | Court: did not need to decide separation‑of‑powers in detail because it declined to create the broad fiduciary duty; noted judicial restraint but left open future expansion in other cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego, 365 Or 422 (Or. 2019) (explains public trust protects navigable waters and submerged lands and applies an objective reasonableness standard to government limitations)
- State v. Dickerson, 356 Or 822 (Or. 2015) (discusses the "trust" metaphor in relation to wildlife authority but does not impose an affirmative duty to legislate)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2012) (federal precedent on state title to navigable waters and soils under the public trust)
- Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (foundational public trust rule forbidding alienation that impairs public use of navigable waters)
- Guilliams v. Beaver Lake Club, 90 Or 13 (Or. 1918) (Oregon decision expanding navigability concept and public uses to protect inland waters)
- Winston Bros. Co. v. State Tax Comm., 156 Or 505 (Or. 1936) (describes state title to underlying beds as held in trust for the public)
- Corvallis Sand & Gravel v. Land Board, 250 Or 319 (Or. 1968) (discusses state holding title as trustee and limits on alienation of submerged lands)