436 P.3d 26
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Minor plaintiffs sued Oregon and the Governor seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the common-law public-trust doctrine, alleging the state must protect public-trust resources (including the atmosphere) from climate-change harms.
- Plaintiffs sought declarations that the atmosphere and various natural resources are trust resources and that the state has a fiduciary obligation to prevent substantial impairment from greenhouse-gas emissions.
- On initial appeal (Chernaik I), the Court of Appeals held plaintiffs’ requests for declarations about the scope of the public-trust doctrine were justiciable and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the trial court held the public-trust doctrine covered only submerged/submersible lands and did not impose affirmative fiduciary duties to protect trust resources from climate change, and dismissed the case.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed that the public-trust doctrine does not impose affirmative fiduciary obligations on the state to protect public-trust resources from effects of climate change, but vacated the dismissal and remanded for a declaratory judgment consistent with its ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the public-trust doctrine extend beyond submerged/submersible lands to other natural resources (e.g., atmosphere, fish, wildlife)? | Plaintiffs: doctrine covers "essential natural resources," including the atmosphere and must protect them from climate change. | State: doctrine historically protects submerged/submersible lands and navigable waters; it should not be expanded via common law. | Not decided as dispositive; court refrained from resolving resource-by-resource scope because unnecessary to disposition. |
| Does the public-trust doctrine impose fiduciary/affirmative duties on the state to act to prevent substantial impairment (e.g., from climate change)? | Plaintiffs: doctrine implies trustee-like fiduciary duties; state must take affirmative measures to prevent irreversible harm. | State: doctrine is a restraint on alienation/use, not a source of affirmative trust-law duties; it does not compel initial governmental action. | Held: public-trust doctrine does not impose fiduciary-like affirmative obligations to protect trust resources from climate change. |
| Can plaintiffs obtain declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act on these questions? | Plaintiffs: yes — they seek declarations of law about the state's obligations. | State: various justiciability and separation-of-powers arguments (some raised earlier). | Held (on prior appeal): certain declaratory requests are justiciable; on this appeal, remedies were resolved by ruling and court remanded to enter declaratory judgment rather than dismiss. |
| Are plaintiffs entitled to further declarations or injunctive relief based on asserted failure to uphold public-trust duties? | Plaintiffs: after declaration of duties, court can address whether state breached and order remedies. | State: even if duties recognized, separation-of-powers and political-question concerns limit injunctive relief. | Held: Court resolved the dispositive legal question against plaintiffs and therefore did not reach breach/remedy issues; remand for appropriate declaratory judgment only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, 263 Or. App. 463 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (held certain declaratory requests under the public-trust doctrine were justiciable)
- Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1896) (discusses state control over wildlife and uses the trust metaphor)
- State v. Dickerson, 356 Or. 822 (Or. 2015) (describes the state’s sovereign interest in wildlife and uses the trust metaphor)
- Illinois Central R. Co. v. State of Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (foundational statement of the public-trust doctrine regarding submerged lands)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2012) (confirms public-trust doctrine is matter of state law)
- Brusco Towboat v. State Land Bd., 30 Or. App. 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1977) (distinguishes state jus privatum and jus publicum and frames public-trust restraints)