Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
90 Mass. App. Ct. 444
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs: Harvard Climate Justice Coalition (student unincorporated association) and student members sued Harvard University (President and Fellows of Harvard College) and Harvard Management Company to force divestment from fossil fuel companies.
- Complaint (Nov. 2014): two counts — (1) charitable mismanagement: endowment investments in fossil fuels breach fiduciary/charitable duties by contributing to climate change; (2) a proposed new tort asserting rights of future generations against "intentional investment in abnormally dangerous activities."
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Attorney General was joined as required for suits involving charitable corporations.
- Trial judge dismissed both counts: ruled plaintiffs lacked "special standing" to challenge charitable fund management and declined to recognize the novel tort or allow plaintiffs to sue on behalf of future generations.
- Appeal affirmed by Appeals Court: plaintiffs failed to show a personal right distinct from the public necessary for special standing, and the court refused to create or allow assertion of the proposed new tort on behalf of future generations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether students have standing under the "special standing" exception to challenge mismanagement of a public charity's endowment | Students argued their status as university members gives them personal rights from the charity and that fossil-fuel investments harm their education and academic freedom | Harvard and Attorney General argued the AG has exclusive enforcement authority over charitable funds and students lack individualized personal rights distinct from the public | Court held plaintiffs lacked special standing; claims were speculative and not personal enough, so count one dismissed |
| Whether plaintiffs may assert a novel tort for "intentional investment in abnormally dangerous activities" on behalf of future generations | Plaintiffs asked the court to recognize the new tort and permit them to represent future generations harmed by climate change | Defendants argued no existing authority recognizes such a tort and creation of new torts is for the SJC or Legislature; plaintiffs cannot sue on behalf of nonparties | Court refused to recognize the new tort and barred plaintiffs from asserting rights of future generations; count two dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Wood, 425 Mass. 270 (1997) (explains "special standing" exception requires a personal right that directly affects the individual member)
- Doe v. The Governor, 381 Mass. 702 (1980) (limits on third-party or class assertion of rights when plaintiffs cannot maintain action on their own behalf)
- Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008) (motion to dismiss standard and pleading sufficiency principles)
- Jessie v. Boynton, 372 Mass. 293 (1977) (members can have standing to challenge internal governance when personal rights exist)
- Lopez v. Medford Community Center, Inc., 384 Mass. 163 (1981) (distinguishes membership-based claims from mismanagement claims)
- Maffei v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 449 Mass. 235 (2007) (personal rights can confer standing to pursue certain equitable claims involving charitable entities)
- Dillaway v. Burton, 256 Mass. 568 (1926) (historical explanation of Attorney General's role enforcing charitable funds)
- Brady v. Ceaty, 349 Mass. 180 (1965) (procedural requirement to join the Attorney General in suits involving charitable corporations)