Seven youths want their day in court over claims Utah’s fossil fuel policies violate their constitutional right to life by exacerbating health issues they cannot escape.
In a courtroom full of young people, Andrew Welle, the attorney representing the youths with Our Children’s Trust, argued Utah energy agencies are mandated by state statute to “promote, encourage, foster, maximize and authorize fossil fuel development, regardless of the harms to Utah's youth.”
“Every day that they remain in place brings further additional and escalating harms to the plaintiffs’ health and safety and are causing conditions that they cannot escape,” he told the court during the Sept. 4 oral arguments.
“These laws present an existential threat to the lives and the very futures of Utah's youth.”
The plaintiffs weren’t seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of the case. Rather, Welle asked the justices to reinstate the case so the youths could “present evidence that these policies are being implemented and harming them and to argue their constitutional claims.” The case was dismissed in 2023 by a lower court judge. That judge ruled while the youths had a valid concern, it wasn’t an issue for the judicial branch.
If the state supreme court agrees to revive the case, it will go back to the lower court. Associate Chief Justice John Pearce, who recused himself due to his previous employment with former Gov. Gary Herbert, was replaced by Judge Ryan Harris.
The youths’ arguments
Welle drew inspiration from a similar case in Montana. In that landmark ruling, the Montana Supreme Court said the state violated its constitution by failing to consider how fossil fuels contribute to climate change.
He said protections for health and safety under Montana's constitution are similar to Utah's constitution. In that decision, the court required Montana to “evaluate the results of their decision making processes and whether it would cause substantial harm.”
“If it would cause substantial harm, they need to take a close look at whether it's necessary to achieve the purposes that they're trying to fulfill.”
Welle believes there is a constitutional question at play, like there was in Montana, that grants the plaintiffs their turn on the stand. Even so, Welle said the high court could provide direction on the constitutionality of fossil fuel policy. It would establish a framework for lawmakers to consider before passing energy legislation.
Justice Diana Hagen asked how the court’s ruling provides the relief the plaintiffs are seeking and how it could prevent the state from continuing to participate in practices that bolstered the fossil fuel industry.
Welle responded the state would be subject to strict scrutiny of policy around fossil fuels. Namely, the Legislature would need to defend a series of questions to determine if such policies “are necessary to achieve compelling government interest, such as providing energy.”
“In their decision making process over activities relevant to fossil fuels, they have to evaluate the level of emissions that will result from their decisions, whether that level of emissions would cause substantial harm to Utah's youth.”
Welle added that Utah’s heavy hand in fossil fuels is not a “narrowly tailored” government interest due to market available renewable energy and other technologies.
Hagen pushed back on Welle’s claims, stating that his line of arguments “strike me as much further than we would go in a declaratory judgment” and that she wasn’t “quite catching the logic between” if the court ruled “these mandates to promote the use of fossil fuels were unconstitutional, how would that result in a defacto mandate to do the opposite?”
The state’s response
Erin Middleton, the attorney representing the state, encouraged the court to keep this a closed case.
“The State of Utah is committed to ensuring that it has energy policies that consider human well-being,” she said. “Part of that consideration is that its citizens shall have affordable, reliable and adequate energy sufficient to meet their needs.”
“For now, the elected officials of the state have determined that oil, gas and coal are a necessary component of meeting those goals.”
She said the plaintiffs did not provide the state with any “meaningful guidance” on how the state should comply with their wishes and didn’t outline how the high court weighing in would provide any relief. Rather, she argued, the plaintiffs were far too general in their complaint with no specific harms brought forth before the court.
Middleton said even if the policies surrounding fossil fuels were to fall, “it's only speculative that the absence of those policies would change the state's energy decisions at all.” Even then, she said the relief the plaintiffs are seeking doesn’t cover permitting – a critical aspect of generating energy through oil, coal and gas.
“In the absence of these policy statements, those statutes would still be in place, and the agencies would be bound to follow those and would issue permits pursuant to those policies,” she said.
“[The] plaintiffs haven't indicated anything that would suggest how the application of those statutes would be different.”
Middleton added the court should uphold the lower court’s decision because it pushes the courts toward taking up a policymaking role, which she believes the justices should steer clear of.
In a news conference that followed oral arguments, Welle said the tough questions from the bench show the justices are “seriously considering these issues.”
He added he is hopeful the pending decision “will put these youths’ claims back on track for trial so they can put forth their evidence of how they are being harmed and why the state's policies are unconstitutional.”
