Natalie R. v. State of Utah
What's at Stake
In recent years, federal courts have relied on whatās called the āpolitical question doctrineā to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrineāand thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violatedāis an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courtsā authority to review important constitutional claims.
Summary
The State of Utah has a statutory policy to maximize, promote, and systematically authorize the development of fossil fuels. Given the disproportionate harms that youths experience from the effects of climate change and the use of fossil fuels, seven youths represented by Our Childrenās Trust sued the state in state court, arguing that these statutory provisions violated their state constitutional rights to life, health, and safety.
The Third Judicial District Court dismissed the case, ruling that the youthsā claims presented a political question that Utah courts have no authority to decide. The youths appealed the district courtās decision, and the Utah Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
In the state supreme court, the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ās State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ³Ō¹ĻÖ±²„ of Utah and the law firm Ropes & Gray, filed an amicus brief supporting reversal. The amicus brief argues that Utah courts should reject adoption of the political question doctrine, which is a creature of federal law and has no basis in the Utah Constitution. The brief explains that, unlike the federal constitutionās Article III, which limits courts to considering ācasesā and ācontroversies,ā the Utah Constitution has no such limitation. The brief points to other state courts that have refused to adopt the federal political doctrine question. It also argues that the political question doctrine, even if adopted in Utah, would not support the district courtās decision in this case.
The case remains pending on appeal.
Legal Documents
-
10/02/2023
Amicus Brief
Date Filed: 10/02/2023
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Affiliate: Utah