Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology

Our Children's Trust brought a suit on behalf of eight young climate activists arguing that the State of Washington's Department of Ecology needed to adopt and implement stricter greenhouse gas emissions regulations based on the most recent climate science. The case generated a noteworthy decision at the trial court level, where a judge ruled that the children had a right to a clean environment and that the Public Trust Doctrine applied to both the atmosphere and navigable waters. However, the trial court ruling was reversed on appeal and the case was dismissed.

Background
In 2014, youth petitioners filed a petition with the Washington Department of Ecology to begin a rulemaking process to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the state. This petition was denied by the Department of Ecology. Shortly thereafter, 8 young petitioners filed a claim in King County Superior Court challenging the denial of their petition.

In 2015, a district court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the Department of Ecology to reconsider the youths' petition in light of the urgent situation presented by climate science. The Department of Ecology again denied the petition for rulemaking.

Following the second denial of their petition for rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the youth petitioners again appealed to King County Superior Court. In November 2015, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis R. Hill issued a ruling finding that the youth petitioners had a right to a healthy environment and that the public trust doctrine applied to the whole climate system, because separating the atmosphere from navigable waters was "nonsensical." The judge ordered the Washington Department of Ecology to protect what it held in the public trust.

After the Washington Department of Ecology withdrew its proposed rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the youth petitioners went to King County Superior Court for the third time. In response, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill once again ordered the Washington Department of Ecology to promulgate an emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Shortly thereafter, the state released its own Clean Air Rule that fell short of what was requested by the young petitioners. The State of Washington appealed the Washington Superior Court decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

In 2018, a Washington Court of Appeals judge sided with the state and dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Washington State Constitution has no right to a clean environment and that addressing climate change was a matter for the executive and legislative branches.

Relevant Laws and Principles

 * Public Trust Doctrine

Ruling
A trial court judge ruled that the children had a right to a clean environment and that the Public Trust Doctrine applied to both the atmosphere and navigable waters. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision finding that Washington did not have a right to a clean environment in its constitution. The appellate court ruled that addressing climate change was a matter for the executive and legislative branches and dismissed the case.

Takeaway
As with many cases of climate litigation built on Public Trust Doctrine claims in the United States, this lawsuit ultimately was dismissed because it was ruled that regulating greenhouse gas emissions was a matter for the executive and legislative branches.

Links

 * Sabin Center Database
 * Our Children's Trust Chronology