Natalie R. v. State (Utah)

Date of Application:	Tue, 15 Mar 2022
Date of Decision:	Wed, 09 Nov 2022
Decision Making Body:	Utah Supreme Court
Law Applied:	Utah State Constitution
Keywords:	Non justiciable political question, Effective remedy
	Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf)

Natalie R. & others v. State (Utah) 

220901658 (Utah Dis. Ct.) 

20230022-SC (Utah Supreme Court) 

At issue: Lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs against State of Utah and State defendants claiming that the State's fossil fuel development policies violate the plaintiffs' substantive due process rights. 

15 March 2022 - Youth Plaintiffs Claimed Utah Fossil Fuel Policy Violated Due Process Rights. Youth plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Utah state court alleging that the State of Utah and other State defendants violated their substantive due process rights to life and liberty under the Utah Constitution by maximizing, promoting, and systematically authorizing the development of fossil fuels. The plaintiffs alleged that the State’s “Fossil Fuel Development Policy” and the defendants’ implementation of the Policy caused and contributed to dangerous air quality and climate change that harmed the plaintiffs, and that the youth plaintiffs were “disproportionately vulnerable to the harms of the climate crisis.” The plaintiffs also contended that the defendants had long-standing knowledge (since the 1960s) of the air quality and climate change dangers of fossil fuels. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief—which the plaintiffs alleged “would substantially influence and stop the conduct of Defendants”—and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

10 November 2022 - Utah Court Dismissed Youth Plaintiffs’ Climate Case Against State Defendants. A state district court in Utah dismissed a lawsuit brought against the State of Utah and other State defendants for allegedly violating the substantive due process rights of youth plaintiffs under the Utah constitution to life, health, and liberty by maximizing, promoting, and systematically authorizing development of fossil fuels. Counsel for the plaintiffs reported that the court’s brief written decision stated that the plaintiffs had a “valid concern” but dismissed their claims, citing the political question doctrine, redressability, and substantive due process issues. Plaintiffs said they would appeal the dismissal. 

20 January 2023 - Utah Supreme Court Will Hear Youth Plaintiffs’ Appeal of Dismissal of Climate Case Against State Defendants. In a January letter requesting that the Supreme Court retain the appeal, the plaintiffs stated that the issues presented on appeal included: (1) Is deciding the constitutionality of statutes governing fossil fuel development a nonjusticiable political question?; (2) Can there be no possible set of facts under which fossil fuel policies can conceivably infringe the rights to life, liberty, and property under Utah’s due process clause?; and (3) Can a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute, without further relief, provide meaningful redress? The plaintiffs asserted that the Supreme Court should retain the appeal because the case involved important constitutional questions of first impression. The plaintiffs also contended that the case afforded the Supreme Court an opportunity to resolve confusion about the standard for whether a case presents a nonjusticiable political question. 

20 March 2025 - Utah High Court Affirmed Dismissal of Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Climate Case on Subject Matter Jurisdiction Grounds. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of youth plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeking a declaration that certain Utah statutory provisions and government conduct violated their rights to life and liberty under the Utah Constitution because the provisions and conduct were “designed to maximize fossil fuel development in Utah,” which the plaintiffs said “endangers their health and shortens their lifespans by exacerbating the effects of climate change.” The Supreme Court concluded, however, that because the dismissal was on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, the dismissal should be without prejudice. With respect to the plaintiffs’ challenge to a provision that provided that the State would promote “nonrenewable energy resources,” the Supreme Court held that the challenge was moot because the provision had been amended in 2024. With respect to the other statutory provisions challenged by the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing because the provisions did not limit the Utah defendants’ discretion in decision-making regarding fossil fuel development and declaring the provisions unconstitutional therefore would not be substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ alleged climate change harms. In response to the plaintiffs’ request that the court provide “guidance as to the constitutional parameters” governing the defendants “subsequent conduct” even if redressability was found to be lacking, the Supreme Court said it could not provide such guidance because it would be an impermissible advisory opinion. The court also found that plaintiffs’ claims regarding government conduct were not justiciable because the plaintiffs did not tie the claims to specific government actions such as granted permits or other regulatory decisions.

 

Natalie R. v. State - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com) 

Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre 

 

Court documents: 

Complaint (15 March 2022)

Decision (20 March 2025)

 

Related CRC articles

• 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
• 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
• 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)

The applicants rely on their rights to life, health, and safety. The applicants say the court should hear them because they do not have the right to vote and thus cannot express their views in that way.  

Decision: "The youth plaintiffs also contend that the district court’s  decision deprived them of their right to their “day in court” under the Open Courts Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Utah  Constitution. But any constitutional right to a day in court cannot extend to claims the court is barred from adjudicating."

Involvement of children in hearings

• Written presentation

The papers set out the names, ages and personal circumstances of the applicants, as well as the effects of climate change on their personal lives.  

The applicants sue in their own names but “by and through her guardian”. 

Future generations

The complaint refers to the disproportionate burden that future generations will carry in respect of climate change effects.  

The decision does not mention future generations.  

Outcome of decision for the applicants

• Relief sought by applicants NOT granted

The application is dismissed.  

With respect to the other statutory provisions challenged by the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing because the provisions did not limit the Utah defendants’ discretion in decision-making regarding fossil fuel development and declaring the provisions unconstitutional therefore would not be substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ alleged climate change harms. In response to the plaintiffs’ request that the court provide “guidance as to the constitutional parameters” governing the defendants “subsequent conduct” even if redressability was found to be lacking, the Supreme Court said it could not provide such guidance because it would be an impermissible advisory opinion. The court also found that plaintiffs’ claims regarding government conduct were not justiciable because the plaintiffs did not tie the claims to specific government actions such as granted permits or other regulatory decisions.

Did outcome of decision develop the law

• No

Involvement of NGO/law firm in application

NGO 

Our Children's Trust (ourchildrenstrust.org) 

Available information on how children got involved in the litigation

Meet the Utah Youth Plaintiffs — Our Children's Trust (ourchildrenstrust.org) 

Age range of litigants

• 8-12
• 13-17
• 18-25

Number of children or youth involved

7