Alec L. v. Jackson
863 F.Supp. 2d 11, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75791, 42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20115 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public trust doctrine is a matter of state law, not federal law, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, any federal common law claim seeking to abate carbon-dioxide emissions is displaced by the Clean Air Act, which grants regulatory authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Facts:
- Five young citizens and two environmental organizations, Kids vs. Global Warming and Wildearth Guardians, are concerned about the effects of human-made climate change.
- Plaintiffs allege that the atmosphere is a public trust resource.
- Plaintiffs contend that the U.S. government, as a trustee, has a fiduciary duty to preserve and protect the atmosphere.
- Plaintiffs claim that several federal agencies, including the EPA and the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Defense, have breached this duty by allowing and contributing to unsafe levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
Procedural Posture:
- Five young citizens and two environmental organizations filed a complaint against the heads of six federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The National Association of Manufacturers and several California companies and trade associations were permitted to intervene in the action as defendants.
- The Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim asserting that the federal government violated a federal public trust doctrine by failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions present a federal question sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in federal court?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert L. Wilkins
No. A claim based on the public trust doctrine does not create a federal question because the doctrine is a matter of state law, and even if it were a federal common law claim, it has been displaced by comprehensive federal legislation. First, the court, citing the Supreme Court's decision in PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, held that the public trust doctrine is a matter of state law, not federal law. As the plaintiffs' sole claim was based on this state-law doctrine, no federal question was presented to invoke the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, the court provided an alternative holding that even if the public trust doctrine could be considered a federal common law claim, it has been displaced by the Clean Air Act. Citing American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the court reasoned that Congress has directly addressed the issue of carbon-dioxide emissions by empowering the EPA to regulate them. Therefore, federal courts cannot create their own remedies for greenhouse gas emissions, as this would interfere with the comprehensive regulatory scheme established by Congress and managed by an expert agency.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of legislative displacement and the separation of powers in the context of environmental regulation. By categorizing the public trust doctrine as state law for jurisdictional purposes, the court limits a potential avenue for climate change litigation in federal courts. The alternative holding solidifies the precedent from American Electric Power Co., confirming that the Clean Air Act is the exclusive federal mechanism for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby channeling such disputes towards the EPA and Congress rather than the federal judiciary. This case signals to potential litigants that novel common law theories are unlikely to succeed in forcing federal action on climate change where a comprehensive statutory scheme already exists.
