After a hotly contested nearly decade-long battle, the Oregon Supreme Court today ruled against Ollie Chernaik and Kelsey Juliana, youth plaintiffs in Chernaik v. Brown. Writing in a powerful dissent, Chief Justice Martha Walters of the Oregon Supreme Court recognized the “ravages of climate change” and affirmed “the judicial branch has an important constitutional role to play and should declare the governing law.”
“As I see it...the time is now,” added the Chief Justice as she departed from the majority’s unwillingness to declare the law and duty of government at this time of climate crisis.
In its divided ruling, the majority opinion denied the claims of the young Oregonians who had filed suit against the state of Oregon and its governor for failing in its public trust duty to protect essential natural resources -- including water, wildlife, and the atmosphere -- from ongoing impacts of the climate crisis.
“How best to address climate change is a daunting question with which the legislative and executive branches of our state government must grapple,” Chief Justice Walters wrote. “But that does not relieve our branch of its obligation to determine what the law requires.”
“The dissenting opinion will one day be the majority opinion. But our climate, our waters, and our drying forests do not have years to wait. Children do not have years to wait. We are considering a petition for rehearing in light of the majority’s mischaracterization of our case and the errors of law addressed by the Chief Justice,” said Courtney Johnson, Executive Director at Crag Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs.
University of Oregon Law Professor Mary Wood agrees with Courtney:
“The dissent by Chief Justice Walters is written as a majority opinion. It clearly illuminates the constitutional duty of the courts to hold the political branches accountable — which is paramount before those branches walk this nation over the climate cliff. Justice Walters’ opinion will undoubtedly serve as a beacon to other judges nationwide...to confront this existential climate threat before it is too late.”
"I have had it. This court case is not about what the law actually says. It is about how much the older generations care about the younger ones. You can interpret the law either way, so this is a choice, not a decision. The people who have wronged us throughout this case clearly don’t care about the future generations. It’s as if they want us to inherit the public trust doctrine so we will be able to take care of it ourselves. By the time we become the older generation, there will be nothing left for us. Climate change will get to the point where people will die, and I am horrified that these judges don’t see what’s wrong with the world they are leaving us.”
-- Ollie Chernaik
