SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court is considering whether to revive a lawsuit leveled by a group of teenagers against the state over its fossil fuel policies and harms from climate change.
On Wednesday, the state's top court heard arguments over whether to revive the lawsuit against Utah's Division of Oil, Gas & Mining brought by seven teenagers who argue they have been directly impacted by the state's reliance on fossil fuels.
"During the winters, with the really bad inversions and the pollution, my asthma was severely worsened during those times," Sedona Murdock, 19, who is one of the plaintiffs, told FOX 13 News.
Natalie Roberts, 17, said the state's policies lead to increased pollution.
"We’re living with the state’s policies that are causing these harms that are going to be present through our lives and take years off our lives," she said.
The group of teens are part of a lawsuit backed by the environmental group Our Children's Trust. The lawsuit challenges policies surrounding the state's permitting for oil, gas and coal extraction. Their lawsuit was initially dismissed by a lower court judge in 2022, who ruled that their complaints were best addressed through the legislature.
But in a rare move, the Utah Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by the teens and their lawyers, who would like to see the lawsuit revived and sent to trial. On Wednesday, the justices peppered the teens' attorney.
"I worry that we’re being asked to decide these questions in the abstract without a set of facts to apply these concepts to," said Justice Diana Hagen.
But Andrew Welle, the teens' attorney, argued that the case should be revived and the facts would emerge as the case proceeded to trial.
Justices appeared to center in on the Utah Constitution's "right to life" provision and whether the case has applications there.
"Your allegations are these policies take years off the lives of youth in the state. I’m wondering, to implicate the right to life, do we need to think about the immediacy and the certainty and maybe even how widespread the threat to life is?" asked Justice Paige Petersen.
"By virtue of their exposure today, there’s a scientific certainty that will be developed and proven at trial they’re losing years off their life," Welle replied.
Utah's political leaders recently have emphasized an "all of the above" energy portfolio that includes fossil fuel extraction to encourage an "abundant and affordable" supply for people. It comes even as some of Utah's energy sector has seen declines in fossil fuels (Carbon County, for example, has mined its last coal mine).
"For now, the elected officials of the state have determined that oil, gas and coal are a necessary component of meeting those goals," Assistant Utah Solicitor General Erin Middleton argued to the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday. "Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to disagree with those decisions, but they cannot use a generalized declaratory relief action to move the debate about those choices from the elected branches to the court."
Middleton also suggested that the teens' advocacy work is best left on Utah's Capitol Hill and not in the courtroom.
"Not every concern or grievance is something that has a judicial solution," she argued to the Court.
But Welle argued that Utah's policies have resulted in harms to these youth and others across the state. He urged the Court to let them go to trial.
"There’s a lot of specificity to this case and that will be born out in the evidence that will be provided at trial as to the harms these youth are experiencing and how it is directly attributable to the clear statutory mandates for the state of Utah to maximize fossil fuel production," he told FOX 13 News. "And how that is causing Utah’s dangerous air quality and increasingly dangerous climate changes."
Roberts left court hopeful. The justices took the case under advisement with no timeline for when they will issue a ruling.
"We’re really really grateful to the Supreme Court for taking up our case, and I think that just further emphasizes to us and our fellow plaintiffs this is an incredibly important case," she said. "Like, the nature of a constitutional right for life is beyond important."
