The following are significant excerpts from the U.S. Magistrate's April 8th Findings & Recommendations denying the federal government and the fossil fuel industry's motions to dismiss the youth's case:

• “[T]he intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society.” p.8
• "If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health. Presumably, sweeping regulations by this agency (the EPA) alone could result in curtailing of major CO2 producing activities by not just the defendant agencies, but by the purported independent third parties as well.” p.10 
• "Thus, regulation by this country, in combination with regulation already being undertaken by other countries, may very well have sufficient impact to redress the alleged harms.” p.11-12. 
• "The complaint does raise issues of whether government action/inaction violates the Constitution and these are issues committed to the courts rather than either of the political branches. . . . While the efficacy of any proposed regulations is perhaps beyond the expertise of the court, it can evaluate the competing experts on either side of the issues and direct the EPA to take a hard look at the best available scientific evidence. The court need not dictate any regulations, only direct the EPA to adopt standards that prevent the alleged constitutional harm to the youth and future generation plaintiffs, should plaintiffs prevail in demonstrating such is possible.” p.14
• "Plaintiffs assert that the defendants' action/inaction with respect to their obligations regarding regulating environmental pollutants has violated their substantive due process rights and has done so in favor of older generations. The Fifth Amendment provides in part that 'no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' U.S. Const. amend. V. . . . the complaint does allege discrimination against a class of younger individuals with respect to a fundamental right protected by substantive due process." p.15
• "In this case, the government has allegedly taken action through subsidies, regulations, etc. that creates massive CO2 emissions, and has failed to limit such emissions despite a duty to do so. Plaintiffs further allege they are prevented any means of escape from the resulting climate that threatens their property, health, and even existence.” p.16
• "[T]he court should decline to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege a substantive due process claim. . . . discovery may produce evidence regarding when defendants and intervenors were aware of the harmful effects of CO2 emissions and whether the public was purposely misled about those effects, which evidence would be relevant to the "shocks the conscience" standard." p.17
• "The public trust doctrine invoked instead is directed against the United States and its unique sovereign interests over the territorial ocean waters and atmosphere of the nation. The doctrine is deeply rooted in our nation's history and indeed predates it.” p.20
• "At the hearing on defendants and intervenors' motions to dismiss, the court queried their counsel whether, hypothetically, Congress could alienate the territorial waters of the United States off the West Coast to a private corporation, or whether that would implicate a public trust issue under the Constitution. Both parties suggested Congress could cede the territorial waters to a private corporation, and that PPL Montana, LLC, forecloses any argument that the public trust doctrine applies to the federal government. As explained above, I cannot read PPL Montana, LLC, given the context of the argument being addressed by the Court; to have such a sweeping and profound effect. Nor can I imagine that our coastal sea waters could possibly be privatized without implicating principles that reflect core values of our Constitution and the very essence of the purpose of our nation's government.” p.23
• "When combined with the EPA's duty to protect the public health from airborne pollutants and the government's public trust duties deeply ingrained in this country's history, the allegations in the complaint state, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, a substantive due process claim." p.23