Chernaik v. Brown plaintiffs Ollie Chernaik & Kelsey Juliana. Photo: Robin Loznak.
Chernaik v. Brown
Our Children’s Trust has supported youth plaintiffs in the Oregon constitutional climate lawsuit, Chernaik v. Brown, since 2011.
Chernaik v. Brown was filed on behalf of two youth plaintiffs, Ollie Chernaik and Kelsey Juliana, against the Oregon Governor and the State of Oregon for failing to protect essential natural resources, including the atmosphere, as required under the Public Trust Doctrine.
Ollie and Kelsey are represented by Crag Law Center and Liam Sherlock at Hutchinson Cox., and supported by Our Children’s Trust.
Current Status:
On December 10, 2020 the Oregon Supreme Court denied the youth plaintiff's petition for reconsideration. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are considering next steps to obtain climate justice for Oregon youth.
TIMELINE:
The following is a timeline of major moments, filings, and rulings in Chernaik v. Brown, from 2011 to today:
“May 4, 2011: Case Filed
Two Oregon youth filed a constitutional climate lawsuit against Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and the State of Oregon, demanding that the government create a viable climate recovery plan for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in order to protect Oregon’s natural resources”
“January 23, 2012: A Hearing
A hearing on the State’s Motion to Dismiss was held at the Lane County Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon.”
“April 5, 2012: Motion Granted
The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs vowed to appeal the decision.”
“August 2, 2012: Notice of Appeal
The youth plaintiffs and their mothers announced their decision to appeal the April ruling. They also filed a brief requesting that the Court of Appeals send the case straight to the Oregon Supreme Court through a rare certification process.”
“October 9, 2012: TRUST Documentary Released
Youth plaintiff Kelsey Juliana participated in a mini-documentary film titled “TRUST Oregon,” telling the story of the case and her participation as a plaintiff. The film is the eighth film in the ten-part, award-winning documentary series “Stories of TRUST: Calling for Climate Recovery.””
“December 10, 2012: Opening Brief
Attorneys for youth plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals.”
“December 17, 2012: Amicus Briefs Filed
Two amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed on behalf of political leaders, businesses, agricultural groups and student native groups in support of the youth plaintiffs and their case. An additional amicus curiae brief was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of twenty-two top legal scholars from around the country who urged the court to apply the Public Trust Doctrine to the atmosphere and allow the case to proceed.”
“June 3, 2013: A Reply Brief
Youth appellants filed their reply brief before the Oregon Court of Appeals in response to the State’s answering brief.”
“December 5, 2013 & January 16, 2014: Support from Legal Scholars
Law professors Michael Blumm and Mary Wood published opinion pieces in The Oregonian and The Register-Guard in support of the case.”
“June 1, 2014: Youth Plaintiffs Win Reversal!
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs, overturning the previous decision of a trial court to dismiss the case.”
“January 9, 2015: Summary Judgment Filed
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing before Judge Karsten Rasmussen in Lane County Circuit Court that not only does the State have a sovereign duty to protect the public trust resources of Oregon, but that it is violating its trustee obligation to present and future generations if it does not. The brief can be read here.”
“January 9, 2015: Expert Declarations Filed
Expert declarations in support of the motion were also filed by Dr. James Hansen (former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Director of the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions program at Columbia University’s Earth Institute); Dr. Philip Mote (Director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and Professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University); Dr. Burke Hales (Professor of Ocean Ecology and Biogeochemistry at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University); and Ernest Niemi (Economist and Founder of Natural Resource Economics Inc.)”
“March 13, 2015: A Response Brief
The youth plaintiffs filed their response brief in opposition to the State’s motion for summary judgment with the Circuit Court. ”
“March 27, 2015: The State Responds
The State filed its response brief in opposition to the youth plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.”
“April 7, 2015: Oral Arguments
While Judge Karsten Rasmussen heard oral arguments from plaintiffs’ attorneys, more than 400 students and individuals from across the state flooded the Lane County Circuit Court and took part in a silent vigil and theatrical tribunal outside the courtroom. A recording of the oral arguments can be viewed here.”
“May 11, 2015: A Disappointing Ruling
Judge Karsten Rasmussen, whose previous decision to dismiss the case was reversed in 2014 by the Oregon Court of Appeals, denied the youth plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs stated that they would appeal the decision.”
“July 7, 2015: The Plaintiffs Appeal!
The youth plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.”
“February 25, 2016: An Opening Brief
The youth plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals. The youth are supported by 53 law professors from across the nation and a broad coalition of individuals and organizations from across the state, including the Mayor of Eugene Kitty Piercy, who filed amicus curiae briefs arguing for the Court of Appeals to overturn the lower court’s adverse decision.”
“December 9, 2016: Oral Arguments
Attorneys presented oral arguments before the Oregon Court of Appeals.”
“January 9, 2019: A Ruling Against the Youth Plaintiffs
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the youth plaintiffs, finding that the Public Trust Doctrine imposes no affirmative duty on the state. ”
“March 8, 2019: Petition for Review to Oregon Supreme Court Filed
The youth plaintiffs filed a petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court asking the Court to exercise its discretion to review the decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals dismissing their case.”
“March 8, 2019: An Amicus Brief
Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon, filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the Oregon Supreme Court in support of the youth plaintiffs asking the Court to review the decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals.”
“March 22, 2019: Another Amicus Brief
A group of 53 different individuals and organizations that live, work, and recreate in the State of Oregon - representing a wide variety of interests, including government, communities of color, public health, youth, faith, business, conservation, and education - filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the Oregon Supreme Court in support of the youth plaintiffs asking the Court to review the decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals. ”
“May 22, 2019: Review Granted!
The Oregon Supreme Court granted the youth plaintiffs’ request to review the January 2019 Oregon Court of Appeals decision.”
“July 31, 2019: Additional Amicus Briefs
More than 175 individuals and groups filed amicus briefs with the Oregon Supreme Court, voicing their support of the youth plaintiffs. The briefs - filed by Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, Eugene/Springfield NAACP Et. Al., Law Professors, Oregon Elected Officials , and Multnomah and Lane Counties - represent a wide variety of interests and include government, law professors, communities of color, public health, youth, faith, business, conservation, and education groups.”
“November 13, 2019: Oral Arguments
Oral arguments were heard by the Oregon Supreme Court at David Douglas High School in Portland. A recording can be viewed here.”
“October 22, 2020: Claims Denied
The majority opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court denied the claims of the youth plaintiffs. However, a powerful dissent written by Chief Justice Martha Walters recognized the “ravages of climate change” and affirmed “the judicial branch has an important constitutional role to play and should declare the governing law.” Departing from the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to declare the law and duty of government at this urgent time of climate crisis, Justice Walters declared that “the time is now.””
“November 12, 2020: Petition for Reconsideration
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for reconsideration of the October 22 ruling.”
“December 10, 2020: Petition for Reconsideration Denied
The Oregon Supreme Court denied the youth’s plaintiffs petition for reconsideration.”
“TODAY: Considering Next Steps
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are considering next steps to obtain climate justice for Oregon youth.”