Description: Action for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the obligation under the public trust doctrine of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona officials to act to protect the atmosphere from climate change impacts.
-
Butler v. Brewer
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/14/2013 Memorandum Decision Download Memorandum decision issued affirming dismissal. On appeal, the court of appeals in a memorandum decision rejected the defendants’ argument that determinations of what resources are protected by the public trust doctrine and whether the state has violated the doctrine are non-justiciable. The court assumed without deciding that the atmosphere was part of the public trust subject to the doctrine. Nonetheless, the court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the complaint failed to make the requisite showing of a specific constitutional provision or other law that had been violated by state action or inaction. Furthermore, the court agreed in part with defendants that a state statute precluded defendants from redressing Butler’s grievances. Butler had not challenged the constitutionality of the statute or identified a basis upon which it could be found unconstitutional. The court determined that it was without power to order the state to take action in violation of the statute and that it therefore could not grant relief. -
Butler v. Brewer
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/10/2012 Order Order issued dismissing action. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis of the public trust doctrine. Among other things, they sought a declaration that the atmosphere was a public trust asset and that the defendants had a fiduciary obligation as trustees to take affirmative action to preserve the atmosphere and other trust assets from the impacts of climate change. They asked the court to mandate that the state institute reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 6% annually. The court dismissed the action. The court stated that plaintiffs’ remedies were with the legislature or Congress.