As reported in the last edition of The Climate Report, a number of youth-oriented nonprofit advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit in the name of minor children against the federal government alleging breach of the government's fiduciary duty under the "public trust doctrine" to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Alec L. v. Jackson, No. 1:11-cv-02235-RLW (D.D.C). The plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the defendants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, such that global carbon dioxide emissions will peak by the end of 2012 and decline by at least 6 percent per year beginning in 2013.
There was a flurry of motions in the fall of 2011, culminating with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on December 6, 2011. When the case was transferred, several unresolved motions were pending: (i) the plaintiffs' motion for issuance of a preliminary injunction; (ii) the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; (iii) a motion by the National Association of Manufacturers ("NAM") to intervene in the case, accompanied by a proposed motion to dismiss; and (iv) the plaintiffs' motion to strike NAM's proposed opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
Activity continued after the case was transferred. On March 5, 2012, a group of individual companies and trade associations filed another motion to intervene. In that motion, the potential intervenors argued that any relief granted to the plaintiffs requiring the government defendants to set greenhouse gas emissions standards would impose considerable costs on the intervenors (or their members) to retrofit their vehicles and equipment to meet such standards, which could cause many of those businesses to shut their doors. The potential intervenors also argued that the government defendants and NAM could not adequately defend their interests because the government defendants are not businesses with business interests, and NAM's members have different business interests than the intervenors.
In addition, the potential intervenors filed a proposed motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complaint (i) failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (ii) asserted claims that were displaced by the Clean Air Act; and (iii) presented a nonjusticiable political question.
On April 2, 2012, Judge Robert Wilkins granted the motions to intervene after hearing oral argument from the parties. At the hearing, Judge Wilkins also set a briefing schedule for the defendants' motion to dismiss, with arguments on May 11, 2012, and stayed the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
