## Facts

- Two minor plaintiffs, through guardians, sued the Governor of Oregon and the State under Oregon’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA).
- Plaintiffs alleged that the state holds certain natural resources (including the atmosphere, waters, lands, fish, and wildlife) in trust for present and future generations under the public-trust doctrine.
- They alleged the state breached fiduciary-type duties by failing to protect those resources from harms associated with climate change, including harms tied to greenhouse-gas emissions.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and equitable relief defining (1) which resources are subject to the public trust, (2) the scope of the state’s obligations, and (3) whether defendants violated those obligations.
- The circuit court dismissed on the ground that the claims were nonjusticiable and therefore outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint alleged a justiciable controversy under the UDJA, rather than requesting an advisory opinion on abstract questions of climate policy.
2. Whether requests for declarations identifying public-trust resources and describing the state’s duties under the public-trust doctrine are the type of determinations courts may issue under the UDJA.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the complaint alleged at least some justiciable claims for declaratory relief, so the circuit court had jurisdiction to adjudicate them.
- The court did not decide the merits of whether the atmosphere is a public-trust resource or whether defendants breached any public-trust duties.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon courts lack jurisdiction over nonjusticiable controversies because courts may not render advisory opinions.
- A UDJA claim is justiciable when it presents a real and substantial dispute between parties with adverse interests concerning rights, status, or other legal relations.
- Requests for declaratory relief addressing the existence and scope of alleged governmental legal duties, including duties asserted under the public-trust doctrine, can be judicially cognizable even if the subject matter involves climate change and has policy implications.
- Potential overbreadth in requested declarations may be addressed by limiting the scope of declaratory relief on remand, rather than dismissing the entire action at the pleading stage for lack of jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that the youth plaintiffs’ UDJA action presented at least a justiciable dispute about the existence and scope of Oregon’s alleged public-trust obligations, requiring reversal of the jurisdictional dismissal and a remand for further proceedings without deciding the underlying public-trust and climate-liability merits.


Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, 263 Or. App. 463, 328 P.3d 799 (Or. Ct. App. 2014)