Chernaik v. Brown
Oregon Supreme Court
475 P.3d 68 (2020)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Under the public-trust doctrine, the State of Oregon (Oregon) (defendant) held title to the land underlying all navigable waterways within its territory. Caselaw established that the navigable waters themselves were considered public-trust resources. In 1892, the United States Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the public-trust doctrine was to preserve navigable waterways from private encroachment. In 2020, two young residents of Oregon (residents) sued Oregon and Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon (defendant), for violation of the public-trust doctrine. The residents argued that Oregon had to protect the atmosphere of Oregon and other natural resources in Oregon from the effects of climate change and ocean acidification. The residents asked for an order enjoining Oregon to record Oregon’s annual greenhouse gas emissions and implement a plan to protect the state’s natural resources from carbon emissions. The residents and Oregon agreed that climate change was causing harm to Oregon and that the legislative and executive branches of government had taken steps to address the harm. The residents argued that all natural resources within Oregon were interconnected and that the value of resources such as the atmosphere justified application of the public-trust doctrine.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nakamoto, J.)
Dissent (Walters, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
