The court’s reasoning in Chernaik v. Brown illustrates the limits of the public trust doctrine as a legal tool to address the climate crisis. Many environmental law scholars have argued that the public trust doctrine is a “vital tool” in the environmental lawyer’s toolbox, and it certainly has been successfully deployed to protect certain contaminated resources. However, in reasoning that Oregon does not have an affirmative duty to act to protect resources in a public trust, the court revealed how the public trust doctrine is a weak tool for fighting the existential threat of climate change, which requires affirmative, multi-jurisdictional government action. Ultimately, a new legal doctrine is necessary to compel the government to address the climate crisis and protect the public from the harms of an increasingly unstable and inhospitable climate.
Trust Issues: The Limits of the Public Trust Doctrine in the Fight Against Climate Change After Chernaik v. Brown
