—declining to apply the public trust doctrine to the atmosphere because no court in Minnesota or any other jurisdiction has done so, and because it had previously held that the public trust doctrine did not apply to land

No Minnesota case has directly addressed whether the public-trust doctrine encompasses a duty to manage groundwater-appropriation permits.

In looking to other jurisdictions, we note that some have declined to extend the public trust doctrine to the atmosphere.

—the reviewing court dismissed the youth plaintiffs' common law public trust claim in a single paragraph.

Other Atmospheric Trust Litigation in the US There have been a number of similar cases asking state courts to find that state governments have a public trust duty to address climate change (frequently referred to as “atmospheric trust” cases

Others have refused to expand a doctrine narrowly concerned for most of American history with submerged lands to the atmosphere

Yet courts have been slower to extend the doctrine to protect new classes of natural resources, like the atmosphere

Cases in Pennsylvania and Minnesota are examples of instances in which existing state environmental protection statutes created barriers to ATL because the courts found that the statutes displaced common law claims

However, Judge Doyle' s concurring opinion cites statutes expressing the “policy of the State of Iowa to protect its natural resource heritage of air, soils, waters, and wildlife for the benefit of present and future citizens.” Id.

[PDF] Looking forward: An analysis of global climate litigation invoking …