ROBERTS V. BOARD OF OIL, GAS, AND MINING

On December 1, 2025, Our Children’s Trust, in partnership with Deiss Law, filed Roberts v. Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining on behalf of ten Utah youth to protect their fundamental rights to life, health, and safety. The plaintiffs argue that fossil fuel permits issued for coal, oil, and gas development are unnecessary, costly and causing them harm by worsening air quality and taking years off their lives. Utah has some of the worst air quality in the United States because of fossil fuel pollution. 

Defendants in the case include the Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining (BOGM), the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (DOGM), and Mick Thomas, Director of DOGM, in his official capacity for authorizing these permits.   

WHY CHILDREN ARE SUING!

This case responds to the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Natalie R. v. State of Utah, a youth-led constitutional lawsuit challenging Utah’s energy policy that was decided on March 20, 2025. During the lawsuit, the legislature amended its energy policy, mooting the plaintiffs’ claims because it “created a new state policy of developing energy resources and planning an energy future ‘with a focus on human well-being and quality of life.’” The Court acknowledged the scale of fossil fuel extraction in Utah and clarified that, to receive meaningful relief, the plaintiffs needed to target particular government conduct. 

This case directly heeds the Utah Supreme Court’s decision and targets specific permits issued for coal, oil, and gas extraction issued since the date of the decision, rather than challenging Utah’s overall energy policy.  

These permits violate the constitution and contribute to dangerous air pollution, harming the health and lives of the youth plaintiffs without being necessary to meet Utah’s energy needs or considering safer, cleaner, and cheaper alternatives like wind and solar energy. 

The youth plaintiffs are already experiencing a wide range of health, developmental, and lifestyle injuries including respiratory issues, cognitive impacts, and shortened lifespans. 

Under Utah’s Constitution, young people have the right to life, liberty, and due process — which includes breathing clean air, being protected from dangerous pollution, and growing up in a safe, healthy state.

What the Youth Plaintiffs are Asking For:

The youth plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the permits unconstitutional and stop the state from issuing new harmful fossil fuel permits until their full health, environmental, and climate impacts are considered and consistent with the new state energy policy that requires the protection of human wellbeing and quality of life. 

The plaintiffs are asking the court to:

• Declare that the challenged permits violate the constitutional rights of Utah youth. 

• Exercise their statutory authority to review or revoke or review existing permits that are unnecessary and harm youth. 

• Require that future permits be necessary to achieve a compelling interest and consider the full lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions, health harms, and safe alternatives. 

CURRENT STATUS:

After the case was filed and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the state of Utah intervened, attempting to move the case out of the hands of the district court judge and into a newly created three-judge panel system — legislation the State enacted while the case was already underway. This system targets constitutional cases and shifts them away from judges who have been willing to hold the State accountable. 

The youth plaintiffs have challenged that move, and the district court has paused proceedings while the Utah Supreme Court considers the issue. The Utah Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on September 9, 2026.  

Importantly, this phase of the case is not about the merits or whether the state is violating the youth plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by permitting fossil fuel projects that worsen air quality and take years off their lives. Instead, the court will decide whether the case will be heard by the original district court judge or by this new unconstitutional three-judge panel system.