Summer Sagoonick filed her opening brief with the Alaska Supreme Court in June. The state's response isn't due yet. No hearing date has been set.

This is how fast constitutional climate litigation moves.

Meanwhile, the Alaska LNG Project she's challenging—an 800-mile pipeline designed to triple the state's greenhouse gas emissions for three decades—moves at the speed of political will and available financing. Glenfarne Group took 75% ownership in March. President Trump signed an executive order prioritizing development. Federal approvals are in place. The state law mandates it. The only thing missing is money.

Sagoonick is 22, Iñupiaq, from Unalakleet. She learned to fish and hunt as a child. Salmon, seal, duck, cranberries—the foods that depend on climate stability. Her village sits on permafrost that's thawing, coast that's eroding. She's the lead plaintiff arguing that a 2014 state law mandating the pipeline violates Article VIII of Alaska's constitution, which requires sustainable management of natural resources.

The legal theory: the state can't mandate a project that would unleash 2.3 billion metric tons of carbon pollution while claiming to protect resources for future generations. The state's position is equally direct: that's a policy question for the legislature, not a constitutional claim for the courts.

A superior court judge dismissed the case in March, ruling that courts lack "the authority and the tools to reweigh the competing economic, environmental, social or conservation goals." So now Sagoonick waits for the Supreme Court to decide whether that's correct. The wait could be a year. Could be longer. Oral arguments eventually, then a decision maybe nine months after that.

Procedural time measured in briefing deadlines and judicial workload.

The state's argument goes like this: We can't look into a crystal ball to predict how present-day decisions will shape the future. Also, we're mandating a 30-year fossil fuel project that will triple our emissions. These two positions don't contradict each other in the state's view. Courts can't predict the future, but the legislature can mandate one.

This is the third time young Alaskans have sued over climate. The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the previous case in 2022, saying they needed to challenge "specific actions" rather than broad policies. So they narrowed their focus to one specific action: the 2014 law requiring the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation to advance the project. The state now argues this is still too broad for courts to handle. First too general, now too specific, always somehow outside judicial authority.

The Juliana v. United States case has been in litigation for nearly a decade without reaching trial. Montana's Held v. Montana took years to win at trial and survive appeal. Hawaii settled after extended litigation. By the time courts rule, the emissions have continued, the infrastructure has been built or not built based on other factors, and the plaintiffs are years older.

Sagoonick is 22 now. If the appeal takes a year and the case goes back to trial, she'll be 24 or 25. If it reaches the Supreme Court again on different grounds, add more years. The Alaska LNG Project, if built, would operate for at least 30 years—until she's in her fifties. Thirty years of 3.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day. During those three decades, the climate impacts she's experiencing now in Unalakleet would accelerate according to physics and chemistry, not legal procedure.

The courts will answer when they answer. The salmon runs won't wait.

Does Article VIII's requirement to manage resources sustainably mean anything if the state can mandate a project designed to operate for 30 years while tripling emissions? That's the constitutional question. Whether courts have the authority to answer it, or whether it's inherently political—that's the procedural maze.

But here's what nobody wants to examine: What does it mean to have a constitutional right that takes years to adjudicate while the harm you're challenging continues accumulating? You can have the right and lose everything it was supposed to protect before any court tells you whether you actually had it.

Sagoonick's lawyers filed their brief in June. The court will rule when it rules. The pipeline will advance or not based on financing and politics. The permafrost will continue thawing.

These timelines don't synchronize because the system was never designed to make them synchronize. Constitutional time—the time it takes to establish whether you have a right to climate stability—runs slower than the time it takes for climate to destabilize. By design or by accident doesn't much matter at this point.

In Unalakleet this week, the temperature is below freezing. The salmon season ended months ago. The pipeline project is in its financing phase. The appellate brief sits with the court.

Sagoonick is still waiting.