Can you please elaborate?
I'll try. I am not a lawyer, so my comments are those of an interested amateur, and somebody that enjoys well reasoned and articulated arguments. I also enjoy reading good writing (an argument in favor of reading the Federalist Papers). So anybody construing a legal opinion - you get what you paid for, and what you got coming!
This is a very early stage of this lawsuit. Namely, we're far enough into it that the plaintiffs have created the case and filed it, and the defendants have filed their initial batch of motions to dismiss the case. There are a bunch of reasons to dismiss - do the plaintiffs have standing, have they been harmed, could the harm have been caused by the defendants, is there relief that the court can provide, and more. All of these have very specific technical meaning within the context of the law that I mostly find passably related to a common / lay person's understanding of the terms.
So one reason to read the motion is to learn more about these various ideas.
Part of why I find the motion interesting reading is that the whole thing could have been a single line (ok, not really), but the upshot is "motions to dismiss are denied". Much more interesting to me is that walk through each and every point, what are they, what is their basis in law, why do they apply or not apply.
A prominent component of the motion has to do with property rights and the public trust. Property rights are an interesting thing - in some quarters, just putting those two words together can create strong emotions and heated arguments. The motion will take you through a rather lengthy account of a component of property rights and the public trust (two strongly interlinked ideas), along with articulating limits and boundaries.
One of the ideas I found interesting - something I've understood without being able to put words to it - is that there are responsibilities on the shoulders of our government (both state and federal government) that can't be legislated away. The motion walks through some of those.
I'm mostly not articulating a conclusion. One idea I'll throw out though - if you believe property rights are important, and you also believe that government has a tendency to overreach on property rights, then one conclusion you might draw after reading the motion is that protection of your property rights (an important function of government) has been abandoned by our government in favor of policies that are exacerbating climate change. That a policy in favor of (I'll be imprecise, but directionally accurate) of "drill baby drill" is also a policy in favor of destruction of your property rights.
The judge takes 54 pages to say Motions Denied. I found every page worth reading.
