Yves here. I am not certain how much precedential value this climate litigation victory will carry. The “right to a stable climate system” does not sound like a generally tenable position absent laws that contain language along those lines, but it appears the Montana constitution contains pro-environment language that supports this stance. Regardless, this success in beating back a challenge to a trial court ruling is a big deal psychologically and as a sign of the times. Supreme courts are often tasked with figuring out how to apply the law in new or changing circumstances, and shifts in prevailing values regularly influence how they weigh their decisions. Perhaps readers can inform me otherwise, but Montana seems an unexpected place for this sort of breakthrough. It’s a conservative state and one would therefore assume business and individual “freedom” favoring. And generally, courts tend to be unfriendly to individuals suing governmental bodies.
Originally published at The New Lede
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a trial court ruling in a youth-led case against the Montana state government, affirming that the sixteen young plaintiffs have a right to a “stable climate system.” The decision marks what legal observers say is a landmark achievement in US climate litigation that is likely to inspire more lawsuits seeking to hold governments accountable for climate change harms in the US and around the world.
In the 6-1 decision today, the court ruled against the state in its appeal of District Judge Kathy Seeley’s Aug. 14, 2023 verdict in Held et al. v. State of Montana, which went to trial in June 2023. Seeley found that a pair of state laws effectively shielding fossil fuel projects from public scrutiny over their climate impacts, and from judicial review of those impacts under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), violate the state’s constitution, including the right to a clean and healthful environment. That environmental right includes the climate system, Seeley determined, and every additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted from fossil fuels – including from projects like coal mine expansion authorized by Montana regulatory agencies – exacerbates climate change damages and harms to Montana’s environment and the youth plaintiffs.
“This is a monumental moment for Montana, our youth, and the future of our planet,” Nate Bellinger, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a senior attorney with the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, said in a statement. “Today, the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests,”
“This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change,” saidlead plaintiff Rikki Held.
The Montana Supreme Court, which heard the case on appeal in July, ultimately rejected the state’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked the legal grounds to have their case heard in court in the first place. The statute at issue on appeal, which Seeley referred to as the “MEPA limitation”, prohibited consideration of climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions during project permitting. The state argued that declaring this statute unconstitutional would not affect their fossil fuel permitting decisions and therefore would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and alleviate harm to the youth plaintiffs.
But in affirming the trial court’s judgment, the state supreme court agreed that this policy, enacted in 2023 by the Republican-controlled state legislature, violated the Montana constitution’s guarantee of the right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
“[Plaintiffs] showed that the State’s policies, including the MEPA Limitation…impacts their right by prohibiting an analysis of [greenhouse gas] emissions, which blindfolded the State, its agencies, the public, and permittees,” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
A spokesperson for the Montana attorney general office called the court’s decision “disappointing, but not surprising.”
“The majority of the state Supreme Court justices yet again ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate,” Chase Scheur, press secretary for Attorney General Austin Knudsen, said in an emailed statement.
A Historic Climate Lawsuit
The Held case, initially brought in 2020 by sixteen young Montanans, was the first-ever youth climate lawsuit to go to trial in the US. The trial court’s decision in favor of youth plaintiffs marked the first time in US history that a court held government officials accountable on constitutional grounds for policies contributing to the climate crisis. It was, according to Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, the “strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court.”
By upholding that decision, the Montana Supreme Court has cemented what legal observers say is a historic victory for youth climate activists that may have ripple effects far beyond Montana.
“This decision strongly upholds the landmark trial court decision that the environmental rights provisions of the Montana state constitution cover climate change, and that state laws ignoring climate change are unconstitutional,” Gerrard said via email. “This decision will be cited globally in jurisdictions (including several U.S. states) where there are similar constitutional provisions.”
Spearheaded by Our Children’s Trust, youth-led climate lawsuits against governments at the state and federal levels in the US have faced an uphill battle, with courts deciding to shut down most cases before they can get to trial. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court granted a US Department of Justice request to block a landmark climate suit against the US government from proceeding to trial, explicitly ordering a trial court judge in Oregon to dismiss the case. Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs are now turning to the US Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to revive the case.
In addition to their breakthrough victory in the Montana case, Our Children’s Trust notched another rare win this year when a youth lawsuit filed against the Hawaii Department of Transportation ended in a landmark settlement agreementon the eve of trial. The agreement sets the Hawaiian transportation sector on a pathway towards decarbonization and also affirms the right to a healthy environment as enshrined in the Hawaiian constitution, with the court recognizing that this right includes the right to a stable climate system. Following Seeley’s ruling in Montana, this marked the second time that a US court has found that such an environmental right encompasses the climate system.
Other youth climate cases have been filed and are currently pending in Virginia, Utah, Alaska, Florida, and at the federal level against the US EPA.
The youth activists’ victory in Montana, now upheld by the state’s highest court, paves the way for more constitutional climate lawsuits to be brought in more states, said Patrick Parenteau, professor of law emeritus and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School.
“We hope this decision inspires others across the country and beyond to stand up for their rights to a livable climate,” plaintiff Kian Tanner said in a statement. “The eyes of the world are now on us, seeing how youth-driven legal action can create real change.”
One thing we do have in Montana is a good constitution. Written in the 1970s, it’s waaay more progressive than most. We’ve got a right to privacy here, too!
Cool. To me it seems that libertarians and big business would be natural enemies. Is there such a thing as LINO yet?