In Major First, Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youth Suing Over Climate Crisis

Introduction

In a landmark ruling on Monday, a judge ruled in favor of a group of young Montanans suing the state, stating that officials had violated their constitutional right to a healthful environment by refusing to address the climate crisis.

The Lawsuit and Ruling

Held v. Montana is the first climate lawsuit based on constitutional law to go to trial. The group of 16 young plaintiffs challenged Montana’s pro-fossil fuel energy policy, arguing that its contribution to the climate crisis violates the guarantee in the state constitution to maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.

In a 103-page decision, Judge Kathy Seely acknowledged the role of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions in the climate crisis. She stated that the state is contributing to the crisis by preventing state agencies from considering climate impacts in environmental reviews.

Impact and Future Lawsuits

Our Children’s Trust and the Western Environmental Law Center, who represented the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling and believe it will inspire similar lawsuits across the country.

Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel and Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust, stated that this ruling marks a turning point in efforts to combat human-caused climate chaos. She expects more rulings like this to come.

Barbara Chillcott, Senior Attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, expressed satisfaction with the court’s recognition of the harmful effects of Montana’s energy policies on young people and all Montanans. She emphasized that the ruling highlights the state’s active undermining of the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.

Plaintiffs and Arguments

The plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, include individuals like Rikki Held, for whom the lawsuit was named. Held argued that her family’s ranch was being jeopardized by climate impacts. Another plaintiff, Sariel Sandoval, who grew up on the Flathead Indian Reservation, stated that Montana’s ignorance of climate impacts was affecting her tribe’s ability to fish in the local lake due to reduced snowpack.

Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)

The lawsuit specifically targeted a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prohibits officials from considering impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature in environmental reviews. The state did not present any climate science in its favor during the trial. State attorneys have 60 days to appeal the ruling.

Judge Seely wrote, “The State authorizes fossil fuel activities without analyzing GHGs or climate impacts, which result in GHG emissions in Montana and abroad that have caused and continue to exacerbate anthropogenic climate change.”

Implications for Constitutional Challenges

This ruling serves as proof that constitutional law can be a legitimate avenue to challenge states’ energy and environment policies. This is likely welcome news for young plaintiffs bringing a similar lawsuit in Hawaii, arguing that the state’s development practices fail to consider the climate crisis, thus violating their constitutional rights.

Delta Merner, Lead Scientist for Union of Concerned Scientists’s Science Hub for Climate Litigation, stated that this court ruling is a step toward climate justice. It demonstrates that seeking climate justice through the courts is a viable and powerful strategy.