Climate advocates are heralding a landmark court ruling in Montana as a “huge win” after a judge sided with the 16 youths who accused the state of violating their right to a clean and healthful environment.
“Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth, wrote district court judge Kathy Seeley in her ruling—one that the Montana Attorney General’s office decried as “absurd but not surprising” and vowed to appeal, reports CBC News.
The case, Held v. State of Montana, [pdf] was the first constitutional climate lawsuit to go to trial in the United States, reported Courthouse News Service. It was filed in 2020 by plaintiffs who are now between 5 and 22 years old, and who sought no monetary damages. Their challenge claimed that, due to a limitation of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prevents state officials from considering emissions and climate change impacts when conducting environmental reviews, the state government violated Article XI of the Montana constitution, which says: “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
“Sixteen young Montanans have accomplished something unprecedented in U.S. history,” wrote Dana Drugmand in Drilled News on Monday, after the ruling was issued. “Judge Kathy Seeley agreed with the young people: they have a right granted by the state’s constitution to a healthy environment, and that right is being violated by the state government’s refusal to consider climate impacts in its permitting decisions.”
Montana’s legal representatives said the failure of previous such cases in the U.S. indicated the legal theory of Held was unfounded. But courts in other countries have already issued rulings that hold governments accountable for harming citizens and violating human rights through irresponsible climate policies.
And each year there is an increase in the number of such cases filed by youth, women’s groups, local communities, and Indigenous people, with more than half of the outcomes favourable to climate action, reports The Washington Post.
In Montana, the plaintiffs and their witnesses testified over the course of six and a half days, detailing how climate impacts in the state—like hotter temperatures, drought, and wildfires—are harming their mental and physical health, in violation of Article XI.
Their lawyers urged Seeley to consider instances in which courts have stepped in to correct governments that had failed to protect human rights, reported Politico. They argued that young people are suffering “injustices wrought by climate change caused by a fossil fuel-based energy system imposed and perpetuated through the law.”
“I know that climate change is a global issue but Montana needs to take responsibility for our part in that,” said lead plaintiff Rikki Held. “We can’t just blow it off and do nothing about it.”
“Just one step in the right direction would be most important. It would mean so much for our futures.”
Montana officials sought to downplay the state’s responsibility for addressing climate change and tried to paint the issue as a narrow one, arguing that the trial was solely about MEPA, a “boring” procedural statute.
But as Seeley wrote in a pre-trial order quoting the Montana Supreme Court: “Procedural, of course, does not mean unimportant.”
By focusing on MEPA, the state strategy was to avoid addressing the case as a climate issue and emphasize that, as a procedural element, MEPA was not part of the permitting process that the plaintiffs said violated their rights.
But while the case was about MEPA, the state’s line of reasoning left out the larger context of its preferential treatment of fossil fuel projects—as one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses testified, Montana has never denied a permit to a fossil fuel project.
“At issue here is not how MEPA works, but how the state’s dismissive treatment of climate change endangers the youth plaintiffs and degrades Montana’s environment,” explained Drugmand.
Overall, the defendants’ testimony ran far shorter than the plaintiffs—it lasted only one day—and the state withdrew its single climate science expert at the last minute. Montana also tried to argue that state policies governing the fossil fuel industry would not affect the global issue of climate change.
“Montana’s emissions are simply too minuscule to make any difference,” said Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell. “Climate change is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of a spectator.”
Seeley disagreed, aligning herself with climate scientists who say addressing climate change requires urgent action to avoid every additional tonne of carbon emissions.
In closing arguments, the state also tried to argue that the judicial branch should not be involved in this issue, and that it should be decided by the legislature. (Meanwhile, large fossil companies facing climate lawsuits are increasingly trying to raise doubts about judges’ objectivity, writes Politico.) But as Drugmand points out, this “line of reasoning is just plain wrong.” State legislatures do not have ultimate power, and courts have a duty to assess the constitutionality of elected officials’ conduct and policies—which is what the plaintiffs were calling for.
It will now be up to the legislative branch to determine how to align state policies with the ruling, and it’s unlikely that the Republican-dominated statehouse will act quickly. Plus, that appeal is pending.
Still, Seeley’s decision is an important step that could open the door to other challenges in the future, say climate advocates.
“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos,” Our Children’s Trust Executive Director Julia Olson said in a statement August 14. “This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate. More rulings like this will certainly come.”
