‘We have been heard’: Montana youth score a major climate victory in court
Montana’s Supreme Court has ruled that the 16 youth who sued the state in a landmark climate change lawsuit have a constitutional right to “a clean and healthful environment.” The 6-1 decision upheld a lower court ruling in Held v. Montana, in which the plaintiffs argued that the state violated that right, enshrined in the state constitution in 1972, by limiting analysis of greenhouse gas emissions during environmental review of fossil fuel projects. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Mike McGrath rejected a spate of arguments against the plaintiffs — including that they lacked standing to bring the suit and that Montana’s contribution to climate change is negligible in a global context. “Plaintiffs showed at trial — without dispute — that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,” McGrath wrote in a 48-page opinion handed down December 18. Declining to regulate the state’s emissions because they are negligible would be like declining to regulate its mining pollution into Lake Koocanusa simply because 95 percent of the total pollution reaching the lake originates in Canada, he wrote. Lead plaintiff Rikki Held, the only plaintiff who was 18 when the suit was filed in 2020, hailed the court’s decision in a statement as “a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.” “We have been heard,” she added. The suit was brought by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Eugene, Oregon. In a statement, lead attorney Nate Bellinger called the ruling “a victory for young people and for generations to come. The court said loud and clear: Montana’s Constitution does not grant the state a free pass to ignore climate change because others fail to act — this landmark decision underscores the state’s affirmative duty to lead by example.” Montana Governor Greg Gianforte denounced the ruling, arguing in a statement that it would lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills.” The Montana Department of Justice, which represented the state in the lawsuit, called the ruling “disappointing, but not surprising,” according to the Montana Free Press. Held v. Montana made history last year when it became the nation’s first constitutional climate case to go to trial. Experts have said it could lay a foundation for, or bolster, similar lawsuits — especially in states that, like Montana, have a constitutional guarantee to a clean and healthful environment. One of those states, Hawai’i, settled a youth climate lawsuit last June, requiring its transportation department to develop a “concrete and comprehensive statewide plan” to achieve emissions reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040, before reaching zero emissions in 2045. The plaintiffs had argued that Hawai‘i’s transportation system wasn’t decarbonizing fast enough and that its outsize emissions were eroding their right to a clean and healthful environment. A wildfire burning in the summer of 2022 in northwestern Montana near Kalispell. Don & Melinda Crawford / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images “We will use the Montana case and the settlement agreement in Hawai’i as models for other states,” Phillip Gregory, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, told the State Court Report in July. Other states with so-called “green amendments” to their constitutions are Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. More than a dozen other states are considering adding them. In New Mexico, whose constitution does not yet include a green amendment but still says it is “of fundamental importance” to protect the state’s “beautiful and healthful environment,” a trial court last June denied defendants’ request to dismiss a lawsuit arguing against the approval of future oil and gas production. Some legal experts have argued that, while the Held decision is “noteworthy,” the unique circumstances of the case make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful lawsuits will follow. It’s also unclear how far other court rulings based on a constitutional green amendment can go toward mitigating climate change beyond blocking an overtly anti-climate policy. Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told Grist that “push will come to shove when there are efforts to use these amendments to block major [fossil fuel] projects.” On the other hand, it’s possible that other suits — including those not invoking constitutional rights — could cite the factual findings of Held v. Montana, like those establishing climate change’s unique effects on children. Read Next Indigenous youth are at the center of major climate lawsuits. Here’s why they’re suing. Anita Hofschneider During a seven-day trial in June, 2023, the 16 youth plaintiffs argued that the state’s promotion of fossil fuel infrastructure had jeopardized their physical and mental health, traditions, and recreational interests. Anthropogenic climate change has already had myriad impacts on Montana, including shorter winters with less snowfall, more frequent wildfires, and the reduced availability of wild game and ceremonial and medicinal plants. These impacts are expected to worsen as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. McGrath acknowledged these impacts in his decision: “Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall Wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the state.” In a concurrence separate from that of the five-justice majority, Justice Dirk Sandefur agreed with the court’s “ultimate issue holdings” but said that the state’s actions alone — even eliminating all fossil fuel projects — could not address climate-related harms felt by the plaintiffs. Justice Jim Rice offered the lone dissent, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the constitutional violations they cited were “theoretical” rather than “concrete” or “impending.” Montana Republicans and the state’s Republican-led justice department criticized the court for overstepping its powers, ruling in favor of “their ideologically aligned allies.” According to the Daily Montanan, the state’s Republican lawmakers plan to introduce “dozens of bills” next session to reform the court, either by reducing its power or by making it more conservative. Michael Burger, the Sabin Center’s executive director, told the State Court Report last July that the success of future constitutional climate cases may hinge on the political environment where they’re filed. ”It may prove more difficult in a state where the political leadership is disinclined toward climate action,” he said. Gerrard noted that several such cases have been filed in New York, the most recent state to adopt a green amendment, and that it’s “too early to tell” whether they’ll be impactful. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘We have been heard’: Montana youth score a major climate victory in court on Jan 3, 2025.
In a 6-1 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
Montana’s Supreme Court has ruled that the 16 youth who sued the state in a landmark climate change lawsuit have a constitutional right to “a clean and healthful environment.”
The 6-1 decision upheld a lower court ruling in Held v. Montana, in which the plaintiffs argued that the state violated that right, enshrined in the state constitution in 1972, by limiting analysis of greenhouse gas emissions during environmental review of fossil fuel projects. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Mike McGrath rejected a spate of arguments against the plaintiffs — including that they lacked standing to bring the suit and that Montana’s contribution to climate change is negligible in a global context.
“Plaintiffs showed at trial — without dispute — that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,” McGrath wrote in a 48-page opinion handed down December 18. Declining to regulate the state’s emissions because they are negligible would be like declining to regulate its mining pollution into Lake Koocanusa simply because 95 percent of the total pollution reaching the lake originates in Canada, he wrote.
Lead plaintiff Rikki Held, the only plaintiff who was 18 when the suit was filed in 2020, hailed the court’s decision in a statement as “a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.”
“We have been heard,” she added.
The suit was brought by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Eugene, Oregon. In a statement, lead attorney Nate Bellinger called the ruling “a victory for young people and for generations to come. The court said loud and clear: Montana’s Constitution does not grant the state a free pass to ignore climate change because others fail to act — this landmark decision underscores the state’s affirmative duty to lead by example.”
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte denounced the ruling, arguing in a statement that it would lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills.” The Montana Department of Justice, which represented the state in the lawsuit, called the ruling “disappointing, but not surprising,” according to the Montana Free Press.
Held v. Montana made history last year when it became the nation’s first constitutional climate case to go to trial. Experts have said it could lay a foundation for, or bolster, similar lawsuits — especially in states that, like Montana, have a constitutional guarantee to a clean and healthful environment.
One of those states, Hawai’i, settled a youth climate lawsuit last June, requiring its transportation department to develop a “concrete and comprehensive statewide plan” to achieve emissions reduction targets for 2030, 2035, and 2040, before reaching zero emissions in 2045. The plaintiffs had argued that Hawai‘i’s transportation system wasn’t decarbonizing fast enough and that its outsize emissions were eroding their right to a clean and healthful environment.
“We will use the Montana case and the settlement agreement in Hawai’i as models for other states,” Phillip Gregory, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, told the State Court Report in July. Other states with so-called “green amendments” to their constitutions are Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. More than a dozen other states are considering adding them.
In New Mexico, whose constitution does not yet include a green amendment but still says it is “of fundamental importance” to protect the state’s “beautiful and healthful environment,” a trial court last June denied defendants’ request to dismiss a lawsuit arguing against the approval of future oil and gas production.
Some legal experts have argued that, while the Held decision is “noteworthy,” the unique circumstances of the case make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful lawsuits will follow. It’s also unclear how far other court rulings based on a constitutional green amendment can go toward mitigating climate change beyond blocking an overtly anti-climate policy. Michael Gerrard, founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told Grist that “push will come to shove when there are efforts to use these amendments to block major [fossil fuel] projects.”
On the other hand, it’s possible that other suits — including those not invoking constitutional rights — could cite the factual findings of Held v. Montana, like those establishing climate change’s unique effects on children.
During a seven-day trial in June, 2023, the 16 youth plaintiffs argued that the state’s promotion of fossil fuel infrastructure had jeopardized their physical and mental health, traditions, and recreational interests. Anthropogenic climate change has already had myriad impacts on Montana, including shorter winters with less snowfall, more frequent wildfires, and the reduced availability of wild game and ceremonial and medicinal plants. These impacts are expected to worsen as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise.
McGrath acknowledged these impacts in his decision: “Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall Wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the state.”
In a concurrence separate from that of the five-justice majority, Justice Dirk Sandefur agreed with the court’s “ultimate issue holdings” but said that the state’s actions alone — even eliminating all fossil fuel projects — could not address climate-related harms felt by the plaintiffs. Justice Jim Rice offered the lone dissent, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the constitutional violations they cited were “theoretical” rather than “concrete” or “impending.”
Montana Republicans and the state’s Republican-led justice department criticized the court for overstepping its powers, ruling in favor of “their ideologically aligned allies.” According to the Daily Montanan, the state’s Republican lawmakers plan to introduce “dozens of bills” next session to reform the court, either by reducing its power or by making it more conservative.
Michael Burger, the Sabin Center’s executive director, told the State Court Report last July that the success of future constitutional climate cases may hinge on the political environment where they’re filed. ”It may prove more difficult in a state where the political leadership is disinclined toward climate action,” he said. Gerrard noted that several such cases have been filed in New York, the most recent state to adopt a green amendment, and that it’s “too early to tell” whether they’ll be impactful.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘We have been heard’: Montana youth score a major climate victory in court on Jan 3, 2025.