This summer, for the first time in the history of the United States, a group of young climate activists successfully sued the government for its failure to protect them from climate change. As Montana is the fifth largest coal producing state in the country, the ruling from the state court in Montana was all the more meaningful. Climate activists are hopeful that the ruling will help pave the way for related cases working their way through state courts nationwide.
On August 14th, a Montana state court ruled in favor of 16 Montanans, ages 5-22, who alleged that the state’s promotion of fossil fuels violated a provision in the Montana state constitution guaranteeing its citizens the right to a “clean and healthful environment,” as well as a provision that decrees that the state of Montana and its residents must maintain and improve the environment “for present and future generations.”
The case, Held v. Montana, was brought by Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit law firm. Julia Olson, the executive director of the organization, declared the victory “a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy and for our nation.”
The state began and rested its defense on the same day, bringing the trial to an unexpectedly early conclusion. In a pivot from its expected defense disputing the climate science behind the plaintiffs’ case, the state focused instead on arguing that the legislature should weigh in on the contested law, not the judiciary.
The decision overturned the state’s provision blocking officials from considering “actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature” when performing inspections on the environmental impact of large projects, as well as when issuing permits. This past May, the provision was changed to be clearer, preventing the state from “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders” when approving new projects.
This case is significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the precedent that it sets for similar legal battles nationwide. In her decision, Judge Kathy Seeley provided an important acknowledgement of the link between state practices and ongoing negative impact on climate change. Judge Seeley concluded that “Youth plaintiffs have experienced past and ongoing injuries resulting from the state’s failure to consider [greenhouse gas emissions] and climate change.” Seeley pointed out that the injuries were extensive, ranging from “their physical and mental health” to “homes and property, recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic interests, tribal and cultural traditions, economic security, and happiness.” She also noted that “Every additional ton of greenhouse gas emissions exacerbates Plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries.”
As a result of the decision, officials in Montana will now have to consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions when deciding on new projects related to fossil fuels, where state law previously forbade them from doing so. Notably, Montana is a significant supplier of energy to the rest of the nation. According to the Energy Information Administration, it’s the fourth largest coal producing state, with the largest estimated recoverable coal reserves in the nation.
Montana officials and opponents of the case were quick to deride the decision and expressed doubts that it would either stand or serve as a precedent for similar cases. According to local news reports, the attorney general’s office immediately said they’d appeal Seeley’s order. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Austin Knudsen, said in a statement “This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial. Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate.” Opponents of the ruling also warned that it would have a negative impact on state finances. Alan Olson, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association warned that if “this decision stands, it will cause great economic harm to the state of Montana.”
Though it remains uncertain if Judge Seeley’s decision will stand as the appeal works its way to the Montana Supreme Court, Phil Gregory, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said that the Held vs. Montana verdict could inspire youths elsewhere to bring similar cases to court. In an interview with the Billings Gazette, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said that “It’s one of the strongest judicial decisions ever rendered on climate change, and it will be helpful to litigants around the world.” As some legal analysts have noted, regardless of the outcome of the appeals in Montana and in other pending cases, Held v. Montana is an important and symbolic victory in the fight to use the courts to help tackle climate change.
And even if further legal victories are unsure, failure in the courts doesn’t necessarily mean failure for climate activists’ efforts to generate change. While a climate advocacy case spearheaded by Our Children’s Trust was dismissed in Florida in 2021, a petition made by the plaintiffs unrelated to the case passed a state law that set renewable energy goals for Florida’s electric utilities, aiming for 100% renewable energy by 2050.
This victory, if it survives the appeal, could serve as a precedent for future climate progress. There are five other states with clauses in their constitutions similar to the one in Montana’s state constitution – New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. The effects of the decision in Montana could soon be seen in the case Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, also organized by Our Children’s Trust. The plaintiffs claim that their state’s Department of Transportation is violating the rights granted to them by their state constitution – namely, that “The State shall have the power to promote and maintain a healthful environment.” They argue that, due to the large quantity of greenhouse gasses emitted by public transportation, the Hawai’ian DOT is violating this clause. The case is set to go to trial from June 24 to July 12, 2024.
