Last month, the Montana Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding a lower court’s decision that the Montana State Constitution provides a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment [that] includes climate as part of the environmental life support system.”

 

“The 70-page decision, authored by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, comes 16 months after Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in the landmark Held v. Montana lawsuit, explicitly stating that the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are ‘proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment, and harm and injury to the youth plaintiffs.’ Seeley’s decision also rolled back two laws enacted by the 2023 legislature that changed the Montana Environmental Policy Act,” reports state-focused nonprofit news organization Stateline.

The decision affirms that Montana’s state constitution guarantees its citizens the right to a stable climate and nullifies state laws that prohibit regulators from considering GHG impacts when approving project permits.

The original case was filed by a group of 16 youths between the ages of 2 and 18, who sued the State of Montana, the governor, and multiple state agencies alleging energy permitting actions by the State of Montana were contributing to advancing harmful climate change impacts in the state.

Specifically, they sought a declaration that certain provisions of Montana’s State Energy Policy Act (MEPA) were unconstitutional. They believed the Act promoted the development and use of fossil fuels, and the MEPA Limitation stated that, except for narrowly defined exceptions, “an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders. It may not include actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.”

“The State authorizes and permits the extraction, transportation and consumption of fossil fuels,” the decision says. “Many of these activities result in large amounts of GHG emissions such as the mining and extraction of coal, oil, and gas; processing, refinement, and transportation of fossil fuels; and consumption of fossil fuels such as in generating stations. Prior to permitting any of these activities, the State is required to conduct environmental reviews under MEPA. … The State used to consider GHG emissions for these types of projects prior to 2011, but agencies stopped analyzing impacts from GHG emissions that would result from permitted activities pursuant to the MEPA Limitation.

“Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Montana Constitution’s fundamental right to ‘a clean and healthful environment’ includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties and that this right was being violated. Additionally, if awarded the declaratory relief that they sought, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as follows: (1) enjoining the State from acting in conformance with the unconstitutional laws; (2) an order requiring a full accounting of Montana’s GHG emissions; (3) an order requiring the State to develop a remedial plan to reduce GHG emissions and to submit the plan to the court; (4) an order for a special master to be appointed to review the remedial plan; and (5) an order retaining jurisdiction until the State has fully complied with the plan.”

Before the case reached a conclusion, the MEPA was revised, which prompted the state to file a motion for summary judgment. This motion was denied by the district court, which ultimately held “that the fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes climate as part of the environmental life support system; that Plaintiffs had legal standing to bring their claims; that the MEPA Limitation … violated the Constitution’s right to a clean and healthful environment and permanently enjoined its enforcement; that § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), MCA (2023), which the State had argued prevented review of the MEPA Limitation, was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined it; and the court enjoined the State from acting in accordance with the statutes declared unconstitutional.”

The Montana State Supreme Court’s 6-to-1 ruling upholding the lower court’s decision is the first of this type of case to reach trial in a state supreme court.  Many other cases have been filed across the United States by young environmental activists challenging state and federal policies that are alleged to be actions intensifying climate change.

In its opinion, the Court said, “We reject the argument that the delegates (to the Montana 1972 Constitutional Convention) — intending the strongest, all-encompassing environmental protections in the nation, both anticipatory and preventative, for present and future generations—would grant the State a free pass to pollute the Montana environment just because the rest of the world insisted on doing so. The District Court’s conclusion of law is affirmed: Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment.”

This decision is predicted to have ripple effects in similar cases, particularly by setting precedence for granting standing in climate cases.

“It's a very strong opinion," Michael Gerrard, founder of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, says in Elko, Nevada, news site Elko Daily. “It's one of the strongest opinions every written on climate change. ... This decision will be cited globally in cases in jurisdictions where there are environmental rights in their constitutions.”

Buckle up

Justice Jim Rice was the sole dissenting vote, which “warned that not only did the majority’s holding open the door for ‘ad hoc judicial natural resources management,’ and warned it could be viewed as legislating from the bench,” Stateline adds.

In a joint statement following the ruling, according to Elko, Montana Senate President-Elect Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, and incoming Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage, said, “The Montana Supreme Court turned the courtroom into a legislative policy committee, drastically overstepping its constitutional boundaries into the Legislature’s role and violating the separation of powers. … Judicial reform was already a top priority for Republican lawmakers in our legislative session that starts in less than three weeks. After today, our message to the judiciary is simply this: buckle up.”

Despite what’s viewed as sour grapes by Montana’s Republican leaders, plaintiffs in the case are overjoyed with the decision.

“Despite the incompetence and disrespect of our state government towards our shining light of a constitution, justice and hope prevails,” Plaintiff Lander Busse added in an interview, according to Stateline. “This decision should be a beacon of hope for those across the globe who see the impacts of a man-made changing climate every day, and a cornerstone of judicial achievement for what makes our state the last best place.”