Emory Undergraduate Journal of Law & Society

Introduction

The power of youth-led political action continues to grow as its influence has successfully reached the realm of climate litigation. In what many are calling a “historic” and “landmark” case, 16 youth delegates sued the state of Montana for violating their Montanian constitutional right to a “clean and healthful” environment. It is the first of its kind in American history, highly likely to be a model for future climate battles.

Details of the Case

The largely conservative Montana state legislature has become one of the leading forces in the enactment of anti-climate policies in the country. In 2011, the Montana state legislature amended the State Energy Policy to add § 90-4-1001(c)-(g), which explicitly encourages the development of coal, gas, and oil industries in Montana. For instance, § 90-4-1001(f) of the State Energy Policy states that “using carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery in declining oil fields to increase output” [1] is a state-approved practice. The same 2011 legislature also added § 75-1-201(2)(a) to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which forbids state agencies from conducting environmental reviews to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for state-sponsored projects. Moreover, this provision also prohibits these environmental evaluations from being “regional, national, or global in nature” [2] – likely in an effort to minimize the contribution to the global repertoire of climate change evidence.

However, there is a clause in the Montana state constitution that grants residents the right to a “clean and healthful environment” [3]. Because of this, the 16 youth delegates argued that the 2011 amendments made to the State Energy Policy and MEPA were unconstitutional. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were causing harmful climatic effects in Montana, such as rising temperatures, varied precipitation patterns, increased frequency of droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather events, and numerous health
risks, particularly for children. They claimed the defendants encouraged legislation that worsened the climate crisis in the state; despite their awareness that these actions unreasonably increased the plaintiffs’ risk of harm from these dangerous conditions. As a result, the prosecution maintained that their right to a “clean and healthful environment” included a stable climate system; thus, classifying the 2011 State Energy Policy and MEPA statutes as violations under the Public Trust Doctrine and several constitutional provisions. The plaintiffs requested legal relief that orders the defendants to create and implement a GHG emission reduction plan.

The Decision

After less than two months following a seven-day trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a historic decision. The remarkably fast verdict came after the prosecution and their expert witnesses provided testimony on climate science, the impact of GHG emissions in Montana, and the consequences of climate change on the Montana’s youth during trial.

The court firmly established that climate change posed a significant threat to public health and that the plaintiffs’ injuries were valid. A clear link was revealed between the state’s neglect of greenhouse gas emissions and the plaintiffs’ injuries, asserting that the plaintiffs could seek redress because the state could deny permits for fossil fuel activities that would result in unconstitutional levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the court recognized that Montana’s actions significantly influenced fossil fuel energy systems, CO2 emissions, and global warming, causing further harm to the state’s environment and its residents, particularly its youth.

In addition, the trial court held that the plaintiff’s constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment imposed an “affirmative duty” [4] on the government to take active measures to uphold this right. The court recognized that MEPA was crucial to the state’s efforts to meet its
constitutional obligations; however, by enacting and enforcing the MEPA Limitation, the state had failed in its duty.

Furthermore, since the State did not present any compelling evidence of governmental interest for this provision, the MEPA Limitation would not have survived strict scrutiny. To the court, this undisputed testimony indicated that the defendants could consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, going so far as to state that clean renewable energy was both technically feasible and economically advantageous.

Potential New Precedent

The extent to which this ruling will reverberate through the US legal system has yet to be observed. However, its implications are hopeful – though limited. Held v. Montana ignited state-level environmental accountability, as greenhouse gas reduction cannot rely solely on national-level policies. In addition, six other states – Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island – contain clauses in their respective constitutions with an explicit mention of a person’s right to a clean environment. These states, and a few others with more implicit statutes, can expect lawsuits similar to Held v. Montana to enter their courts. However, its strength as a state- level win is also its greatest weakness: the precedent set at a federal level is difficult to determine. Considering no “environmental” clause exists in the federal constitution, it is improbable to suggest that the findings of this case will be relevant to the federal courts.

However, what would be fascinating to see is the evolution of the defense. The defendants only called three witnesses, declining to call their only mental health witness to the stand and barring a written report by Judith Curry from entering the record. Curry was the defense’s only climate scientist slated to testify and is a known climate contrarian. When compared to the testimonies from 12 out of the 16 youth who filed the lawsuit, and their 10 expert witnesses, many of the prosecution’s claims were left unrefuted. The most notable factor to emerge from this case
was the glaring lack of evidence by the defense, specifically in reference to climate science. Although all cases are context specific, overall, it is increasingly difficult to successfully refute the mounting scientific evidence for climate change and its impacts.

Conclusion

There may be more to be seen with this case, as the Montana Attorney General’s Office intends to appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court because the Office upholds their claim that the state makes no climatic impact on a global scale. Nevertheless, Held v. Montana is a historic win for climate activists in the US. The decision will likely inspire a greater volume of environmental justice cases to enter the courts – now with the ability to reference a successful lawsuit.

Endnotes

[1] 90 MCA, § 4-1001(f). (2011).

[2] 75 MCA, § 1-201(2)(a). (2011).

[3] Mont. Const. art. 9, § 9-1-1. (1972).

[4] Held v. Montana, 307 Mont. Dist. Ct. 96 (2020).