This is worth celebrating.

Yesterday in a Montana district court, 16 youths, aged 5 – 22, won a lawsuit against the State of Montana for violating their right to a “clean and healthful environment” under the state constitution.

This trial was the first of its kind in the US where a state has successfully been sued for violating its citizens’ constitutional rights by failing to consider, indeed by prohibiting the consideration of, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in environmental impact reviews.

The lead plaintiff in this case is Rikki Held. She was the only one of the group to be of legal age when the lawsuit was originally filed in 2020, so her name is used in the title of the case.

What does Montana’s constitution say?

Here are the key sections of Montana’s state constitution at issue in this case:

Article II. Declaration of Rights. Section 3. Inalienable rights. 

“All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.”

Article IX. Environment and Natural Resources. Section 1. Protection and improvement.

“(1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.

(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.

(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”

The way I read this – I’m not a lawyer – Article 2 says Montanans have an inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment. An “inalienable right” is a right that can’t be taken away from you and that you can’t give away. And Article 9 says the state has an explicit duty to protect and improve the environment. In other words, this isn’t just some fluffy vision statement. It has real teeth.

Why did the 16 youths sue Montana?

Montana’s state energy law promotes fossil fuels, and its environmental law prohibits consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change during the approval process for new energy projects. The young people sued claiming these laws violate the state’s constitution and cause harm to themselves and to the environment.

Montana’s State Energy Policy Act explicitly calls for the increased development and use of coal oil and natural gas in the state. See sections (c) – (g) of Montana’s State Energy Policy Goal Statements.

Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) forbids the state from even considering the impact of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change in environmental reviews for new energy projects. Section 2 of MEPA, General Directions — Environmental Impact Statements as recently amended by House Bill 971, says that an environmental review,

“… may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions or corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.”

This provision is known as the “MEPA Limitation.”

Further, the recently enacted Senate Bill 557 places significant restrictions on Montanans ability to sue state agencies for failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in their permitting decisions. 

The 16 young plaintiffs sued the state claiming that these provisions of Montana state law violate their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” and denied them “adequate remedies.”

What did the judge decide?

After a trial in June 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley decided in favor of the plaintiffs. She found that:

“Montana’s GHG [greenhouse gas] 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 Plaintiffs.” [Held v. Montana Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, p. 101, paragraph 4]

“By prohibiting the analysis of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate, as well as how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the Montana Constitution, the MEPA Limitation violates Youth Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and is unconstitutional on it’s face. [Held v. Montana Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, p. 102, paragraph 6]

She also declared recent changes under House Bill 971 and Senate Bill 557 unconstitutional.

What happens now?

Predictably, the Attorney General of Montana announced the state would appeal the ruling. This isn’t over yet. Stay tuned.

Several other states have so-called “green amendments” in their state constitutions and there are similar cases working their way through the courts. There’s also a federal case launched by young people in Oregon, although the United States Constitution has no such explicit right.

Held v. Montana is a landmark case because it’s the first time a US court has upheld the science of climate change, acknowledged the harm greenhouse gas emissions are causing, and held a government accountable for doing something about it.

Update (July 10, 2024): The Montana State Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the state’s appeal of the lower court decision in Held v. Montana. The Court is expected to issue its ruling by January 2025. There’s a report from Montana Public Radio here.

Update (Dec. 18, 2024): The Montana State Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of the District Court! Since this is a state-specific ruling related to the Montana Constitution it’s unlikely the decision can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Report in the New York Times here. The full opinion, written by Montana State Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath, is available here.

Related Links

Held v. Montana Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Full text of Judge Kathy Seeley’s decision in Held v. Montana. August 14, 2023.

Constitution of the State of Montana

What We Learned in Held v. Montana
Article by Sam Bookman in Harvard Environmental Law Review, April 7, 2024.

‘Game-changer’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial
Report by Dharna Noor in The Guardian, August 14, 2023

Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial, finds two laws unconstitutional
Report by Blair Miller in Daily Montanan, August 14, 2023

Montana judge hands young plaintiffs significant victory in landmark climate trial
Report by Ella Nilsen on CNN, August 14, 2023

Groundbreaking youth-led climate trial comes to an end in Montana
Report by Dharna Noor in The Guardian, June 20, 2023

Inside the unexpectedly wild landmark Montana youth climate trial
Report by Karin Kirk in Yale Climate Connections, June 15, 2023