A new landmark climate case in Montana proves that youth is NOT wasted on the young. This is the first constitutional climate trial in the United States. The sixteen young people filed their lawsuit, Held v Montana, in 2020.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon environmental group. This organization has filed similar climate lawsuits in every state, beginning in 2011. However, this is the first such case that has gone to trial.
Another climate case filed by Our Children’s Trust in Montana over ten years ago was rejected by the Montana Supreme Court.
For the first time in US history, sixteen young environmentalists are suing Montana for violating their right to a “clean and healthful environment” for “present and future generations,” both of which have been guaranteed to all residents in the state constitution since 1972.
The Montana Constitution requires that the “state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
The climate activists in this lawsuit accuse the government of Montana of harming the environment by promoting fossil fuel development, a proven source of global warming. Fossil fuels are proven to harm the environment, with scientists proving that as these fuels burn, they release toxic levels of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gas is the primary reason for global warming since these gasses trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists around the globe report that as of 2023, the temperature of the Earth rose by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total. Scientists also warn that the rate of global warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.
In a 2021 study, scientists discovered that a critical Antarctica ice shelf may “shatter” within five years. This could trigger the collapse of the Thwaites Glacier, also called the Doomsday Glacier because its loss could cause rapid sea level rise to catastrophic levels. It is widely predicted by scientists around the globe that the higher sea levels will result in up to ten feet higher water levels.
In court documents, the young plaintiffs asked for the courts to save their state’s environment, especially because the state is violating their rights by promoting fossil fuel energy policies.
“We’re asking the government and the courts to do their job and protect us, along with the rest of Montana’s citizens and our incredible home state; this case is one big opportunity for the state to become a leader in preserving a safe, beautiful and prosperous future for Montana,” said plaintiff Grace Gibson-Snyder, 19, about the case.
Montana officials disagree. Montana’s Republican Attorney General, working with a legal team, shared the state’s defense after a week of outcry from the passionate, young plaintiffs. One plaintiff shared how she couldn’t breathe and felt like she was “suffocating” during a Montana wildfire outbreak.
Others working within the Montana government weighed in, disagreeing with the suit.
Montana officials have drawn a sharp distinction between the state’s Environmental Protection Act and the Clean Air Act of Montana. They claim the Montana Environmental Protection Act is purely “procedural” and that the Clean Air Act regulates the laws.
This would mean that the agency regulating the state’s Clean Air Act can approve or deny permits and that the decisions do not allow permits to be refused due to climate impacts, at least according to DEQ Air, Energy and Mining Division Administrator Sonja Nowakowski.
Chris Dorrington, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Director, said they have no power against any company that follows the law, such as fossil fuel firms.
“We do not have the authority to not permit something that fully complies with the law,” said Dorrington. “We are the ones that implement the law. We are not the ones that create the law.”
Even State District Judge Kathy Seeley has ruled to drastically narrow the scope of the lawsuit by saying she will not order authorities to create a new strategy to “address” climate change. However, Judge Seeley did say she may issue a “declaratory judgment,” meaning she could find officials did violate the state constitution. If this occurs, it would mean that her ruling creates a new legal precedent, with courts considering more lawsuits that used to be left to the government’s legislative or executive branches.
In the plaintiff’s attorney’s closing arguments, Nate Bellinger asked the judge to find that the Montana law that prohibits the state government from considering environmental effects when it studies permits applications be struck down as unconstitutional, especially since it allows Greenhouse gasses to be released into the atmosphere.
“Like other monumental constitutional cases before, the state of Montana comes before this court because of a pervasive systemic infringement of rights,” Bellinger said.
His young clients, hoping for change in their home state and relief for their local climate, heartily agree.
