Written by: Daniel Larimer
A group of young people have taken the issue of climate change to their state’s Supreme Court in Montana.[1] In 2020, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of sixteen minors between two and eighteen years old challenging a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”) which forbids state agencies from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) or climate change in their environmental reviews.[2] This case is the first climate change case to reach trial, and the first in which the right to a “clean and healthful environment” was found to be a fundamental constitutional right.[3]
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the Montana Legislature amended MEPA to limit the scope of environmental reviews (the “Limitation”).[4] The Legislature amended the Limitation in 2023 to clarify that this limited scope prohibits Montana’s state environmental agencies from considering “an evaluation of GHG emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.”[5] This lawsuit followed.
THE SUIT AND DECISION
The plaintiffs specifically sought declaratory and injunctive relief against several Montana departments challenging the constitutionality of the Limitation.[6] The plaintiffs alleged that Montana’s current fossil fuel-based state energy system “causes and contributes to climate change in violation of their Montana constitutional rights.”[7]
The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and struck down the Limitation based on the plaintiffs’ theory.[8] Specifically, the court held that because the Limitation affected the child plaintiffs’ fundamental right to a “clean and healthful environment,” it failed under strict scrutiny analysis.[9] The court went on to state that the state agency defendants owed an affirmative duty to take steps to protect and realize the plaintiffs’ fundamental right.[10] This case is currently on appeal at the Montana Supreme Court level.
THE IMPACT OF THIS DECISION
At this stage, Held is only a federal district court decision, so its applicability in a practical sense is quite limited. It is a largely fact-heavy decision based on specific language in the Montana constitution that is found in only a handful of other states’ constitutions.[11] However, the decision in Held has the potential for a broad effect on climate change litigation moving forward.
Held shows the potential for using a constitutionality argument in causes of action related to climate change. The plaintiffs were able to establish standing to assert their claims, which is a departure from how courts have traditionally ruled in this area.[12] Also, ruling that the right to a clean and healthful environment is fundamental could lead to sweeping changes in Montana legislation surrounding climate change if this decision is affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court. Any future limitations placed on climate conscious litigation will need to be narrowly tailored to effectuate the state’s interests.
At this stage, these effects are mostly hypothetical. But, the fact that this case has made it to Montana Supreme Court shows the possibility of future litigation on the topic making it to higher courts and that the impacts of those higher courts’ decisions could be massive on industry, the economy, and even the population as a whole.
[1] See Held v. Montana, No. CV 22-137-BLG-SPW-TJC, 2023 (1st Dist. Ct. Mont., Aug. 14, 2023).
[2] Id. at 2.
[3] Id. at 94.
[4] Id. at 16.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 1.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 101.
[9] Id. at 100.
[10] Id. at 91.
[11] Haw. Const. art. XI, § 9; Ill. Const. art. XI, § 2; Mass. Const. art. 97; N.Y. Const. art. I, § 19; Pa. Const. art. I, § 27.
[12] See Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020).