Montana Youth Case Puts Legal Right to a Safe Climate on Trial

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

A highly anticipated climate trial is about to commence in Montana, with more than a dozen young plaintiffs facing off against the state government at Lewis and Clark County District Court. Led by the legal nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, the 16 young people filed a lawsuit against the Montana government in 2020, asserting that as the nation’s fifth-largest coal producer, the state should be held accountable for the degradation of homes and land caused by climate change.

This case holds significant weight and sets a powerful precedent, as it focuses on the constitutional right to a safe climate. Maya van Rossum, founder of the Green Amendment for the Generations national movement, emphasizes the significance of this case as the first to robustly pursue the right to a safe climate as a constitutionally protected entitlement.

The legal basis of the case lies in Montana’s unique legal language, which enshrines a healthy and safe environment in its constitution, alongside only two other states: Pennsylvania and New York. This affirmative human right forms the cornerstone of the Held v. Montana complaint and has the potential to pave the way for additional legal actions.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

Martha Davis, a law professor at Northeastern University, points out that regardless of the trial’s outcome, it will strengthen advocates’ efforts to establish the right to sue under state environmental provisions. However, the Montana government has attempted to derail the trial through administrative measures, rendering the case supposedly unnecessary.

Find the legal job that fits your lifestyle and career goals with BCG Attorney Search.

Governor Greg Gianforte signed a repeal of the State Energy Policy in March, a move challenged by the plaintiffs, who argue that it degraded and depleted Montana’s environment, causing substantial harm to the youth plaintiffs in violation of their constitutional rights. The repeal coincided with modifications to Montana’s Energy Policy Act, leading the Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office to assert that the youths’ lawsuit has become moot.

To address this, Knudsen’s office filed a writ of supervisory control to the Montana Supreme Court on June 5, arguing that there are no relevant facts to find and no existing Montana laws or policies for the District Court to interpret or apply. However, the Montana Supreme Court denied the request, allowing the trial to proceed as scheduled.

During the trial, which is set to take place from June 12 to June 23 at the First Judicial District Court in Helena, Judge Kathy Seeley, the presiding judge, can only provide declaratory relief, rather than injunctive relief if the plaintiffs prevail. This means that a victory for the plaintiffs would result in a court statement affirming that Montana violated the constitution, but it would not necessarily mandate specific actions to address emissions.

The Montana youth case is part of a broader landscape of climate cases involving youth plaintiffs in the United States. One such case is Juliana v. US, a national lawsuit that has garnered significant attention. These cases leverage constitutional frameworks to push governments for climate action, drawing inspiration from similar cases brought by international litigants.

While climate rights cases are more challenging to bring successfully in the US legal system, state-based constitutional cases like Held v. Montana have made significant progress. State constitutions are more amenable to amendment compared to the federal constitution, which has facilitated the inclusion of provisions related to a healthy environment. Pennsylvania, New York, and Montana are the only states with explicit healthy environment provisions in their bill of rights. However, other states have similar provisions that could be utilized for rights-based environmental litigation.

This momentum is evident in Hawaii, where challengers achieved two victories this year based on constitutional language affirming the right to a clean and healthful environment. The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected a challenge from a biomass power plant developer in March, citing the right to a life-sustaining climate system. In April, another youth climate case filed by Our Children’s Trust was approved for a trial in September, becoming the second such case in US history.

The cases unfolding across states, including Montana, are part of a broader movement driven by youth and affected individuals demanding that governments take climate change more seriously and demonstrate their commitment to mitigation efforts. As these legal battles continue, they hold the potential to reshape the legal landscape and compel governments to prioritize environmental protection and climate action.