Montana Supreme Court Hears Landmark Youth Climate Lawsuit: Held v. Montana
The landmark youth climate lawsuit, Held v. Montana, has taken a significant step forward as it received a hearing at the Montana Supreme Court. Attorneys in the case debated the extent of the state’s constitution’s environmental protections and the principle of separation of powers during an hour-long hearing. The major case has attracted hundreds of observers, intensifying the discussion around constitutional environment rights and climate action.
Background of the Case
The case, Held v. Montana, was launched in 2020 by 16 young Montana residents. They allege that the state has neglected their constitutional right to a ‘clean and healthful environment’ by not conducting adequate review of climate-warming potential of greenhouse gas-generating projects such as coal-fired power plants and oil pipelines. These projects, they argue, have contributed to more severe wildfire seasons, shrinking snowpacks, decreased summertime streamflows and extreme weather events, posing significant harm to health and welfare.
In an earlier trial held in June 2023, the group reasoned that the state’s decisions have generated substantial threats to their physical and mental health, economic wellbeing, cultural traditions, and recreational interests. In response to the lawsuit, Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Kathy Seeley sided with the plaintiffs in August, acknowledging in her 103-page ruling that Montana had contributed to the harms and has the potential to alleviate them by revising its approach to approving energy projects.
State’s Arguments & Position
Dale Schowengerdt, representing Governor Greg Gianforte and two other state agencies, did not deny the reality of climate change or its acceleration by human activity. Instead, he focused his arguments on whether judicial power is the appropriate mechanism to effect climate change mitigation. Schowengerdt contended that the issue is too complex to be resolved through the judiciary and should be addressed by the political process instead.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments & Position
Countering Schowengerdt’s arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney Roger Sullivan, contends that the Supreme Court has the mandate to scrutinise the constitutionality of laws at the heart of such cases, and that the Montana Constitution unambiguously affirms Montanans’ rights to a well-functioning ‘environmental life support system’. Furthermore, he contended that it is essential to review Montana’s environmental agency actions to combat the current climate crisis, which Sullivan described as the most severe environmental crisis Montana has ever experienced.
Impact and Reactions to the Case
The lawsuit has sparked widespread interest even beyond Montana’s borders. The state’s appeal is endorsed by the Treasure State Resources Association, the Montana Chamber of Commerce, Northwestern Energy and the Montana Legislature, among other groups that assert the district court is overreaching its legal authority. Conversely, a coalition of conservation and tribal groups, constitutional and environmental law professors, public health experts and doctors, and members of Montana’s outdoor recreation industry, among others, back the district court’s findings.
The case also witnessed significant public participation, drawing stakeholders from various domains to the Montana Supreme Court chambers. The verdict of this historic climate change case is eagerly awaited and could set a new precedent for environmental laws and youth activism. The outcome and its ramifications continue to be observed with bated breath nationwide and globally.
