A district court judge in Montana handed down a landmark decision Monday, ruling that the state violated its own Constitution by failing to consider fossil fuels’ contribution to climate change.
Sixteen young people sued the state over its promotion of fossil fuel-based energy, saying it violates their right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution.
Their case was the first of several youth-led lawsuits against states for failing to address climate change to go to trial.
In a ruling Monday, Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley sided with the plaintiffs and struck down portions of state law that forbid the state from considering the impacts of greenhouse gasses and climate change in environmental policy and assessments.
Seeley wrote the state failed to prove “any compelling governmental interest” to uphold the laws, and that they’re contributing to the depletion and degradation of Montana’s environment.
Our Children’s Trust, which represents the young plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement the ruling “marks a turning point” in efforts to mitigate climate change. Kian Tanner, an 18-year-old plaintiff from Bigfork, said he hopes the ruling will encourage others to make their voices heard.
“It’s truly incredible. This is just the first step towards climate action and creating a stable climate for future generations to live in,” Tanner said.
A spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen called the ruling absurd, saying Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate. The state will appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.
-
In a first, the Montana’s ’s highest court last week affirmed that the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment includes a stable climate. Although the decision could have future implications, it doesn’t drastically change environmental policy in the state right now. -
The Montana Supreme Court has decided a right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate. It’s the final step in a case where 16 young people sued the state for failing to act on climate change. -
Montana's Constitution says citizens have the right to a "clean and healthful environment." Does that mean the state is obligated to address climate change? A group of youth plaintiffs went to court to find out. Catch up on the story with this timeline of major developments in the Held v. Montana case. -
Montana’s Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in the state’s appeal of a lower court ruling in the youth-led climate case Held v Montana. Sixteen young people are suing Montana for failing to act on climate change. They say that the state's fossil fuel friendly policies are violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.
-
The Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week in the appeal of the youth-led climate case Held v. Montana. Sixteen youth plaintiffs sued the state — and won — for violating their constitutional right to a clean environment by failing to address climate change. -
Earlier this year, a court ordered state environmental regulators to consider climate impacts when assessing proposed development projects. Now, a working group tasked with reviewing this state policy has come up with draft recommendations. -
Montana Supreme Court schedules oral arguments in youth-led climate case Held v. Montana
-
The Montana Supreme Court has heard opening arguments in a case that asks if state regulators should consider climate change in their decisions. The case centers on the permitting of a methane-fired power plant. -
A working group tasked with reviewing and updating Montana’s Environmental Policy Act is beginning to draft recommendations. -
Mining and coal interests signal opposition to landmark climate ruling. A handful of Montana non-profits will share millions of dollars of state money in support of homeless and emergency shelters.
