Judge rules in favor of Montana young people in a first-of-its-kind win for climate activists; decision is being appealed

Plaintiffs in Held v. Montana celebrate in Helena, the state capital.
(Photo by Thom Bridge of The Associated Press)

In a landmark decision, a Montana judge ruled in favor of young people who claimed the state's fossil fuel emissions violated their right to a "clean and healthful environment," reports Kate Selig of The Washington Post. "The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state's environment and the young plaintiffs by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said."

The ruling came as a surprise to some and "represents a rare victory for climate activists who have tried to use the courts to push back against government policies and industrial activities they say are harming the planet," Selig writes. "In this case, it involved 16 young Montanans, ranging in age from 5 to 22, who brought the nation's first constitutional and first youth-led climate lawsuit to go to trial. Those youths are elated by the decision, according to Our Children's Trust, which brought Held v. Montana."

The case will be appealed to the state Supreme Court, "Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), decried the ruling as 'absurd' and said Montanans cannot be blamed for changing the climate," Selig reports. "Despite the track record of dismissals for youth-led climate cases in the United States, experts said the Montana youths had an advantage in the state's constitution, which guarantees a right to a 'clean and healthful environment.' Montana, a major coal producer, is home to the largest recoverable coal reserves in the country. The plaintiff's attorneys say the state has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project."

In an unexpected choice, the state did not use a debunking-climate-change defense, but focused on arguing that the legislature, not the courts, should decide what the law means. Michael Gerrard, the founder of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told her: "Everyone expected them to put on a more vigorous defense. And they may have concluded that the underlying science of climate change was so strong that they didn't want to contest it." Selig reports, "The state’s defense was unsuccessful. Judge Kathy Seeley determined that the state’s emissions could be fairly traced to the legal provision blocking Montana from reviewing the climate impacts of energy projects. She further wrote that the state’s emissions and climate change have caused harm to the environment and the youth plaintiffs."

"Republican state lawmakers and a petroleum industry representative said that while they are hopeful the state's appeal will be successful. . . . Seeley's decision could result in fewer energy projects being permitted or subject permitting decisions to cumbersome litigation," Selig reports. "Though it remains to be seen whether the Montana Supreme Court will uphold Seeley's findings, experts said the favorable verdict for the youths could influence how judges approach similar cases in other states and prompt them to apply 'judicial courage' in addressing climate change."