Montana State Court Rules in Favor of Young People in Landmark Climate Lawsuit
In a groundbreaking ruling, a Montana state court has sided with a group of young people who accused the state of violating their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by promoting the use of fossil fuels. The court found that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed both the environment and the young plaintiffs by preventing the consideration of climate impacts in energy projects. As a result, the court declared the provision unconstitutional.
This victory is expected to have far-reaching implications, energizing the environmental movement and reshaping climate litigation across the country. Experts believe that this ruling could lead to a wave of similar cases aimed at advancing action on climate change.
The case involved 16 young Montanans, ranging in age from 5 to 22, who brought the nation’s first constitutional and youth-led climate lawsuit to trial. While the number of climate cases worldwide has more than doubled in the past five years, youth-led lawsuits in the United States have faced significant challenges. According to a report from the United Nations Environment Program and the Sabin Center, at least 14 of these cases have been dismissed, with the majority filed in U.S. courts.
The Montana youth had an advantage in their case due to the state’s constitution, which guarantees the right to a “clean and healthful environment.” However, coal plays a critical role in Montana’s economy, as the state is home to the largest recoverable coal reserves in the country. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the state has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project.
During the trial, the young plaintiffs presented emotional testimony about the injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. One 15-year-old with asthma described himself as “a prisoner in my own home” during a period of intense wildfire smoke. Another plaintiff, 22-year-old Rikki Held, detailed how extreme weather has harmed her family’s ranch.
Held expressed hope that a favorable judgment would lead to greater responsibility for Montana in addressing climate change. Attorneys for the state countered by claiming that Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is minimal and that altering or overturning the law in question would have no significant impact on the climate.
Surprisingly, the state began and rested its defense on the same day, focusing on arguing that the legislature should address the contested law rather than the judiciary. This change in strategy caught many by surprise, as it was expected that the state would vigorously dispute the climate science behind the plaintiffs’ case.
While the state is expected to appeal the decision, experts believe that the favorable verdict for the young plaintiffs could influence how judges approach similar cases in other states. It may also encourage judges to demonstrate ”judicial courage” in addressing climate change. The nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which represents the plaintiffs, has taken legal action on behalf of youths in all 50 states and has pending cases in four other states.
Another notable case, Juliana v. United States, brought by Our Children’s Trust in 2015, is also back on track for trial after facing repeated setbacks. This case alleges that the federal government violated the rights of 21 youths to life, liberty, and property by taking actions that contribute to climate change and failing to protect public trust resources.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Phil Gregory believes that the court’s verdict could empower youth worldwide to take legal action to secure their futures. He argues that political decisions are being made without considering the best scientific evidence and the effects they will have on future generations. Gregory describes the ruling as a monumental decision in the fight against climate change.
1) How does the Montana state court ruling set a precedent for other states and countries to take action on climate change?
D to more action on climate change, stating, “I hope the state of Montana will recognize that the climate emergency we’re in requires bold and immediate action. We need to transition away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable energy sources to protect our environment and the future of our generation.”
The ruling by the Montana state court marks a significant step forward in recognizing the rights of young people to a clean and healthful environment. It sets a precedent that could potentially inspire similar cases in other states and countries, as young activists continue to demand action on climate change.
The decision also highlights the importance of considering climate impacts in energy projects and the potential harm they can cause to the environment and future generations. By declaring the provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act unconstitutional, the court acknowledges the need to prioritize the long-term well-being of the planet over short-term economic interests.
This victory for the young plaintiffs sends a powerful message to governments and industries that they must be held accountable for their actions in contributing to climate change. It underscores the urgency of transitioning to sustainable, renewable energy sources and implementing policies that prioritize the protection of the environment for future generations.
Overall, the Montana state court ruling in favor of the young plaintiffs represents a significant win for youth-led climate activism and sets a precedent for future climate litigation. It is a step towards ensuring a sustainable and habitable planet for future generations.
This is a huge win for the young plaintiffs and for the future of environmental protection in Montana!
Congratulations to the young plaintiffs for standing up for their rights and for the future of our planet! This ruling sends a powerful message that the state must prioritize a clean environment for all. #EnvironmentalJustice