Montana Court Rules in Favor of Youth Climate Lawsuit, Declares Fossil Fuel Promotion Unconstitutional

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 of ongoing or concluded cases filed in U.S. courts.

The Montana youth had an advantage in their 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 due to climate change. One 15-year-old with asthma described himself as “a prisoner in my own home” during a period of intense wildfire smoke while isolating with COVID-19. 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 highlighting Montana’s relatively small contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and arguing that altering or overturning the law in question would have no meaningful impact on the climate.

Surprisingly, the state began and rested its defense on the same day, pivoting from disputing the climate science to arguing that the legislature should address the contested law, not the judiciary. The state’s change in strategy caught many by surprise, leading some to speculate that the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting climate change made it difficult for the state to contest.

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 high-profile climate case, Juliana v. United States, is also back on track for trial after facing repeated setbacks. This 2015 case, brought by Our Children’s Trust, 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 in the Montana case could empower youth worldwide to seek legal remedies to secure their futures. He argues that political decisions are being made without considering the best scientific evidence and their effects on future generations, making this ruling a monumental decision.

In what way does the landmark ruling in Montana inspire other youth-led climate lawsuits and encourage judges to evaluate the role of fossil fuels in contributing to climate change

Eater action on climate change, stating, “It’s time for us to start making a change. It’s time for us to start looking out for our planet, and it’s time for us to start looking out for future generations.”

The court’s ruling is expected to set a powerful precedent, not only in Montana but also across the nation. The decision highlights the importance of considering climate impacts in decisions relating to energy projects and signifies a shift towards recognizing the rights of young people to a clean and healthful environment.

Environmental advocates and legal experts anticipate that this victory will inspire other youth-led climate lawsuits throughout the United States. The ruling may embolden young people to seek legal remedies for the impact of climate change on their lives and future prospects. It may also encourage judges in other states to consider similar constitutional claims and evaluate the role of fossil fuels in contributing to climate change.

This landmark ruling comes at a critical time when the urgency of addressing climate change is increasingly recognized globally. As young people become more engaged in climate activism and demand accountability from government and industry, legal cases like this one provide a platform for their voices to be heard.

The Montana state court’s decision in favor of the young plaintiffs serves as a catalyst for change and reinforces the notion that young people have the right to challenge policies that infringe upon their well-being and the health of the environment. As the fight against climate change intensifies, this ruling demonstrates the potential of the judicial system to influence policy and drive progress towards a sustainable future.