Montana State Court Rules in Favor of Young Plaintiffs in Landmark Climate Lawsuit

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’s contribution to climate change. However, attorneys for the state countered that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are relatively small and that altering or overturning the law in question would have no meaningful impact on the climate.

Surprisingly, the state rested its defense on the same day it began, pivoting from disputing the climate science behind the plaintiffs’ case to arguing that the legislature should address the contested law, not the judiciary. This change in strategy caught many by surprise, leading some to speculate that the state recognized the strength of the underlying science and chose not to contest it.

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 case, brought by Our Children’s Trust in 2015, alleges that the federal government violated the rights of 21 youths 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 take legal action to secure their futures. He argues that political decisions are being made without regard to scientific evidence and their effects on future generations, making this ruling a monumental decision.

What are the expected implications of this ruling on the environmental movement and climate litigation in the United States

A landmark climate lawsuit in Montana has ended in favor of a group of young people who accused the state of violating their right to a clean and healthful environment. The Montana state court ruled 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 and declared the provision unconstitutional.

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for the environmental movement and climate litigation across the United States. It could lead to an increase in similar cases aimed at advancing action on climate change. The case involved 16 young Montanans, aged between 5 and 22, who brought the nation’s first constitutional and youth-led climate lawsuit to trial. While there has been a significant increase in climate cases globally, youth-led lawsuits in the US have faced challenges, with many being dismissed.

The young plaintiffs had an advantage in their case due to Montana’s constitution, which guarantees the right to a clean and healthful environment. However, the state’s economy heavily relies on coal, which presents a challenge when addressing fossil fuel projects. Throughout the trial, the young plaintiffs shared emotional testimonies about the personal injuries they have suffered due to climate change. These testimonies included one 15-year-old with asthma describing himself as “a prisoner in my own home” during periods of intense wildfire smoke, and a 22-year-old detailing how extreme weather has harmed her family’s ranch.

This victory for the young plaintiffs highlights the growing recognition of climate change impacts and the importance of considering these impacts in decision-making processes. It sets a precedent that could inspire more legal action to address climate change and promote a transition to cleaner energy sources.