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.
-
Legislators have voted forward bills on property tax relief, Medicaid expansion, judicial oversight and more. -
Policy that would change Montana’s bedrock environmental law will be taken up when lawmakers resume their work later this week. -
Press freedom and press access are at stake in the fight over the Gulf of Mexico's name. Legislators want to make sure you use the right bathroom. A climate change court ruling is behind several bills to change Montana's environmental laws. And Republican lawmakers join Vice President Vance in making fun of climate activist Greta Thunberg. -
A landmark Montana Supreme Court decision last year struck down laws passed by Republicans that would have changed Montana's bedrock environmental policy. Now, GOP lawmakers have introduced a suite of bills to undo the court's ruling. -
Hundreds of people rallied at the Capitol last week to ask state lawmakers to pass legislation to protect the environment for future generations. A state Supreme Court ruling last year forces state agencies to consider climate change, but some Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation that could challenge that order. -
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.
