University of Montana junior Olivia Vesovich is taking a break between finals, walking on a trail between campus and the Clark Fork River.
"I don't see any snow on these mountains," Vesovich says.
Vesovich says that’s concerning this early in the summer. Warming associated with climate change causes earlier spring runoff and extends Montana’s wildfire season.
"I would love if my teenage years were not defined by climate change."
Vesovich is one of the 16 youth plaintiffs who won their case based on Montana’s constitutional guarantee to the right to a clean and healthy environment. The court ruled that protection includes a stable climate.
The decision outraged conservatives, who argued that because climate change is a global issue, Montana cannot be held responsible for it.
"To watch our legislators actively dismiss a constitutional ruling is devastating," Vesovich says.
That’s not how state Sen. Wylie Galt sees it, he calls the decision, "a gift-wrapped present to radical environment activists, an open door for endless lawsuits to shut down Montana’s fossil fuel industry."
The federal government estimates that Montana is home to about a third of America’s recoverable coal reserves.
But, the court ordered the state to consider the climate impacts of developing fossil fuel projects, and their greenhouse gas emissions.
"It had nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with weaponizing the courts to strangle our economy," Galt says.
A law Galt sponsored appears to thread the needle of the court’s decision. Montana will now inventory greenhouse gas emissions, but it won’t regulate them.
Other new state laws go one step further, barring Montana from regulating planet warming emissions at all, unless the federal government does so first. That’s unlikely under the Trump Administration.
Lawmakers could have tried to change Montana’s Constitution, eliminating its guarantee of environmental protection. But that’s a higher threshold and requires significant voter buy in. Attempts to bring constitutional amendments failed, even when Republicans had a legislative supermajority in 2023.
University of Montana law professor Constance Van Kley says underpinning the fights over the Held v. Montana case is ongoing tension between lawmakers and the courts.
"There has been a response to the court striking down the legislation on the part of the Legislature, with the Legislature kind of claiming that the Montana judiciary is out of control and super liberal."
It’s been a theme for several years, Montana’s conservative lawmakers and governor challenging the authority of the judicial branch.
Environmental groups have said Montanans won’t stand for the new laws passed in response to the state Supreme Court decision. Van Kley says that means more confrontation in court.
"I think it's very likely to end up being litigated."
Back on the river trail, Olivia Vesovich says she and countless other young people will continue to feel the effects of human-caused climate change. She says she’s disappointed by the Montana Legislature’s priorities.
"They care more about protecting the fossil fuel industry than they care about protecting the lives of children."
She says the longer the state delays on climate action, the worse things will be in the future. And she hopes her lawmakers keep that in mind.
