“Every additional ton of GHG emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,” the decision reads. Striking down laws that keep state agencies from considering emissions, Seeley decided, has “significant health benefits” for the children and young adults suing their government. In response, the plaintiffs expressed elation, joy and disbelief. “We are heard!” Kian Tanner said in a statement.

“We are heard!”

Seeley walked through her reasoning for the decision in a 103-page ruling, which affirmed that climate is a “part of the environmental life-support system” guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. She agreed that the harm caused by climate change is significant — hurting the plaintiffs’ mental and physical health, limiting their access to traditional food sources and threatening family ranching operations, among other things — and that it is linked to state policies. “It was better than hoped for,” said Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The decision reads as a lesson in the “overwhelming scientific consensus” of climate change. Seeley points out that state’s leadership has known about the dangerous impacts of climate change for at least the last 30 years. She also notes that ecosystems are interconnected, and that treating Montana’s actions in a vacuum is not scientifically supported. The findings spend numerous pages discussing youth’s unique vulnerability to climate change and its impacts, as well as how climate change is already impacting Montana’s environment and economy. In a statement, Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm which led this and other trailblazing youth climate cases, said it believes that these facts “set forth critical evidentiary and legal precedent for the right of youth to a safe climate.” 

 

By considering climate change’s impacts when approving or denying permits for fossil fuel activities, including coal and natural gas-powered energy plants, coal mining and oil and gas refineries, Seeley wrote, the state can safeguard its citizens’ constitutional rights. The ruling notes that this is possible, because it’s technically and economically feasible to replace the majority of Montana’s fossil fuel energy by 2030. 

The immediate direct ramifications in Montana, though, are “extremely narrow,” Gerrard said. The ruling requires the state to consider climate change when making energy decisions — but agencies could simply consider it and move forward with projects anyway. “The much greater significance is that we now have a ruling that affirms climate science after a trial and says that where there is a constitutional right to a clean environment, that can have consequences on climate change,” he said.

The complaint, led by Our Children’s Trust, focused on the Montana Environmental Protection Act, or MEPA, as well as two laws limiting the state’s consideration of climate change passed by the Montana Legislature this spring. MEPA established a process to assess the environmental consequences of state actions but has been repeatedly limited in scope. HB 971 narrowed its purview again this year by prohibiting state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions; SB 557 contained similar restrictions, stating that concerns about emissions could not stop or delay permitting.

The state has approved or expanded numerous large-scale projects, including coal mines and gas-fired power plants, in recent years without including climate impacts in its analysis. The ruling argues that emissions from these and other projects in Montana are “nationally and globally significant,” measured by both local effects and their contribution to global climate change.

“More rulings like this will certainly come.”

Montana’s unique constitution provided the backbone for the legal challenge. It’s one of six states — and the only one in the West — with constitutionally based environmental protections. The Held v. Montana ruling, experts say, underscores the importance of having similar constitutional environmental protections for this particular strategy to work. “This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate,” said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and the executive director of Our Children’s Trust, in a statement. “More rulings like this will certainly come.”

Youth climate cases are set to continue into next year, with trials slated for the federal Juliana v. United States and state Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation cases, both led by lawyers with Our Children’s Trust. Hawai‘i already has environmental protections in its constitution. There’s also a push to add Montana-esque environmental protections, so-called “green amendments,” to other state constitutions — including Nevada’s.

In Montana, the legal process is likely to continue. The state attorney general’s office said it would appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, with a spokesperson telling The Flathead Beacon it was “absurd.”

Kylie Mohr is a correspondent covering wildfire for High Country News. She writes from Montana. Email her at kylie.mohr@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy. 

Follow @thatsmohrlikeit

This article is part of a series on the youth-led constitutional climate change lawsuit Held v. Montana. The rest of the series can be read at mtclimatecase.flatheadbeacon.com. This project is produced by the Flathead Beacon newsroom, in collaboration with Montana Free Press, and is supported by the MIT Environmental Solutions Journalism Fellowship.

On Monday morning, when a Montana judge issued a ruling favoring young environmental advocates in the constitutional climate change lawsuit Held v. Montana, Lander Busse, one of the 16 youth plaintiffs, was in a raft on the Flathead River.

When told by his father that the decision favored the plaintiffs, Lander said, “Hell yes, we won, and I am going fishing,” before floating out of cell service, according to his father’s telling of the exchange.

As Busse, 18, drifted out of reach of reporters, the response to the landmark decision rippled across the globe, and in its wake a torrent of analysis has poured in from legal observers, scientific experts, environmental advocates, policymakers and industry stakeholders, all trying to paint a picture of Montana’s future through the legal lens of the verdict, as well as its long-term policy implications.

Held v. Montana made history as the first youth-led constitutional climate change lawsuit to go to trial, with a seven-day trial unfolding in a Helena district courtroom in June.

The lawsuit alleged the state had violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment,” and focused on a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prohibits state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts while conducting environmental reviews.

The ruling by Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley is the first legal opinion of its kind, spelling out the environmental harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions as well as the effects of climate change on the physical and mental well-being of young people.

Michael Gerrard, the founder of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said he was “smiling ear to ear” when he read the Aug. 14 decision, which he characterized as the “strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court.”

“The court resoundingly affirmed what the climate scientists are saying, and it will become ever harder to attack basic climate science in the court, where facts matter,” Gerrard said.

The 103-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order draws a correlation between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and tangible changes to the environment, and it appraises Montana’s contribution to the broader consequences of climate change.

“Montana’s GHG contributions are not de minimis but are nationally and globally significant. Montana’s GHG emissions cause and contribute to climate change and Plaintiffs’ injuries and reduce the opportunity to alleviate Plaintiffs’ injuries,” according to language in the ruling that zeroes in on one of the state’s foundational arguments.

Six states and roughly 150 countries have codified the right to a clean environment in their constitutions, similar to the Montana provision the case was predicated on, and legal experts say the Held ruling may come into play in those jurisdictions.

“There’s a lot of excitement about Montana playing an early role in developing new legal approaches to this problem,” said Michelle Bryan, a University of Montana law professor who specializes in natural resource and environmental law. “All these other cases we see now are potentially going to trial, and this decision, and whatever comes out on appeal, will be read by judges all over. Even though they’re not bound by this precedent, they’ll be influenced by what Judge Seeley and the Montana Supreme Court had to say.”

Emily Flower, a spokesperson for the Montana attorney general’s office, said the state will appeal the ruling. In a statement, Flower characterized the ruling as “absurd” and called Seeley an “ideological judge.”

Speculating about what the Montana Supreme Court might do on appeal, retired Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson called the case a “slam dunk home run” and said he expects the state’s high court will have a difficult time overturning the decision.

“I think this is one of the most powerful decisions I’ve ever read on the environment in Montana,” said Nelson, who sat on the state Supreme Court for nearly two decades.

Nelson said the decision’s biggest implication is the court’s finding that climate change is covered by Article II, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution, the right to a “clean and healthful environment.”

“That’s important. One could think it’s common sense to make that connection, but the court has never said that,” Nelson said. “She also found that the state and Legislature have violated their mandatory duties under Article IX, Section 1 to maintain and improve the environment for this and future generations. That’s going to come out in other environmental cases that go before the court.”

“I think this is one of the most powerful decisions I’ve ever read on the environment in Montana.”

Retired Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson

Gerrard and Bryan both highlighted the extent to which Seeley’s ruling focused on the source of climate change and the individual harm reported by the plaintiffs — a section spanning roughly 50 pages — and the state’s role in furthering both.

Bryan said future questions will revolve around whether an agency review of greenhouse gas emissions adequately meets the constitutional provision for a clean and healthful environment. “The court’s saying that the climate isn’t an issue you can skip during an environmental review — our Constitution requires you to consider it,” she said.

The ruling also suggests that part of an environmental review is considering alternative actions and projects, which in the energy arena could mean considering alternatives to carbon-based fuels.

Bryan said the impetus is now on state regulatory agencies like the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) tasked with permitting major energy projects to implement changes in Montana.

“The most important part of the ruling is that the government bodies like the DNRC, DEQ and [Montana Department of Transportation] will have to figure out the best way to consider greenhouse gas emissions, which is something other states, and the federal government, are grappling with,” Bryan said. “A lot of work is left to do in terms of figuring out how to implement greenhouse gas reviews into the agency processes.”

In her verdict, Seeley wrote that it is possible to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions that result from fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation and consumption activities authorized by state agencies. She cited permitting decisions prior to 2011 when agencies quantified and disclosed such emissions. The ruling, however, does not instruct the state on how to quantify emissions, or where the line should be drawn to decline a new permit.

Anne Hedges, co-director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, characterized the ruling as both far-reaching and unprecedented during a Public Service Commission meeting on Aug. 15. Hedges, who served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs and has tracked energy policy in Montana for three decades, said that’s largely due to the decision’s implications for the energy permitting process.

“This changes everything,” she said. “The court ruled that the state must be able to deny fossil fuel projects — something the state has never done before.”

“The state must either have discretion to deny permits for fossil fuel activities when the activities would result in greenhouse gas emissions that cause unconstitutional degradation and depletion of Montana’s environment and natural resources, or the permitting statutes themselves must be unconstitutional,” Hedges said, pulling language directly from the ruling.

In addition to finding that cataloging greenhouse gas emissions is technically feasible, Seeley wrote that a transition to renewable energy is “economically feasible and technologically available to employ in Montana.” She added that there is a roadmap for a transition to such energy sources available that will “create jobs, reduce air pollution, and save lives and costs associated with air pollution” in addition to garnering climate benefits.

During the trial, Stanford University Atmosphere/Energy Director Mark Jacobson said Montana has “incredible” renewable energy potential, particularly in regard to wind generation. Jacobson said his modeling demonstrates that the state could easily meet its energy needs and keep the grid stable by pairing existing hydropower generation with expanded wind and solar power, backed up with battery storage.

Seeley also cited Jacobson’s calculation that wind and solar cost about half what a new natural gas project does, and are “even cheaper compared to coal” in her order.

Entities representing or heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry expressed dismay with the decision and emphasized the uncertainties it raises, while Montana-based renewable energy advocates said it will accelerate a transition that’s already underway.

Montana Petroleum Association Executive Director Alan Olson said the ruling amounts to job security for lawyers and will prove difficult to implement, given the technical challenges associated with emissions accounting. Olson also said he fears an abrupt transition to renewables would be expensive for ratepayers when electricity demand surges and would shrink the tax and philanthropic footprints of companies like Signal Peak Energy, which owns a coal mine in Musselshell County that employs about 280 people.

Olson added that whatever regulatory shifts are coming, they won’t happen overnight. “It’s going to be a long process to conform with this,” Olson said. “You’re going to need statutory changes, you’re going to need rule changes.”

Steve Fitzpatrick, a Republican lawmaker from Great Falls who urged his colleagues in the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 971, a measure barring the state from considering greenhouse gas impacts in environmental reviews that Seeley struck down in her ruling, echoed that sentiment. Between the state’s appeal and the Legislature’s input in future legislative sessions, “it’s too early to say what kind of impact this case is going to have,” he said.

“In my opinion, all [Seeley] has really done is given the Legislature an invitation to come in and redraft MEPA with respect to greenhouse gas impacts or out-of-state impacts,” he said, adding that in his estimation Seeley’s order gave the plaintiffs “20%” of what they wanted.

A requirement to analyze greenhouse gas emissions might make that process “longer and more cumbersome and more expensive,” but it doesn’t amount to a wholesale prohibition on new coal mines or gas plants, he argued.

“In my opinion, all [Judge Seeley] has really done is given the Legislature an invitation to come in and redraft MEPA with respect to greenhouse gas impacts or out-of-state impacts.”

Senate Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls

Makenna Sellers, executive director for the Montana Renewable Energy Association, said in an email that the Held ruling could make carbon-free projects more attractive in Montana, and described her industry’s contribution as “part and parcel to Montanans’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Bruce Spencer, who lobbies on behalf of large wind and solar developers for the Montana Energy Business Alliance, said he anticipates clean energy will continue expanding in Montana so long as the regulatory climate remains stable for would-be investors.

“MEBA is just hopeful that Montana’s business conditions will continue to permit renewable energy development as part of Montana’s energy portfolio,” he added.

Despite vast coal reserves — more than any other state in the country — the state is trending more and more toward renewables, according to a 2023 report released by DEQ. “Development of new in-state generation is being led by wind resources, natural gas, solar assets and, increasingly, large-scale batteries.” The agency’s analysis found that wind-generated capacity has doubled in the past decade and is close to equaling coal-fired capacity in the state.

Bryan, the University of Montana law professor, found irony in the decision being handed down at a time when Montana is facing multiple wildfire outbreaks, extreme heat, record low streamflows and drought conditions — all environmental impacts that scientists tied to climate change during the trial.

“It just underscores the problem that stimulated the trial: We’re going in the wrong direction,” said Jack Stanford, the former director of the Flathead Lake Biological Station, who served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. “Everyone who depends on water and Montana’s rivers is going to feel the effects of this climate warming and the loss of flow and volume in our streams and rivers.”

“I think we’re just pleased that the trial went our way and hope that Montana’s government steps up to the plate and takes a few swings in favor of the environment instead of fossil fuel development,” Stanford said.

The post ‘This changes everything’: Experts respond to Held v. Montana climate ruling appeared first on Montana Free Press.

This article is part of a series on the youth-led constitutional climate change lawsuit Held v. Montana. The rest of the series can be read at mtclimatecase.flatheadbeacon.com. This project is produced by the Flathead Beacon newsroom, in collaboration with Montana Free Press, and is supported by the MIT Environmental Solutions Journalism Fellowship.

---

A Montana district judge on Monday issued a ruling in the nation’s first constitutional climate change trial declaring the youth plaintiffs have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment” while revoking two Montana statutes. The state attorney general’s office said it will appeal the ruling.

The 103-page order by Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley comes two months after the landmark Held v. Montana trial took place in Helena, and explicitly states that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are “proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment, and harm and injury to the youth plaintiffs.” It also rolls back two laws enacted by Montana’s Republican-led Legislature this year, House Bill 971 and Senate Bill 557, which made changes to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

“Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts,” the order states. “The Defendants have the authority under the statues by which they operate to protect Montana’s environment and natural resources, protect the health and safety of Montana’s youth, and alleviate and avoid climate impacts by limiting fossil fuel activities that occur in Montana when the MEPA analysis shows that those activities are resulting in degradation or other harms which violate the Montana Constitution,” the order continues.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind to reach trial, was filed by 16 youth plaintiffs from across Montana who alleged the state violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by promoting the fossil fuel industry and exacerbating climate change.

“As youth, we are exposed to a lot of knowledge about climate change. We can’t keep passing it on to the next generation when we’re being told about all the impacts that are already happening,” Rikki Held, the suit’s lead plaintiff, told the Flathead Beacon before the trial. “In some ways, our generation feels a lot of pressure, kind of a burden, to make something happen because it’s our lives that are at risk.”

The complaint focused on a provision in MEPA that prohibits state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts while conducting environmental reviews.

Seeley’s ruling declared that portion of MEPA unconstitutional, as well as a section enacted by SB 557 requiring groups challenging state permitting actions to post a bond before filing a lawsuit and to seek a preliminary injunction, a tough-to-meet legal standard that would immediately halt a project.

“We’re very pleased with the ruling,” Roger Sullivan, a Kalispell-based attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Beacon Monday. “It is stunning in its scope, and I think that the message from the judicial branch is very clear. The task will now be for the executive branch of our state government and the Legislature to abide by this order.”

In a statement, Julia Olson, executive director of the Oregon-based law firm Our Children’s Trust, which brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”

“For the first time in U.S. history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change, and disproportionately imperil young people,” Olson said in a prepared statement. “As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.”

Olson said the ruling provides an evidentiary record and legal precedent that will influence future climate-related lawsuits. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law currently tracks 2,424 climate-change related legal cases in the world, 1,591 of which are filed in U.S. jurisdictions, including two upcoming Our Children’s Trust trials. Next summer, a youth-led climate case against the Hawaii Department of Transportation will proceed to trial, while a federal judge ruled earlier this summer that Juliana v. United States is also cleared for trial.

Attorneys with the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said Seeley’s ruling “underscores the reality that Montana’s government is actively working to undermine our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.”

“For the first time in U.S. history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change, and disproportionately imperil young people.”

Our Children’s Trust Executive Director Julia Olson

“Judge Seeley’s decision comes at a time when we’re seeing the impacts of climate change accelerate — from low streamflows and lake levels to unprecedented heat waves, floods, and wildfires,” according to a prepared statement by Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney with WELC. “These are the climate realities the youth plaintiffs and expert witnesses told us about on the stand, while the state disclaimed any responsibility and dismissed them. We’re relieved that the court recognized that these youth plaintiffs are already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis, as well as the dangers threatening their future if the state doesn’t take meaningful action to address it.”

Much of the landmark trial that unfolded over seven days in June centered on the connection between Montana’s warming climate and the harm alleged by the plaintiffs, who testified that their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” has been violated by the state’s practice of promoting and permitting the fossil fuel industry, thereby contributing to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs spent five days of the trial calling on expert witnesses — including leading climate scientists, glaciologists, policy experts and mental health professionals — to describe the harms the plaintiffs say they have suffered because of Montana’s promotion and permitting of the fossil fuel industry. Ten of the young plaintiffs, ranging in age from 14 to 22, also took the stand to describe how their quality of life has been compromised by both the real-time effects of climate change and its impending impacts.

The state, meanwhile, disputed the evidence that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change in a meaningful way, and denied that Montana’s increasingly severe wildland fire seasons and drought are linked to its legacy of supporting fossil-fuel burning projects reliant on coal, oil and gas.

The entirety of the state’s defense spanned less than one full day of trial, compared to the five days during which plaintiffs’ attorneys called witnesses. The defense called just one expert witness, an economist, whose testimony Seeley said “was not well-supported, contained errors, and was not given weight by the Court.”

Seeley’s ruling states that Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes climate, and affirms the connection between greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and harm to Montana’s youth.

The court also found that allowing the state to consider climate change in permitting questions “would provide the clear information needed to conform their decision-making to the best science and their constitutional duties and constraints and give them the necessary information to deny permits for fossil fuel activities when inconsistent with protecting Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”

Emily Flower, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, called the ruling “absurd” and described the trial as a “tax-payer funded publicity stunt” in a statement. “The State will appeal,” she said. 

The post Judge rules in favor of youth plaintiffs in Montana climate lawsuit appeared first on Montana Free Press.