Wednesday after the Montana Supreme Court upheld a judge’s August 2023 ruling that the state’s promotion of climate-destroying fossil fuels violates the state’s constitutional rights of young people. The young plaintiffs held a celebration.
“This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for all young people whose futures are threatened by climate change,” Ricky Held, a named plaintiff in Held v. Montana, said in a statement. “We have been heard, and today the Montana Supreme Court recognized that our right to a safe and healthy climate cannot be ignored.”
Grace, another plaintiff, emphasized that “despite the continued rhetoric of denial from those in power in our state, this will remain in the court record forever.” We will stand with the people of our state and protect the people and places we love.”
Another plaintiff, Olivia, hailed the ruling as a “monumental victory” and “a call to action for all Montanans.”
Plaintiff George similarly argued, “Now is the time for Montana to embrace the future. Clean energy will bring economic benefits and new jobs.” “We look forward to making sure the state leads the way,” he added. In tackling the climate crisis. ”
Plaintiff Kian pointed to other ongoing lawsuits around the world, saying, “This ruling is not only a victory for Montana, but also a demonstration to the world that youth-led climate action is strong and effective. “Yes,” he declared.
“We hope this decision will inspire people at home and abroad to stand up for their right to a livable climate,” Kian continued. The world’s attention is now on how youth-led litigation can create real change, as the youth plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation secured historic climate justice through a settlement in June of this year. is poured out on us. ”
In Montana, the state appealed District Court Judge Kathy Seeley’s historic ruling in favor of 16 young plaintiffs to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments in July. Wednesday’s 6-1 decision (Judge Jim Rice was the only dissenting opinion) is the first of its kind by the state Supreme Court.
The majority’s 70-page opinion discusses the framers of the Montana Constitution, and reads in part, “The state and each individual must maintain a clean and healthy Montana state for present and future generations.” “Congress shall provide for the following:” and “Congress shall provide for the following:” Administration and enforcement of this obligation. ”
Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote that the court’s majority held that “a delegation designed to provide the nation’s strongest and most comprehensive environmental protections, anticipatory and preventative, for current and future generations, does not require the state to protect the environment from pollution.” “We reject claims that it would give us a free pass.” Montana’s environment simply insisted that the rest of the world do so. ”
“The district court’s conclusion of law is affirmed. Montana’s right to a clean and healthy environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which clearly “It is within the intent and true principles of the Framers, including the right to a healthy environment,” the Chief Justice added.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs joined the Montana youth in applauding the opinion. “This is a monumental moment for Montana, our young people and the future of our planet,” said Nate Bellinger of Our Children’s Trust.
“Today, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed young people’s constitutional right to a safe and livable climate and confirmed that our children’s futures cannot be sacrificed to fossil fuel interests,” he added. . “This is a victory for our young people and for generations to come. The court has said this clearly: Montana’s constitution does not give the state a free pass to ignore climate change because others fail to act.” This landmark ruling emphasizes states’ proactive obligations on climate change.”Lead by example.” ”
“The Montana Supreme Court’s decision requires the state to carefully evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits,” said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. ” he said.
“Specifically, Montana regulators will continue to assess the potential harm to the environment and the health and safety of the state’s children from new fossil fuel projects, and will continue to assess the continued deterioration of Montana’s environment in unconstitutional terms.” “You have to decide whether the project is justified in light of the natural resources and the climate,” she explained. “This ruling makes clear that the Constitution provides a clear mandate for Montana to reduce its per capita greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a clean, renewable energy future. .”
It remains to be seen whether the state government will abide by the decision. In a statement to The Hill, a spokesperson for Republican Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office called the decision “disappointing but not surprising,” calling the court’s majority “once again ideologically driven.” “He ruled in favor of a united ally and ignored the fact that Montana was fighting the case in court.” It has no power to influence the climate. ”
Separately, Knudsen filed his 59th lawsuit against the Biden administration on Tuesday, challenging the administration’s plan to shut down federal coal production in the Powder River Basin, which the attorney general said was “Montana”. “It would effectively eliminate the state’s coal industry.”
