Montana Supreme Court Holds State Constitution Includes Protections Against Climate Change
Throughout 2024, young Americans from states like Oregon, California, and Hawaii turned to litigation, arguing that court intervention is necessary to protect them from climate change. The young plaintiffs spearheading these lawsuits saw varying levels of success, ranging from a complete dismissal in the Ninth Circuit case of Juliana v. United States (Case No. 6:15-CV-01517) to a landmark settlement agreement in the Hawaii Circuit Court case of Navahine v. Hawai'i Department of Transportation (Case No. ICCV-22-0000631). However, it was the final days of the year that left the most indelible mark on youth climate litigation.
On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana released its highly anticipated decision in the case of Held v. Montana (CDV-2020-307). In a 6-1 ruling detailed in an opinion by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, the court found that the Montana Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA") ran counter to "Montanans' right to a clean and healthful environment," thereby violating the Constitution of the State of Montana.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2020, in the First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County. Sixteen young people, including members of the local ranching community, argued that state residents between the ages of two and 18 were "uniquely vulnerable" to the "dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis," leaving them subject to physical, psychological, and economic harms. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that MEPA violated the Montana Constitution by preventing state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions during environmental reviews. The state Constitution gives particular credence to Montana's natural environment, highlighting the importance of "the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and the blessings of liberty for this and future generations" (emphasis in the complaint).
The district court found for the youth plaintiffs on August 14, 2023. The case was quickly appealed, with argument held in the state's supreme court on June 10, 2024. Six months later, Justice McGrath's 70-page decision was released.
The Montana Supreme Court began its opinion as the plaintiffs began their complaint: by recognizing the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions. The court pointed to "overwhelming scientific evidence" that greenhouse gasses are harmful and noted that "Montana is heating faster than the global average," resulting in negative impacts on the state's economy, recreation, agriculture, and tourism industry, as well as on the quality of its human environment.
The court went on to tackle four issues on appeal: (i) standing; (ii) whether the Montana Constitution's guarantee of a "clean and healthful environment" involved a "stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties;" (iii) the constitutionality of MEPA; and (iv) whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a state motion for psychiatric examinations of the plaintiffs.
On the topic of standing, the court found that various "aesthetic, recreational, and economic injuries" were "sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirements for personalized injury, even though widely shared."
When considering whether the Montana Constitution guarantees a clean and healthful environment, the court said that "Plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana's environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future." Justice McGrath pointed out that State agencies have acknowledged this. The court determined that the goal of protecting a stable climate system was "clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers" when they added reference to a clean environment. In light of the constitutional protections in place, it was not necessary to "grant the State a free pass to pollute … just because the rest of the world insisted on doing so."
Having held that a constitutional right existed, the court then found that MEPA violated it by arbitrarily excluding review of the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions, "without regard to the nature or volume of the emissions" involved in each individual situation.
Finally, the Court held that the State failed to show the district court abused its discretion in refusing to order the psychiatric examinations of the Plaintiffs.
While the state argued that eight of the plaintiffs put their mental health "in controversy" because "the issue of standing may turn on the question of psychological harm," the Supreme Court held that it need not resolve this issue because its standing analysis focused on plaintiffs' injury to a constitutional right, rather than on "any mental, emotional, physical, aesthetic, or property interests harmed by the State's actions."
Justice Dirk Sandefur concurred, agreeing with the majority's outcome but branding its opinion a "political and public policy statement of the obvious" and calling for more nuance. Justice Jim Rice stood alone in dissent, arguing that the Plaintiffs had not brought a clear case or controversy before the Court and challenging their claim of standing.
It is important to recognize what the Held opinion is and what it is not. Held is not widely binding precedent coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court or a jurisdiction with a history of being highly influential on constitutional issues. The case pertains strictly to the Montana Constitution and a Montana state regulation, analyzing the unique language of both. The ruling does not directly mandate change to the practices of private companies doing business in Montana.
This said, Held is poised to have huge impacts on private industry within Montana because it will intensify the environmental reviews of new project proposals. Its impact on climate litigation will likely stretch beyond the state because it is the first constitutional climate change case to reach trial.
This major Montana State court decision also came just weeks before the U.S. presidential administration changed, ushering in a new era of rapidly evolving federal environmental policy. President Donald Trump has commenced his second term by issuing a vast array of executive orders. A number of these directly pertain to environmental issues, such as by encouraging the use of federal lands to develop fossil fuels.
In this changing landscape, the very recent Held opinion may feel somewhat distant, yet it remains a significant development within the realm of climate litigation. Only time will tell whether Held is followed by other courts at the state or federal levels, but citation to this opinion is all but certain to appear in every climate change lawsuit filed for the foreseeable future.
