In 2020, sixteen Montana youths filed a children’s climate lawsuit in state district court (the trial court level), alleging that the state’s actions exacerbated the harm they were experiencing from climate change, violating the state’s constitution. Defendants in the suit included the state of Montana, the governor, and multiple state agencies. The Montana district court in August 2023 decided favorably for the plaintiffs, and the state appealed that decision to the Montana Supreme Court because of the potentially high cost of state climate mitigation measures required to satisfy the plaintiffs’ ultimately prevailing in court.
Also at issue in the lower court lawsuit was the constitutionality of a provision in the Montana Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) that forbids state agencies from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change when assessing the costs of fossil fuel projects applying for permits.
Now the Montana supreme court, on December 18, 2024, has upheld the findings of the lower court decision in Held v. State of Montana, including the unconstitutionality of the MEPA statute. This outcome continues to make the Montana climate case quite unique in the nation, being based on state constitutionally-specified rights and privacy protections that are stronger than their federal Constitution counterparts. In the words of the Montana supreme court’s decision,
...the Montana Constitution’s right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties, and that, under the fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, a law [MEPA] prohibiting state agencies from analyzing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in all cases is unconstitutional.
Though there are similar pending youth climate lawsuits in other states, the Montana case remains outside the legal mainstream at this time, being based on unique provisions in the Montana state constitution and the state’s environmental protection statute. Thus, it will be telling to see if this recent Montana supreme court affirmation of the earlier state district court decision might affect any other similar lawsuits across the country. Here is my earlier statement about uniqueness of this Montana case:
In August 2023 state district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that the limitations on considering environmental factors when deciding fossil fuel permits violated the right to a safe environment required by Montana’s constitution. In February 2024 the state of Montana appealed the decision, having called the case a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt”, leaving a final verdict yet to be decided at the appellate level. This case uniquely combines two features—the state constitutional provision and the MEPA restriction on consideration of environmental factors for extraction permits—that may rule it out as precedent in other state and federal lawsuits.
I further commented that,
Given uncertainties whether clean air and climate mitigation are genuine public goods as economists define that concept, whether they are constitutional rights, and who should pay for costly efforts to achieve them, we can expect further resort to the judicial system for resolution. Whether courts will take on this challenge is another question.
I stand by my earlier assessment of this and other state’s lawsuits filed by young people in those respective states, though perhaps at some point our country should be prepared for a national level “21st Century Children’s Crusade” in the name of clean air and climate mitigation.
Perhaps this is what people refer to as “climate justice.” In fact, there is even a 501(c)(3) non-profit named Climate Justice Alliance (CJA), appropriately enough based in Berkeley, California. Their mission, as described on their website, appears to be divestment from the “extractive economy” and investment into the “regenerative economy.” CJA grew out of the environmental justice movement to seek non-profit status in 2013, and now “...envisions a world in which fairness, equity and ecological rootedness are core values.” If one is a virtue signaler, there is plenty to sign onto here.
Note that the economies of Montana and other nearby states such as Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Idaho, and parts of other states in the western US are heavily invested in extractive industries such as mining and oil drilling. Could the additional nearby western states be considered the next target of youth lawsuits, given the natural resources available under their state territories? And, moreover, is the judicial branch of state or federal government the proper forum in which to determine whether individuals or classes of residents possess a constitutional right to clean air and climate mitigation?
