Young activists sued Montana over fossil fuels. They just won the ‘strongest decision on climate change ever’

It’s been called the “strongest decision on climate change ever” – and it took place at a time when Republicans in the state at the heart of it are trying to make it even harder for officials to protect the environment.

On Monday, 14 August, a state judge ruled that Montana was violating the constitutional rights of a group of young plaintiffs by preventing state officials from considering the climate impacts of proposed fossil fuel projects.

It’s the culmination of years of work from a group of young Montanans, aged 5 to 22, who sued the state in 2020.

“This is the first constitutional climate case to go to trial in the US,” Barbara Chillcott of the Western Environmental Ceter, which helped bring the suit alongside the non-profit Our Children’s Trust, told The Independent. “Given that this is the first ruling of its kind to come out in the United States, the signifcance can’t be overstated. It really does seem like it will be a game-changer going forwards in terms of other climate litigation and climate justice work in this country.”

The plaintiffs argued that a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) preventing state regulators from considering emissions and other climate impacts was infringing on a unique section in the Montana constitution guaranteeing the right to a “clean and healthful environment.”

During a one-week trial, they testified about a range of ways that state inaction on stopping the climate crisis was impacting their daily lives, from cutting off the ability of Native American tribes to access traditional food sources, to smoke from wildfires causing breathing problems.

“It feels like it’s suffocating me, like if I’m outside for minutes,” University of Montana student Olivia Vesovich, 20, testified during the trial. “Climate change is wreaking so much havoc on our world right now and I know that will only be getting worse.”

In a 103-page order, Judge Kathy Seeley affirmed the activists’ position in resounding fashion, striking down the portion of MEPA and laying in out in detail what’s at risk when states fail to confront the climate impacts of their decisions.

“In terms of per capita emissions, Montana’s consumption of fossil fuels is disproportionately large and only five states have greater per capita emissions,” she wrote. “Montana is a major emitter of [greenhouse gas] emissions in the world in absolute terms, in per person terms, and historically.”

open image in gallery

“Montana’s (greenhouse gas) emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury to the youth plaintiffs,” she added elsewhere.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, vowed to appeal the ruling. The state argued in court that regulators didn’t have the statutory powers to reject energy projects on the basis of climate emissions, and that Montana only contributes a small part to the global climate crisis.

“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate — even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate,” a spokesperson told The Independent in a statement.

“Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states,” she continued. “It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”

Observers said Monday’s ruling was a landmark victory for the environmental movement, as similar cases have faced opposition in courts across the US.

At least 14 lawsuits from youth activists seeking to hold state bodies accountable for violating climate rights have been dismissed, according to a July report from the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“I think this is the strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court,” Michael Gerrard of the Sabin Center wrote on X following the ruling. “After a trial where climate scientists testified under oath and were subject to cross examination (very rare in itself), the court issued a 103-page decision that found that fossil fuel use is the principal cause of climate change, which in turn is causing serious health and environmental impacts that will continue to get worse.

“The court found that renewables (wind, solar, hydro) can economically substitute for fossil fuels; that the youth plaintiffs have a right to a stable climate system under the right to a clean environment in the state constitution; and that the state law barring consideration of climate in impact assessment is unconstitutional.”

The ruling was all the more remarkable, according to Anthony Licata of Montana Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, because the Montana legislature’s most recent session saw Republican state officials abandon the state’s unique bipartisan record of environmental stewardship and favour bills like HB 971, which was rushed through on suspended rules this year to limit the ability to assess greenhouse emissions from power plants.

“We’re thrilled about the ruling,” Mr Licata told The Independent. “We’re very proud of the the kids who stood up and took this to court. It really is a victory for all Montanans.”

“Montana has a very good history of bipartisan and of broad public support for healthy public lands and public ecosystems,” he added. “There’s a reason [the environment] is enshrined in the constitution. It’s central to people lives.”

The impact of the decision could go beyond just Montana.

The case could influence the arguments or decisions in Juliana v United States, a federal lawsuit from Oregon youth climate activists challenging the US government’s promotion of a fossil fuel economy as unconstitutional. In June, a federal court ruled the case could go to trial after years of delays in the suit, which was filed in 2015.

And next year, a state court will heard arguments in Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation, where another group of youth-led plaintiffs contend that the state transportation department is violating their constitutional rights by failing to take quick enough action to decarbonise to meet state zero-emissions goals.

During the trial in the Montana suit, state regulators argued their hands were tied and they couldn’t legally reject projects on climate grounds that were otherwise following state law.

However, Monday’s ruling, according to Ms Chillcott of Western Environmental Ceter, rejected that notion.

The Montana judge found not only that climate change is a threat worth address, but one where those in office have the power to make a difference.

“Everying kind of additional greenhouse gas contributes to the climate crisis,” Ms Chillcott said. “That’s our stance. Every ton matters and every ton is harmful...The judge acknowledged that every ton of greenhouse gas emissions is significant.”