Montana’s Climate Change Litigation Threatens Legitimate Judicial Processes

The Held v. State of Montana case represents a significant development in climate litigation, marking a unique victory for youth plaintiffs asserting their constitutional rights to a healthy environment. Sixteen young Montana residents challenged the state’s actions, arguing that they exacerbated the harms of climate change and violated provisions of the Montana Constitution guaranteeing a clean and healthful environment. Central to the case was the constitutionality of a clause within the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prohibited state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts when evaluating fossil fuel projects. The Montana district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the MEPA clause unconstitutional and affirming the youths’ right to a stable climate. The state subsequently appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

In a landmark decision in December 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, further solidifying the unique legal ground upon which the case rests. The court’s decision explicitly recognized that the right to a clean and healthful environment, as enshrined in the Montana Constitution, encompasses a stable climate system essential for sustaining human life and liberties. This explicit recognition of a stable climate as a constitutional right distinguishes the Montana case from other climate litigation across the nation, which often rely on federal laws or more general constitutional principles. The court’s declaration that a law preventing the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions is unconstitutional reinforces the significance of this ruling for future environmental policy and litigation.

The Held v. Montana case stands apart from other youth-led climate lawsuits due to the specific provisions within the Montana Constitution and the MEPA. The Montana Constitution contains stronger environmental protections than the federal Constitution, providing a firmer legal basis for the plaintiffs’ claims. The MEPA clause, by explicitly prohibiting the consideration of climate impacts, presented a clear target for legal challenge. This combination of factors makes the Montana case less likely to serve as a direct precedent for similar lawsuits in other states or at the federal level, which may lack comparable constitutional provisions or statutory limitations. However, the case’s success could inspire similar litigation in states with robust environmental protections in their constitutions.

The implications of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision extend beyond the state’s borders. While the legal basis remains unique to Montana, the victory for the youth plaintiffs could embolden similar legal challenges in other states. The case highlights the potential for state constitutions to offer stronger environmental protections than federal law, potentially shifting the landscape of climate litigation. The ruling’s affirmation of a stable climate as a constitutional right could influence judicial interpretations of environmental rights in other jurisdictions. The decision also underscores the growing willingness of courts to address climate change as a justiciable issue, potentially opening the door for further judicial action on climate-related matters.

The broader questions raised by the Held case revolve around the nature of public goods, constitutional rights, and the appropriate venue for resolving complex environmental issues. The debate over whether clean air and climate mitigation are fundamental rights, and who bears the responsibility for achieving them, continues to unfold. The Montana case highlights the judiciary’s increasing role in addressing these questions, especially in the face of legislative inaction or conflicting policy priorities. The decision also underscores the potential for litigation to drive policy change, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake.

The Held v. Montana case represents a potential turning point in climate litigation, demonstrating the power of state constitutions and judicial action to address climate change. While its unique legal basis limits its direct applicability to other states, the case’s success could inspire similar challenges and reshape the legal landscape surrounding climate change. The decision affirms the growing recognition of a stable climate as a fundamental right and underscores the judiciary’s increasing engagement with climate-related issues. The case’s long-term impact will depend on how other states and courts respond to this landmark ruling, and whether it sparks a broader movement toward stronger state-level climate action grounded in constitutional rights.