Climacteric Litigation Decisions Part VI: Held is Upheld by the Montana Supreme Court

This article is a continuation of a series of articles on climate change litigation titled Climacteric Litigation Decisions.

In our first article in this series on climate change litigation, we discussed the landmark decision of the Montana First Judicial District Court in Lewis and Clark County (“District Court”), Held, et al v State of Montana, et al (“Held”). In that decision, the District Court  issued an order that was reportedly the first major North American climate litigation decision to uphold claims based on environmental rights.

In the same article series, we summarized the history of climate change litigation in Canada and the USA, the potential impact of Held, the likelihood of further climate change litigation, and recent climate change litigation decisions. (Each article in the series can be found here: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V).

In October 2023, Held was appealed to Montana’s Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”). On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court released its decision, affirming the District Court's decision that the constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” in Montana extends to protecting a stable climate system. This decision underscores the District Court’s recognition of climate change as an immediate and significant threat to Montana’s environment and public health, as well as its commitment to adapting constitutional principles to contemporary challenges. Further, we see this decision as having impacts well beyond the State of Montana.

Background

In 2020, a group of 16 youths (the “Plaintiffs”) sued the State of Montana, the Governor, and multiple state agencies, alleging that Montana's actions exacerbated the harm they were experiencing from climate change. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, specifically challenging certain provisions of Montana's State Energy Policy Act and a 2011 provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”) as unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that these provisions (detailed below) cause and contribute to climate change in violation of their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment - guaranteed under certain Articles of The Constitution of the State of Montana (the “Montana Constitution”)[1] - by promoting fossil fuel development and prohibiting the consideration of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions or climate change in environmental reviews (the “MEPA Limitation”).[2]

In May 2023, the Montana Legislature made clarifying amendments to the 2011 MEPA Limitation, and in June 2023, the Plaintiff’s action proceeded to trial before the District Court.

The 2011 MEPA Limitation provided in part:

(2)(a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders. It may not include actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.[3]

The clarifying amendments to this provision, enacted in May 2023, further prohibited Montana’s agencies from considering environmental impacts, including GHGs:

(2)(a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders. (New language underlined).[4]

Both the 2011 and 2023 versions of the MEPA Limitation allowed fossil-fuel related projects to be permitted without consideration of impacts that increase GHG emissions.[5] Also at issue was the wording of MEPA section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii) (the “MEPA Court Limitation”), which constrained the authority of courts when reviewing MEPA analyses:

201(6)(a)(ii) An action alleging noncompliance or inadequate compliance with a requirement of parts 1 through 3, including a challenge to an agency's decision that an environmental review is not required or a claim that the environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana's borders, cannot vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority unless the review is required by a federal agency or the United States congress amends the Federal Clean Air Act to include carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.[6]

The Plaintiffs’ position was that the MEPA Limitation and the MEPA Court Limitation violated their constitutional rights guaranteed by Article II, sections 3, 15 and Article IX, section 1 of the Montana Constitution:

Article II

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment …[7]

Section 15. Rights of persons not adults. The rights of persons under 18 years of age shall include, but not be limited to, all the fundamental rights of this Article unless specifically precluded by laws which enhance the protection of such persons.[8]

Article IX

Section 1. Protection and improvement.

(1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.

(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.

(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.[9]

The District Court found in favor of the Plaintiffs, concluding that the right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate system and that the challenged MEPA provisions violated this right. By prohibiting the consideration of climate change, GHG emissions, and how those emissions contribute to climate change, the MEPA Limitation violated the Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court further concluded that the MEPA Court Limitation was unconstitutional because it eliminated remedies to prevent irreversible environmental degradation. As a result, the District Court ordered in part that the MEPA Limitation and the MEPA Court Limitation be declared unconstitutional. The Court also denied the State's motion for psychiatric examinations of the Plaintiffs, finding no good cause for such examinations.[10]

The State of Montana appealed the District Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court released its decision, affirming the District Court's decision.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court held that the right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution includes a stable climate system. The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiffs had standing to challenge the impugned provisions of MEPA, as the Plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated a personal stake in the matter, with clear evidence of potential injury from the State’s failure to address climate change, and this infringed on their constitutional rights.

In response to arguments that Montana’s environmental policies have minimal effect on global climate change, the Supreme Court refuted the notion that local actions are irrelevant. Instead, it stressed that constitutional rights cannot be diminished by the scale of global challenges. This stance underscores the State’s obligation to uphold its environmental protections, regardless of broader pollution practices worldwide.

Importantly, the Supreme Court acknowledged the Plaintiffs presented compelling evidence demonstrating that climate change is already impacting Montana’s environment. The Court acknowledged harms to air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and human health, as well as projections of more severe impacts in the future.

The Supreme Court rejected the State’s argument that the Framers of the Constitution did not specifically contemplate climate change. Rather, the Court affirmed that a constitution is a living document meant to evolve in response to unforeseen developments. The Supreme Court emphasized that environmental protections enshrined in the Montana Constitution were designed to be anticipatory and preventative, further noting that constitutional rights have historically adapted to address new and changing circumstances, including technological advancements and emerging societal issues.

With respect to the challenged provisions of MEPA, the Supreme Court affirmed they were unconstitutional as the MEPA Limitation arbitrarily excluded GHG emissions from environmental reviews, thereby violating the Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution. In reaching this finding, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's focus on global climate change, reaffirming the Plaintiffs’ right to enforce their constitutional protections against the State. The Supreme Court clarified that the key issue is whether legal relief can address the constitutional injury, rather than whether it can entirely stop climate change. It concluded that declaring the MEPA provisions unconstitutional would remedy the constitutional harm, even if doing so would not fully resolve the broader challenge of climate change.

Takeaways

By affirming that the right to a clean and healthful environment includes a stable climate system, the Supreme Court highlighted the critical role of state-level actions in tackling one of the most pressing global challenges of our time. This finding paves the way for similar legal challenges that assert climate rights within the framework of state and national constitutions.

This decision also reaffirms the existence and threat of climate change, an issue not even disputed by the State on appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision now joins a growing body of caselaw across the world which is highlighting that government policy and legislation on climate change is not immune to scrutiny.

Stay tuned for updates on this action, as well as future climate change decisions.

For more information on environmental and climate change litigation, contact Stuart Chambers, Joelle French, Aaron Mann, or any member of our Environmental & Energy Law Practice Group.