What Montana Youth Victory Means for Other Climate Cases

What's the story?

• This week, young climate activists won a landmark trial in Montana over anti-climate and pro-fossil fuel legislation. The group argued that the state government passed policies that would rob Montana's youth of a "clean and healthy environment," which is a declared right in the state constitution. 
• In Held v. Montana, judge Kathy Seeley ruled that the young residents have a constitutional right to a healthy environment, finding the state's failure to consider climate change in evaluating new projects harmful to the plaintiffs. 
• Seely found that the state's emissions "have been proven to be a substantial factor" in affecting the climate, and laws that limit a regulator's ability to consider climate change are unconstitutional. The state legislature will now determine how to bring its policy into compliance with the ruling. 
• The lawsuit is the first in a series of similar cases being brought to court in the U.S., with plaintiffs arguing that the government's policies rob them of a future and destroy the environment for coming generations.

What could this mean for the future of legal environmental battles?

• The ruling is expected to help similar arguments in cases in Hawaii, Utah, Virginia, and Oregon. As legal climate battles are unprecedented, defendants are anticipated to attack climate science in these cases. However, Judge Seeley's ruling established that climate science is not debatable, making these tenuous arguments.
• Seeley found that fossil fuel use is the primary cause of climate change and that other fuels can provide an economically sustainable alternative, which will be useful in future cases against the oil industry.
• Judge Seeley included that the young group of advocates are especially at risk "[because] of their unique vulnerabilities." In future cases, young people will likely have a more substantial argument that their constitutional rights are being violated than older individuals.
• While this case gives hope for similar battles across the U.S., the Montana group's argument was stronger than many others because the state's constitution specifically lays out a clean environment as a right for "present and future generations." Only two other states, Pennsylvania and New York, include similar clauses in their constitutions.

What they're saying

• Executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Litigation at Columbia University, Michael Burger, said:

"This was climate science on trial, and what the court has found as a matter of fact is that the science is right. Emissions contribute to climate change, climate harms are real, people can experience climate harms individually, and every ton of greenhouse gas emissions matters. These are important factual findings, and other courts in the U.S. and around the world will look to this decision.."

• Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office said it was an "absurd" ruling. Spokesperson Emily Flower said:

"Montanans can't be blamed for the changing climate — even the plaintiffs' expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate."

Are you hopeful about upcoming legal climate battles?

-Jamie Epstein

(Photo credit: Montana Public Radio/Josh Burnham)