Judge Rules Montana Must Do More to Address Climate Change

Montana must do more to protect the state and its residents from climate change, a judge ruled Monday in a landmark decision that cited a state constitutional right to a clean environment.

State District Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of a group of youth plaintiffs and invalidated a pair of laws prohibiting state agencies from considering the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions. 

“The degradation to Montana’s environment, and the resulting harm to Plaintiffs, will worsen if the State continues ignoring GHG emissions and climate change,” Seeley wrote.

The case, brought by more than a dozen Montana residents who were between 2 and 18 years old when it was filed in March 2020, is among a wave of similar suits brought by young people across the country who argue that future generations will bear the consequences of a warming planet. It was the first of its kind to go to trial, which took place in June.

A 1972 provision in Montana’s constitution explicitly guarantees the right to “a clean and healthful environment,” but the clause had largely gone unenforced. The plaintiffs argued the state’s reliance on fossil fuels and their production was at odds with that constitutional guarantee. 

The judge didn’t lay out specific steps for the state to take in response to her ruling. Instead, her order opens the door for state officials to consider climate impacts in future policy decisions, including on energy and mining projects, or efficiency and emissions standards. 

“Today, for the first time in U.S. history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change, and disproportionately imperil young people,” said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and executive director for Our Children’s Trust, the organization representing the plaintiffs. “This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”

The state opposed the suit largely on procedural grounds, arguing the challenge was overly broad. It also argued that Montana’s specific contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions couldn’t be identified and therefore wasn’t a state responsibility to regulate.

The Montana attorney general’s office said it planned to appeal, saying that Monday’s ruling was “absurd” and that the trial was a “weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”

“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. Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well,” said Emily Flower, spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

The plaintiffs included outdoor enthusiasts, athletes, Native American youth and children of farmers, who cited climate harms including extreme heat, poor air quality and damage to crops and livestock.

Similar cases are moving forward in other parts of the U.S. Proceedings in a long-dormant federal case filed in Oregon are heating up after a judge recently allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended lawsuit. In Hawaii, plaintiffs seeking similar relief under that state’s constitution are preparing for a fall trial.

Montana’s Republican-majority legislature has supported fossil fuel infrastructure in the resource-heavy region, and passed a new law this session that explicitly prohibited the analysis of greenhouse gases and climate effects in environmental-impact reviews by state agencies. That law was blocked by Monday’s ruling.

Global greenhouse-gas emissions reached record levels in 2022 and are projected to continue their upward trajectory, according to a March report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Write to Mariah Timms at [email protected]