Montana Judge Rules State Violated Young Plaintiffs’ Right to Clean Environment
In a groundbreaking ruling, a Montana judge sided with a group of young plaintiffs who accused their state government of violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. The ruling stated that the state promoted fossil fuel development without considering its contribution to climate change, therefore infringing upon the plaintiffs’ rights.
The case was filed in 2020 by 16 young Montanans, ranging in age from 5 to 22, who argued that Montana’s policies supporting fossil fuels worsened climate change and had detrimental effects on their mental and physical health. The state’s bill of rights, known as a Green Amendment, grants residents the right to a healthy environment, making Montana one of only three states with such a provision.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley issued the decision on Monday, declaring that a Montana policy prohibiting state agencies from evaluating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when permitting energy projects was unconstitutional. Seeley noted that Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to cause harm to the environment, as well as injury and impacts to the plaintiffs.
State officials have criticized the ruling, referring to it as absurd and planning to appeal it. However, legal experts believe that if the decision stands, it could set a significant legal precedent. This could inspire similar lawsuits, strengthen climate-related cases in other states, and establish whether governments have a duty to protect citizens from the consequences of global warming.
Michael Gerrard, founder and director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, hailed the ruling as the strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court. Gerrard emphasized that the court’s 103-page decision recognized fossil fuel use as the primary cause of climate change, resulting in severe health and environmental impacts that will continue to worsen.
Montana has long been dependent on the fossil fuel industry and is home to the largest recoverable coal reserves in the U.S. State Republicans have consistently opposed policies that may threaten the interests of coal, oil, and gas companies. In fact, they recently passed a law that many consider to be the nation’s most anti-climate.
During the trial, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies exacerbated climate change, exposing the young plaintiffs to toxic wildfire smoke and unhealthy conditions. Additionally, they claimed that drought conditions worsened as a result, depriving them of resources and recreational opportunities.
The state, however, argued that Montana’s carbon emissions were insignificant when compared to global emissions and should not be solely blamed for climate change on a global scale. The judge concluded that the state failed to provide a compelling reason for not considering greenhouse gas emissions when permitting energy projects.
Legal experts anticipate that the ruling could have far-reaching implications in the United States and abroad. Climate change-related lawsuits have surged in recent years, with cases globally more than doubling since 2017. Several states and around 150 countries already have constitutional provisions explicitly stating the right to a healthy environment. The Montana ruling may encourage similar lawsuits worldwide.
The decision could also impact how courts interpret constitutional provisions related to a healthy environment in other states. While New York and Pennsylvania have Green Amendments in their constitutions, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Rhode Island have similar provisions that are not part of their bills of rights, leading to greater legal challenges for enforcement.
Campaigns advocating for the adoption of Green Amendments have emerged in various states, including New Mexico, Kentucky, and Connecticut. Maya van Rossum, an environmental lawyer and the head of the Delaware Riverkeeper, believes the Montana ruling could provide momentum for these campaigns.
It is worth noting that most youth-led climate change lawsuits in the U.S. have faced significant hurdles, with many being dismissed by judges for lacking standing or making arguments beyond the court’s purview. The Montana ruling, however, may provide reassurance to potential plaintiffs that their cases will be heard in court.
David Dana, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, stated that the decision could become a roadmap for judges inclined to adjudicate climate change cases rather than dismissing them as too political or unwieldy.
In conclusion, the Montana judge’s ruling in favor of the young plaintiffs represents a significant milestone in the fight for environmental rights. If upheld, it could shape future climate-related lawsuits, inspire similar legal action, and establish governments’ duty to protect citizens from the consequences of climate change. The decision may also influence how other states interpret their constitutional provisions related to a healthy environment.
