Held v. State of Montana

Date of Application:	Fri, 13 Mar 2020
Date of Decision:	Mon, 14 Aug 2023
Decision Making Body:	Montana Supreme Court
Law Applied:	Montana Constitution Montana Environmental Policy Act Montana State Energy Policy Public Trust Doctrine
Keywords:	Right to a clean and healthy environment

Rikki Held et. al., v. State of Montana et. al.

CDV-2020-307 

Montana Trial Court Ruled that State Law’s Restriction on Consideration of Climate Change Impacts During Environmental Reviews Violated Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. In a lawsuit brought by 16 youth plaintiffs, a Montana trial court ruled that a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) prohibiting consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corresponding climate change impacts in environmental reviews (the MEPA Limitation) violated the plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution.  

The court held that the plaintiffs had a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, “which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system,” that Montana’s climate, environment, and natural resources are unconstitutionally degraded and depleted due to the current atmospheric concentration of GHGs and climate change, and that by enacting and enforcing the MEPA Limitation, the State is failing to meet its affirmative duty to protect plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and to protect Montana’s natural resources from unreasonable depletion. The court also held that a different statutory provision prohibiting Montana’s courts from enjoining or vacating fossil fuel related permits even if the environmental review inadequately considered GHG emissions and impacts to Montana’s climate, violated the clean and healthful environmental rights provisions of Montana’s Constitution because “it removes the only preventative, equitable relief available to the public and MEPA litigants concerned about GHGs and climate change, which are degrading Montana’s environment.”  

The court issued its 103-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order less than two months after the conclusion of a seven-day trial at which the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ expert witnesses testified regarding climate science, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions in Montana, and the impacts of climate change on children in Montana. The court issued 289 detailed and uncontroverted findings of fact and found that “[t]he unrefuted testimony at trial established that climate change is a critical threat to public health” and that the plaintiffs “have been and will continue to be harmed by the State’s disregard of GHG pollution and climate change pursuant to the MEPA Limitation.” The court further found that “[w]hat happens in Montana has a real impact on fossil fuel energy systems, CO2 emissions, and global warming” and that the State defendants’ actions to systematically permit fossil fuel activities with no environmental review of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts increased Montana’s emissions and “exacerbate anthropogenic climate change and cause further harms to Montana’s environment and its citizens, especially its youth.” Montana’s emissions, the court found, “are not de minimis but are nationally and globally significant. Montana’s GHG emissions cause and contribute to climate change and Plaintiffs’ injuries and reduce the opportunity to alleviate Plaintiffs’ injuries.” 

In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs proved standing to bring their claims based on concrete and particularized injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property, recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic interests, tribal and cultural traditions, economic security, and happiness (though the court said mental health injuries “directly resulting from State inaction or counterproductive action on climate change” did not on their own establish a cognizable injury). The court concluded that “[e]very additional ton” of greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated the plaintiffs’ injuries, risks locking in irreversible climate injuries, and that “Plaintiffs’ injuries will grow increasingly severe and irreversible without science-based actions to address climate change.” The court also concluded that there was a fairly traceable connection between the State’s disregard of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the MEPA Limitation and the plaintiffs’ injuries and that the plaintiffs proved redressability because the State defendants could deny permits for fossil fuel activities that would result in unconstitutional levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Citing the Montana Constitution, transcripts of the constitutional convention, and Montana Supreme Court precedent, the trial court held that the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment requires “enhancement” of Montana’s environment and “is complemented by an affirmative duty upon [the] government to take active steps to realize” the right.  The court also cited Montana Supreme Court precedent holding that MEPA was essential to State efforts to meet its constitutional obligations. The court concluded that “[b]y enacting and enforcing the MEPA Limitation,” the State failed to meet its affirmative duty. The court further concluded that the MEPA Limitation did not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to present any evidence of a compelling governmental interest for the provision.”  

The court also noted that “[t]he MEPA Limitation causes the State to ignore renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels” and that undisputed expert testimony established that the defendants could consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and that “clean renewable energy is technically feasible and economically beneficial in Montana” such that the state could replace 100% of its existing fossil fuel energy across all economic sectors by no later than 2050.  The court further found that even if a compelling interest were established, the MEPA Limitation was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  

The Montana attorney general’s office indicated the State would appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. The State and agency defendants filed their notices of appeal in Fall 2023 and soon thereafter sought to stay the implementation of the trial court’s August 2023 Order pending appeal. Plaintiffs opposed the defendants’ request for a stay and both the trial court and the Montana Supreme Court declined to stay the August 2023 Order while the appeal was pending, ruling that defendants did not meet their burden to establish that a stay pending appeal was appropriate. 

The State and agency defendants filed their appellate briefs with the Montana Supreme Court in February and April, 2024 and Plaintiffs filed their response brief in March 2024. The State and agency defendants’ appellate briefs argue that the district court’s order should be reversed because plaintiffs failed to establish that the MEPA Limitation is the cause of their alleged injuries and that enjoining the state from enforcing the MEPA Limitation would not redress plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. The State and agency defendants did not defend the constitutionality of the statutory provision eliminating preventative, equitable remedies for MEPA litigants raising GHG or climate change issues on appeal. 

Plaintiffs’ response argued that the district court’s order should be affirmed in full, that both challenged statutes unquestionably violate plaintiffs’ fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, are facially unconstitutional, and do not survive strict scrutiny. 

Oral argument was held before the Montana Supreme Court on July 10, 2024. A decision from the Montana Supreme Court is expected in the coming months. 

Held v. State - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com) 

Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre 

 

Court documents:  

Complaint (13 March 2020) 

Trial Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (04 August 2021) 

Defendants’ Answer (17 September 2021) 

Montana Supreme Court Denies Defendants’ Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control (14 June 2022) 

Trial Court Denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (23 May 2023) 

Montana Supreme Court Denies Defendants’ Emergency Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control (6 June 2023) 

Trial (12 – 20 June 2023) 

Judgment in favour of plaintiffs (14 August 2023) 

Trial Court Denies Defendants’ Request for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal (21 November 2023) 

Montana Supreme Court Denies Defendants’ Request for Relief from District Court Stay Order (16 January 2024) 

Related CRC articles

• 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
• 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
• 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
• 30. Right to minority culture, language, religion (CRC Article 30)

Both the complaint and the decision refer to the child’s right to life, health and culture.  

The fact that children are disproportionally affected by climate change is accepted. 

Para 231 (complaint) – “Children and youth hold the same constitutional rights as adults yet their political powerlessness, unique physiological characteristics and vulnerabilities, and lack of autonomy and dependency on caregivers render children and youth more vulnerable to rights violations. Children and youth are at a critical development stage in life, as their capacities evolve, and their physiological and psychological maturity develops more rapidly than at any other time in life.” 

Para 40 (decision) – “Montana's children under age eighteen, have a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment. Mont. Const. Art. II, Sec. 15. The right to a clean and healthful environment is intended to protect Montana's children and future generations.”

Involvement of children in hearings

• Oral presentation
• Written presentation

Depositions, written presentations (e.g., declarations), courtroom testimony. 

The child plaintiffs’ personal experiences are set out in detail in paras 14 to 81 of the complaint and paragraphs 195 to 205 of the trial court’s August 14 2023 Order. Some refer to their concerns about their future children, in addition to other concerns. 

Future generations

Montana Constitution Article IX, Section 1 protects right to clean and healthful environment in Montana “for present and future generations.” 

Para 107 (complaint) – “This means that the harm from present day GHG emissions will be disproportionately borne by today’s children and future generations, including the Youth Plaintiffs.” 

See also Complaint at para. 108, 212, 214, Count IV.

Para 48 (decision) - “Montana's constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment prohibits environmental degradation that causes ill health or physical endangerment and unreasonable depletion or degradation of Montana's natural resources for this and future generations: 

Our conclusions in MEIC are consistent with the constitutional text's unambiguous reliance on preventative measures to ensure that Montanans' inalienable right to a 'clean and healthful environment' is as evident in the air, water, and soil of Montana as in its law books. Article IX, Section 1, of the Montana Constitution describes the environmental rights of 'future generations,' while requiring 'protection' of the environmental life support system 'from degradation' and 'prevent[ion of] unreasonable depletion and degradation' of the state's natural resources. This forward-looking and preventative language clearly indicates that Montanans have a right not only to reactive measures after a constitutionally proscribed environmental harm has occurred, but to be free of its occurrence in the first place.” 

See also August 14, 2023, Order at para. 193 (science is clear that there are catastrophic harms to the natural environment of Montana and Plaintiffs and future generations of the State due to anthropogenic climate change), 286, 289; conclusions of law para. 37, 40.

Outcome of decision for the applicants

• Relief sought by applicants PARTIALLY granted

The relief sought for a remedial plan to be implemented was not granted. 

Did outcome of decision develop the law

• Yes

The decision confirms that children and youth are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts (Conclusion of law par 8). 

The decision confirms that children and youth have a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, and that the right is intended to protect not only children here now, but future generations (conclusion of law par 40). The judge does not say that future generations have the said right, but confirms that when interpreting the right, a decision maker / court will need to consider future generations.  

The court finds that the youth plaintiffs have standing (conclusion of law para. 4 to 24). This finding legitimises children’s participation in strategic litigation and strengthens the right to access to court for children. 

This judgement confirms the proactive and preventative nature of the duty on states to adhere to and abide by the affirmative requirements placed upon states by their constitution. States need not be required by individual laws to take action, but must do so in an anticipatory manner, because of affirmative rights guarantees provided by constitution. 

The decision finds that there is already an unconstitutional level of GHG emissions in the atmosphere and that each addition ton of GHG emissions will exacerbate those constitutional injuries.  

Involvement of NGO/law firm in application

Legal representatives 

• Western Environmental Law Center (Montana) 

• McGarvey Law (Montana) 

 

Legal representative and NGO 

• Our Children’s Trust 

Available information on how children got involved in the litigation

Meet the youth plaintiffs 

Age range of litigants

• 8-12
• 13-17
• 18-25

Number of children or youth involved

16