Article Summary –
The Montana Supreme Court heard arguments in the high-profile climate lawsuit, Held v. Montana, where 16 young plaintiffs claim the state has violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” by not considering the climate impact of fossil fuel projects. The state argued that addressing climate change is beyond judicial power and a political issue, whereas the plaintiffs’ attorney emphasized the constitutional duty to protect the environment and asserted the urgency of the climate crisis. Judge Kathy Seeley previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the state to include greenhouse gas analyses in its environmental reviews, a decision supported by various stakeholders but contested by the state and its supporters who argue it oversteps judicial authority.
Attorneys debated the Montana Constitution’s environmental protections and separation of powers in a major climate lawsuit. The Montana Supreme Court heard arguments on whether state agencies should include climate analyses in fossil fuel project reviews.
Held v. Montana was filed by 16 young Montanans in 2020, claiming the state failed to ensure their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by not assessing the climate impact of projects like coal plants and oil pipelines.
During a seven-day trial in June, plaintiffs argued that approved projects worsened wildfire seasons, reduced snowpacks, and increased extreme weather, harming their health and economic security.
In August, Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Her 103-page decision noted Montana’s role in climate harm and mandated greenhouse gas analyses in environmental reviews. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality is already implementing these changes.
During the hearing, state attorneys, including Dale Schowengerdt, argued that addressing climate change through the courts oversteps judicial power and is a political issue. They cited the Ninth Circuit’s stance in Juliana v. United States, which favored the federal government.
Representing the youths, Roger Sullivan argued that the Supreme Court must decide the constitutionality of laws at the heart of this case, emphasizing the Montana Constitution’s clear environmental protections.
State attorneys argued that eliminating Montana’s fossil fuel use wouldn’t impact the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, questioning their legal standing to sue. Establishing standing requires linking injuries to the defendant’s actions and showing that changing those actions could alleviate harm.
The state’s appeal is backed by the Treasure State Resources Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Frontier Institute, Northwestern Energy, and the Montana Legislature, which believe the district court is overreaching into policy-making roles.
Supporters of the district court’s findings include members of Montana’s outdoor recreation industry, public health experts, constitutional and environmental law professors, and conservation and tribal groups. Six retired Montana Supreme Court justices also supported limiting legislative overreach to protect separation of powers.
Sullivan stressed the urgency of the climate crisis and the Supreme Court’s role in addressing constitutional harms. He criticized recent changes to the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which restrict climate analyses and access to judicial remedies, calling it a hindrance to addressing the climate crisis.
Justice Jim Rice questioned whether the issue was “ripe” for judicial interpretation without a specific energy project challenge. Sullivan insisted the climate crisis demands immediate action. Rice noted similarities to another case involving NorthWestern Energy’s gas plant in Laurel, which also debates the constitutionality of state restrictions on greenhouse gas analyses.
After the hearing, Andrea Olson of Our Children’s Trust highlighted the need for comprehensive solutions to the climate crisis, beyond piecemeal legal challenges.
The justices did not announce when they would deliver their decision.
—
Read More Montana News
