Held v. State of Montana, 560 P.3d 1235 (Mt. 2024)

Nature of the Case

Sixteen youth from across Montana, aged two-to-18, sued Montana, its Governor, and multiple state agencies, alleging that an amendment to the Montana Environmental Policy Act limiting review of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was unconstitutional. After the first constitutional climate trial in United States’ history, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed in full a District Court order holding that (1) the Montana Constitution includes a stable climate system in its right to a clean and healthful environment; (2) the Plaintiffs possessed “case-or-controversy standing” to bring a justiciable lawsuit; and (3) the MEPA Limitation and Judicial Prohibition were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored to Montana’s purported interest in balancing property rights and the right to a clean environment.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

This decision came with heavy opposition from Montana politicians, mainly those from the U.S. Republican Party.  Montana legislative officials warned the justices to “buckle up” after the decision was rendered, expressing that reforming the judiciary was a “top priority” for Republican lawmakers.  Montana attorney general Austin Knudsen called the decision disappointing and said the justices “ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate.”  However, Montana courts have a recent history of overturning laws passed by the Montana legislature on constitutional grounds, ranging from environmental protections to abortion access.

Even so, Montana agencies are now barred from acting in accordance with the MEPA Limitation and the Judicial Prohibition, and because this case relied on the Montana Constitution, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is unavailable.  The Montana Legislature may respond by revising procedural requirements for evaluating GHG emissions or allocating greater funding to the Department of Environmental Quality to facilitate such evaluations.  Moreover, corporations that extract or utilize fossil fuels must now consider the impact of GHG emissions before requesting approval for any further projects.

However, in Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality — the first environmental protection case decided by the Montana Supreme Court post-Held — the Court refused to extend Held further.  The Court held that Montana is not required to analyze every potential state action for GHG emissions in every state action though it is required to analyze GHG emission when they would be significant.  In so holding, the Court found the DEQ had not complied with MEPA when issuing a permit for a “natural-gas-fueled power plant,” which had demonstrable impacts on GHG emissions and lighting in the State (though the court declined to vacate the permit).

The Court repeatedly reaffirmed Held and remanded the case for the Department of Environmental Quality to reconsider the project’s GHG emissions, so that such information could be disseminated to the greater Montana public.  Held affirms that Montana no longer has “a free pass to pollute the Montana environment just because the rest of the world insist[s] on doing so,” and Montana Environmental Information Center reaffirms that notion.  Held still provides significant protection for the environment in the future by preventing the State from arbitrarily engaging in projects with severe environmental effects without due consideration. It also made clear that there is already an unconstitutional level of GHG pollution in the atmosphere and every additional ton of climate pollution further degrades Montana’s constitutionally protected environment and natural resources and further injures the youth plaintiffs. This means Montana must take steps to reduce its GHG emissions going forward.

Significance of the Case

Montana is one of the six United States — including Hawai’i, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York — that explicitly protects the environment in its state constitution, though many more constitutions contain protections for natural resources.  While the effect that Held v. State will have on the rest of the United States remains to be seen, particularly because the Court emphasized how the Montana Constitution provided the strongest protections for the environment in the entire country, the ruling, including the detailed findings of fact, will certainly be used as persuasive authority in other climate cases.

Montana Environmental Information Center indicates that the Montana Supreme Court intends to give the Department of Environmental Quality deference in how it reviews GHG emissions in the future, so long as its decision-making is not “arbitrary or capricious.”  But this does not constitute a “free pass,” as the Court said.  Requiring review of GHG emissions prior to approval of projects before the Department of Environmental Quality will have demonstrable effects on the environment of Montana specifically and prevent state officials from ignoring their affirmative obligations under the Montana Constitution. Moreover, the substantive permitting decisions from the agencies must be consistent with their affirmative constitutional obligation to “maintain and improve” Montana’s environment and natural resources.

Furthermore, “case-or-controversy standing” law in the United States presents another barrier from the enactment of similar lawsuits, though here again, Held sets important precedent.  In U.S. federal courts, as in Montana courts, advocates are prohibited from presenting “generalized grievances,” and must allege specific harms to have standing to sue.  In Held, the district court found that the plaintiffs, as children and youth, were experiencing particularized injuries to their physical and mental health, property, financial and property interests, and tribal practices and traditions sufficient to demonstrate standing. The Held standing analysis will be persuasive in other cases when plaintiffs need to prove standing for climate and air pollution injuries.  The U.S. Supreme Court has also found standing in the past for similar suits challenging adverse environmental regulations.  See, e.g., Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978); Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).  Held may inspire advocates to challenge future regulations that harm the environment.

For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.