In a major win for Montanan youths, the Montana Supreme Court upheld their R2HE under the State Constitution, recognizing the threats of climate change to current and future generations.
In the US, climate change and the right to a healthy environment (R2HE) have been focal points at the state level. Montana, for instance, enshrined the right to a stable climate in its Constitution. In 2020, sixteen young Montanans (plaintiffs) challenged the State Energy Policy and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) in court. These policies heavily favored fossil fuels, with MEPA containing a “Climate Change Exception” that barred consideration of climate impact in reviews. The plaintiffs contended that these policies infringed upon their constitutionally protected R2HE and equal protection. Their successful case led the state court and legislature to repeal these policies, marking a major victory for the youth climate movement in the US and abroad.
While confined to Montana’s Constitution, the ruling was a triumph. The Court acknowledged that “climate change is already harming plaintiffs” and that younger generations “face lifelong hardships resulting from climate change.” Therefore, despite Montana’s relatively more minor role in global emissions, the Court emphasized that “what happens in Montana has a real impact on fossil fuel energy systems, CO2, and global warming.”
In 2020, 16 Youths between the ages of two and eighteen contested the State Energy Policy and MEPA, citing violations of their R2HE. Montana stands among the few US states integrating R2HE into its constitution through Articles II and IX, guaranteeing “the right to a clean and healthful environment” for both present and future generations, with an obligation for the State and its individuals to “maintain and improve” it. Dating back to the 1970s, the Montana Supreme Court designated these rights as “fundamental,” enabling direct legal challenges. State legislation impacting these rights must demonstrate a “compelling interest” and prove that the laws are “narrowly tailored” to avoid encroaching upon these protected rights.
Invoking the constitutional provisions, equal protection principles and the Public Trust Doctrine, the plaintiffs argued that the government, through its authority, established state energy systems that detrimentally affected Montana’s children, youth and future generations by contributing to and worsening the climate crisis. They contended that the State Energy Policy and MEPA, particularly the Climate Change Exception, violated their constitutional R2HE. Not only did the Energy Policy endorse fossil fuel projects, but the MEPA Exception restricted environmental reviews from assessing the broader environmental impacts of Montana’s energy generation beyond its borders. Seeking an injunction and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs demanded that the government initiate an accounting process, develop and implement a plan aimed at reducing greenhouse gas GHG emissions “consistent with the best available science and reductions necessary to protect youth plaintiffs’ constitutional rights from further infringement […] and to reduce the cumulative risk of harm to those rights.”
In 2023, the Montana government attempted to dismiss the lawsuit by repealing portions of the State Energy Policy, amending MEPA and aiming to prevent courts from halting project permits due to climate change concerns. Despite these efforts, a Montana District Court ruled that the Youth plaintiffs retained the right to pursue their claims. Following a trial, the Court determined that climate change presented a significant threat to public health and linked the State’s actions directly to the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. It held that the State had failed in its affirmative duty to ensure a healthful environment and that their environmental policies neither passed strict scrutiny analysis nor were they “narrowly tailored.” The State appealed this decision in Fall 2023, potentially bringing it before the Montana Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs’ case relied exclusively on Montana’s policies, legislative history and Constitution. Since the constitutional amendments of 1972, the State has evolved its understanding of R2HE through legal cases, the actions of elected state and federal representatives and decisions made by the State’s courts. The Supreme Court acknowledged R2HE as a fundamental right in 1999 and recognized that the Public Trust Doctrine extended to elements of the atmosphere. Constitutionally protected fundamental rights may be challenged directly in the courts, allowing for direct challenges against the government if it fails to uphold or encroach upon those rights. The plaintiffs argued that the State neglected its duty to protect (1) their R2HE, encompassing a stable climate system; (2) their rights to health, safety and happiness; (3) their individual dignity and equal protection; and (4) Montana’s environment and public trust resources.
Each claim was grounded in the Montana Constitution and common law shaped over decades. They contended that understanding the intent behind the Montana legislature’s drafting of constitutional amendments and their approach to climate change required consideration of statements made by Delegates, a Montana Federal Senator voicing dissatisfaction with the Federal Government’s inaction and subsequent affirmations by the state government advocating for action on climate change. In seeking relief, the plaintiffs referenced prior constitutional rulings that had granted declaratory and injunctive relief, along with the development of remedial plans. Their request included the implementation of a new greenhouse gas reduction plan. The Court sided with the Constitutional argument, citing the Montana Constitution, transcripts from the constitutional convention and Montana Supreme Court precedents.
The lawsuit, led by youths, emphasized the pivotal role of rights and responsibilities toward future generations. Montana’s Constitution also extended R2HE to “present and future generations,” mandating that the State immediately ensure a clean and healthful environment while also protecting intergenerational sustainability.
The plaintiffs argued for classifying children and youths as a suspect or quasi-suspect class based on equal protection principles and the duty to protect vulnerable groups. Such classifications necessitate heightened and mindful protection due to inherent, immutable characteristics. The unique circumstances of childhood—marked by limited political influence, reliance on caregivers, diminished autonomy and ongoing physical development—render children and youths more susceptible to rights infringements compared to adults.
The catastrophic consequences of a destabilized climate significantly impact the future of younger generations, who presently lack significant agency and are subject to decisions made by adults. Safeguarding the interests of youths and future generations demanded carefully evaluating shortsighted policies and replacing them with sustainable, long-term programs. This approach aimed to ensure the enduring well-being of generations to come.
The plaintiffs emphasized the significance of the State’s due diligence. While the plaintiffs were politically disadvantaged due to their age, the State was legally empowered and required to safeguard, maintain and improve the environment. However, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which enforces the state’s environmental laws— had wielded its authority in a manner that infringed upon the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The plaintiffs argued that the government defendants —trustees under the common law Public Trust Doctrine— were responsible for managing resources for current and future generations. The Court acknowledged that the State is duty-bound to protect and realize the constitutional R2HE. Including the Climate Change Exception represented a breach of that fundamental obligation.
The Court held that Montana’s state government bears the responsibility to safeguard and uphold the constitutional rights of its citizens. Discussions during the Constitutional Convention affirmed the government’s duty to enhance and preserve R2HE for current and future generations. Despite this clear obligation and legislative intent, Montana enacted the State Environmental Policy and introduced MEPA’s Climate Change Exception, thereby exacerbating the climate crisis. These policies permitted, sanctioned, and promoted carbon emissions through energy generation that heavily relied on fossil fuels and associated activities, directly contradicting the State’s commitment to environmental preservation.
The 1972 Montana State Constitution enshrined R2HE as a fundamental right. In 1999, the State Supreme Court affirmed the right. The plaintiffs asserted four claims before the District Court. The first specifically discussed the defendants’ breach of the independent, inalienable and fundamental R2HE— distinct from the right to health or life. The plaintiffs argued that climate stability should be included in R2HE and that addressing climate change is necessary to uphold the fundamental R2HE. Unchecked warming would cause climate catastrophe and create an environment incapable of sustaining human life and liberties.
The Court cited state precedent and reminded the parties that statutes, policies, and rules affecting fundamental rights must undergo strict scrutiny. The legal standard requires the burdened party —the State in this case— to establish “a compelling state interest” and prove that the action “is narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest.” Responsive to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court reasoned that MEPA implicated the plaintiffs’ R2HE and ultimately concluded that the Act failed to pass the strict scrutiny test due to a lack of compelling governmental interest.
Held’s case showcases the triumphs and promise of R2HE battles fought at the US state level, despite difficulties in the federal court system. While the nation contributes significantly to climate change, some individual states collectively emit volumes comparable to entire countries. Every victory sets a precedent crucial for future R2HE cases. Montana’s comparatively smaller emissions did not sway the Court to excuse the government from its duty. The Court wielded its constitutional powers to uphold R2HE, affirming the State’s duty to safeguard present and future generations.
