When Climate Change Becomes Unconstitutional: The Montana Youth Lawsuit 

We often talk about climate change’s impact on our future generations, but have you ever considered that it might be a constitutional rights issue? Well, that’s exactly what a group of youth’s argued in a Montana state lawsuit—and they won.

Past Climate Cases 

As climate change education, activism, and stakes rise nationwide, climate lawsuits globally have more than doubled in the last five years. The vast majority of these 2,000+ cases have happened in the United States, where they have faced a greater struggle, where especially those led by younger generations. The UN Environment Program reported 14 such youth-led cases being dismissed by July of this year. 

The Montana youth group’s attorney, Julia Olson is the executive director of environmental group Our Children’s Trust. With experience filing lawsuits similar to this one across the US since 2011, Olsen describes this lawsuit as “a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”

The Lawsuit

So what makes the Montana lawsuit so special?

This June, 16 young Montanans, ranging from age five to twenty-two, brought the nation’s first constitutional and first youth-led climate lawsuit to go to trial by suing the Montana state government for their endorsement of fossil fuels. 

Montana maintains the national largest recoverable coal reserves, and according to one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project. Specifically, this trial targets a state law which disallows the acknowledgement or evaluation of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions before handing out such a permit. 

The constituents proposed that this law be considered unconstitutional, accusing its climate change impacts of contributing to negative health and well-being. 

Sharing personal stories of wildfire-based asthma, droughts affecting family farms, impacted Native American ceremonies and food sources, and the mental tolls of living in increasingly unsafe and polluted environments under the impending threat of climate change, the plaintiffs and their witnesses claimed the Montana government was violating their fundamental right to a claiming it was a violation of their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.” 

Twenty-two year old lead plaintiff Rikki Held memorably testified, “I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montana has to take responsibility for our part in that.”

Despite the state arguing that Montana’s emissions were insignificant, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley maintained that this was not compelling enough for not evaluating greenhouse gas impacts. Trial testimony indicates that Montana could feasibly replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030 in an economically beneficial way.

Ultimately, Judge Seeley concluded that “every additional ton of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,” ruling the fossil fuel policy in question unconstitutional and marking a huge victory for youth-led, climate-based lawsuits in the US.

Future Impact

There is no doubt that the Montana case was a unique one. The Montana state constitution explicitly guarantees the aforementioned “right to a clean and healthful environment,” which gives the youth an advantage in the case that may not be present elsewhere, according to experts. 

Yet, the fact remains that state officials attempted to derail this case multiple times, and were only blocked by Judge Seeley herself, who has been called “absurd” and “ideological” for her ruling by state representatives, who plan to appeal the motion.

Nevertheless, whether or not this motion makes it past the fossil-fuel-friendly Montana legislature or not, this trial certainly had a substantial impact on climate political action, which is so often an uphill process. The publicity of the event and the youth voices involved continue to highlight the importance of climate change’s public health and political ramifications. 

As we move out of the hottest month in global records in a year of record-high greenhouse gases, it remains important to consider the way we talk about climate change—what its effects mean for public health, safety, and rights, and what responsibility we have to address it.