In an opinion published on December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court found that a provision in the Montana Constitution providing for the right to a “clean and healthful environment” guarantees the right to a stable climate system.  In Held v. State of Montana, 2024 MT 312 (Mont. 2024), the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court decision striking down state law provisions that barred state agencies from considering greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in permitting decisions, finding the law violates the environmental rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution.

Montana’s Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”) was promulgated in 1971, imposing requirements for state agencies to conduct environmental review of “major actions of state government significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”  See Section 75010201(1)(b)(iv), MCA.  In 2011, the State enacted a provision referred to as the MEPA Limitation, which prohibited state agencies from considering GHG emissions and corresponding impacts to climate change that would result from permitted activities unless required to do so by a federal agency. See Sections 75-1-201(2)(a); 90-4-1001(1)(c)–(g), MCA (2011).

Plaintiffs in Held consisted of a group of sixteen children ranging from two to eighteen years old.  Plaintiffs sued the State alleging that the MEPA Limitation violated their right under the Montana Constitution to a clean and healthful environment by promoting fossil fuel development and prohibiting consideration of GHG emissions or climate change in environmental reviews.  Specifically, Article II, Section 3 of the Montana Constitution provides “the right to a clean and healthful environment” and Article IX, Section 1 provides that “[t]he state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations” and “[t]he legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”

In 2023 a bench trial was held and a Montana trial court found “overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus” showing that global warming is occurring and is the direct result of GHG emissions.  The trial court found that by prohibiting state agencies from considering the impacts of GHG emissions, the MEPA Limitation violated the Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment.

On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that “Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system[.]”  The Court found that the trial court had “made extensive, undisputed findings of fact that GHG emissions are drastically altering and degrading Montana’s climate” and causing various forms of environmental harm.  

While the State argued that the framers of the Constitution did not specifically contemplate climate change and therefore the Constitution did not provide for a right to a stable climate, the Court rejected the State’s argument, holding that the Montana Constitution is “a living thing, designed to meet the needs of a progressive society.” Considering the provisions’ legislative history, the Court found that the framers of the Montana Constitution intended to provide “the strongest, all-encompassing environmental protections in the nation, both anticipatory and preventative, for present and future generations.”  The Court found that by limiting review of climate impacts, the MEPA Limitation undermined the ability of the State to address climate change, stating “MEPA mandates that the State take a ‘hard look at the environmental consequences of its actions’ before it leaps, which is impossible when the State intentionally refuses to consider an entire area of significant environmental consequences.”  The Court further found that the State could not “foreclose[] an entire area of review proven to be harmful to Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment.”

The Court also rejected the State's argument that invalidating the MEPA Limitation would not redress the Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries because it would have little overall impact on climate change, finding that Plaintiffs had demonstrated that the MEPA limitation “impacts their right by prohibiting an analysis of GHG emissions, which blindfolded the State. . . . when an analysis is necessary to inform the State's affirmative duty to take active steps to realize the right to a clean and healthful environment.”  While the Court acknowledged that the MEPA Limitation was not the sole cause of environmental harm or climate change, the Court relied on “decades of jurisprudence from this Court and the United States Supreme Court that hold an injury caused in part by a challenged action is redressable even if it does not redress the injury in full.”  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court decision that the MEPA Limitation was unconstitutional because it arbitrarily excluded GHG emissions from environmental review, thereby violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. 

The decision in Held renders Montana the second state to explicitly enshrine climate-related rights in its Constitution, following Hawaii.  While the decision may spur similar litigation in other states which have constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to a clean environment, the Held decision is likely to be narrowly applied as the Plaintiffs’ challenge centered on a specific legislative provision prohibiting consideration of GHG emissions and the Court’s holding merely permits state decision makers to consider GHG emissions and climate impacts of proposed projects, rather than imposes any positive or substantive climate-related obligations.

Share | Email| Print| Comments|  Topics: Air, Citizens Suit, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Montana