The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 18) upheld a lower court’s judgment which had favoured 16 young activists who argued that the state violated their right to a clean environment.
In a six-to-one ruling, the apex court found that the plaintiffs, between ages five and 22, had a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment”.
Wednesday’s ruling came more than a year after the decision of a district court in Montana. This is the first of its kind judgment by a state supreme court in the United States.
Why did Montana’s youth sue their state?
The case revolved around a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act that bars officials from evaluating “greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders” when deciding whether to approve new energy projects.
In their lawsuit, the young plaintiffs said the law enabled the government to promote and support fossil fuel extraction and burning, which is accelerating climate change and severely impacting their health and well-being.
Furthermore, the law violated the Montana Constitution, which guarantees residents “the right to a clean and healthful environment,” and specifies that the state and individuals are responsible for maintaining and improving the environment “for present and future generations”, the petitioners argued.
Montana has a long history of mining oil, gas and coal, and it currently has 5,000 gas wells, 4,000 oil wells, four oil refineries and six coal mines, according to a report by The New York Times. Notably, annual average temperatures, including daily minimums, maximums, and averages, have spiked across the state between 1950 and 2015, a 2017 report by the Montana Climate Assessment (MCA) said. “The increases range between 2.0-3.0°F (1.1-1.7°C) during this period,” it added.
The plaintiffs, represented by non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust and other law firms, sued their state in 2020 when they were aged 2 to 18. The trial — the first-ever constitutional climate trial in US history — began in June this year, during which 10 climate experts and 12 out of 16 petitioners gave their testimonies.
What did the district court ruling say?
The district court rejected the state government’s defence that Montana’s emissions are negligible in comparison to the rest of the world’s. In her judgment, Judge Kathy Seeley said the state is a “major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, in absolute terms, in per person terms, and historically” and noted that it releases carbon dioxide as much as produced by Argentina, the Netherlands or Pakistan.
The judge added that Montana authorised new fossil fuel projects without evaluating their greenhouse gas emissions or climate impact, which has caused and contributed “to climate change and Plaintiffs’ injuries and reduce the opportunity to alleviate Plaintiffs’ injuries”. Therefore, she held the previously mentioned provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act unconstitutional.
Why is this significant?
Experts believe that the Montana Supreme Court judgment would further encourage people to bring in similar cases and hold countries and companies accountable for their climate mitigation efforts and historical contributions to climate change.
As global temperatures continue to soar, there has been a rise in climate litigation in recent years. As of December 2022, there have been 2,180 climate-related cases filed in 65 jurisdictions, including international and regional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, or other adjudicatory bodies across the world, according to the Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review. This is a steady increase from 884 cases in 2017 and 1,550 cases in 2020.
Why should you buy our Subscription?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be misled and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package
