猫咪社区

The judge who heard the United States鈥�  earlier this year has ruled in favor of a group of young plaintiffs who had accused state officials in Montana of  to a healthy environment.

鈥淚鈥檓 so speechless right now,鈥� Eva, a plaintiff who was 14 when the suit was filed, said in a statement. 鈥淚鈥檓 really just excited and elated and thrilled.鈥�

The challengers鈥� lawyers described the first-of-its-kind ruling as a 鈥済ame-changer鈥� and a 鈥渟weeping win鈥� that campaigners hope will give a boost to similar cases tackling the climate crisis.

In a case that made headlines around the U.S. and internationally, 16 plaintiffs, aged five to 22, had alleged the state government鈥檚 pro-fossil fuel policies contributed to climate change.

In trial hearings in June, they testified that that these policies therefore  provisions in the state constitution that guarantee a 鈥渃lean and healthful environment,鈥� among other constitutional protections.

On Monday, Judge Kathy Seeley said that by prohibiting government agencies from considering climate impacts when deciding whether or not to permit energy projects, Montana is contributing to the climate crisis and stopping the state from addressing that crisis. The 103-page  came several weeks after the closely watched trial came to a close on June 20th.

鈥淢y initial reaction is, we鈥檙e pretty over the moon,鈥� Melissa Hornbein, an attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center who represented the plaintiffs in the 2020 lawsuit said, reacting to the news. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a very good order.鈥�

Julia Olson, who founded Our Children鈥檚 Trust, the nonprofit law firm that brought the suit alongside Western Environmental Law Center and McGarvey Law, said the case marks the first time in U.S. history that the merits of a case led a court to rule that a government violated young people鈥檚 constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuels.

鈥淚n a sweeping win for our clients, the Honorable Judge Kathy Seeley declared Montana鈥檚 fossil fuel-promoting laws unconstitutional and enjoined their implementation,鈥� she said. 鈥淎s fires rage in the west, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today鈥檚 ruling in  is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation鈥檚 efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.鈥�

The challengers  that they 鈥渉ave been and will continue to be harmed by the dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis.鈥� Similar suits have been filed by young people across the U.S., but Held v. Montana was  to reach a trial.

Among the policies the challengers targeted: a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) barring the state from considering how its energy economy impacts climate change. This year, state lawmakers amended the provision to specifically ban the state from considering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental reviews for new energy projects.

That provision is unconstitutional, Seeley ruled.

鈥淏y prohibiting consideration of climate change, [greenhouse gas] emissions, and how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the Montana constitution, the MEPA limitation violates plaintiffs鈥� right to a clean and healthful environment,鈥� Seeley wrote.

The legislature had previously amended the law to prevent environmental reviews from considering 鈥渞egional, national, or global鈥� environmental impacts鈥攁 provision the original complaint called the 鈥渃limate change exception.鈥� When lawmakers changed the provision again in 2023, the state鈥檚 attorneys said that should have rendered the lawsuit moot, but Seeley rejected the argument in May.

In her Monday ruling, Seeley also enjoined another 2023 state policy that put stricter parameters around groups鈥� ability to sue government agencies over permitting decisions under the Montana Environmental Policy Act. That policy 鈥渆liminates MEPA litigants鈥� remedies that prevent irreversible degradation of the environment, and it fails to further a compelling state interest,鈥� rendering it unconstitutional, Seeley wrote.

At the trial in June, attorneys for the state  Montana鈥檚 contributions to the climate crisis are too small to make any meaningful contribution to the climate crisis. But in her ruling, Seeley found that the state鈥檚 greenhouse gas emissions are 鈥渘ationally and globally significant.鈥�

鈥淢ontana鈥檚 GHG emissions cause and contribute to climate change and plaintiffs鈥� injuries and reduce the opportunity to alleviate plaintiffs鈥� injuries,鈥� she wrote.

She also confirmed the lawsuit鈥檚 assertions that fossil fuels cause climate change, that every additional ton of greenhouse gas pollution warms the planet, and that harms to the plaintiffs 鈥渨ill grow increasingly severe and irreversible without science-based actions to address climate change.鈥�

鈥淛udge Seeley really understood not only the issues of law, but the very complex scientific issues surrounding the climate crisis as well as clearly the impacts on these particular plaintiffs,鈥� Hornbein said.

Michael Gerrard, the founder of Columbia鈥檚 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, praised Seeley鈥檚 order.

鈥淚 think this is the strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court,鈥� he said in an email.

Several other states and around 150 other countries have a right to a healthy environment explicitly stated in their constitutions. This ruling may inspire similar lawsuits around the world.

The plaintiffs鈥� lawyers very effectively put on the stand several young Montana residents who testified how they were personally affected negatively by climate change. Putting a human face on this global problem worked well in this courtroom, and may well be followed elsewhere.

Montana succeeded in narrowing the scope of the lawsuit during pretrial motions. The lawsuit originally challenged the state energy policy, which directs statewide energy production and use, for promoting fossil fuel development, but this year, lawmakers overturned that law and weeks later, Seeley dismissed that part of the case.

The state, which previously vowed to fight the decision if the plaintiffs won, now has 60 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Montana supreme court.

The verdict sets a positive tone for the future of youth-led climate lawsuits.

鈥淭his is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate,鈥� said Olson. 鈥淢ore rulings like this will certainly come.鈥�

Youth-led constitutional climate lawsuits, brought by Our Children鈥檚 Trust, are also pending in four other states. One of those cases, brought by Hawai鈥榠 youth plaintiffs, is set to go to trial in June 2024, attorneys announced .

A similar federal lawsuit filed by Our Children鈥檚 Trust, 2015鈥檚 Juliana v. United States, is also pending. This past June, a U.S. district court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs, allowing that their claims can be decided at trial in open court, but a trial date has yet to be set.

鈥淭he case in Montana is a clear sign that seeking climate justice through the courts is a viable and powerful strategy,鈥� said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

This story originally appeared in and is part of , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.