Loading
Government
12 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Climate Change, Environmental Science, Public Health, Renewable Energy, Emissions
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Montana State
Court:
Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-2020-307, began on March 13, 2020, when 16 young Montana residents filed a constitutional lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County. The defendants included the State of Montana, Governor Steve Bullock in his official capacity, and several state agencies. The plaintiffs alleged that state laws and policies promoting fossil-fuel development, together with statutory restrictions on environmental review, violated Article II, Section 3, and Article IX, Section 1, of the Montana Constitution. Those provisions recognize the right to a clean and healthful environment and require the State to maintain and improve Montana’s environment for present and future generations.
The complaint initially challenged Montana’s State Energy Policy and provisions of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that limited consideration of certain environmental impacts. Legislative changes in 2023 narrowed the claims before trial by repealing the State Energy Policy and amending the disputed MEPA provisions. After a seven-day bench trial in June 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley declared two MEPA provisions unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment on December 18, 2024, in Held v. State, 2024 MT 312.
Sixteen Montana residents between the ages of two and 18 filed suit against the State, the Governor, and several state agencies. They alleged that state actions supporting fossil-fuel development and statutory restrictions on environmental review contributed to climate-related injuries involving their health, homes, cultural traditions, recreational activities, and economic interests. According to the complaint, those laws and government actions violated Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment.
The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Their requested remedies also included statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised emissions reduction plan, appointment of a special master, and continuing judicial oversight. The State disputed the claims on standing, redressability, separation-of-powers, and other constitutional grounds.
The State moved to dismiss the complaint on April 24, 2020. Judge Kathy Seeley later granted the motion in part and denied it in part, separating the claims that could proceed from the forms of relief the judiciary could not order.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ requests for statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised climate plan, appointment of a special master, and continuing judicial oversight. It concluded that those remedies exceeded the judiciary’s constitutional authority. The plaintiffs were permitted to continue seeking declaratory relief and an injunction against the enforcement of statutes found unconstitutional. The court also determined that they could challenge the MEPA provisions directly without first appealing a specific permitting decision.
During discovery, the State sought psychiatric examinations of eight youth plaintiffs under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The proposed examinations would have examined their psychological histories, emotional distress, school performance, and prior trauma.
Judge Seeley denied the request because the plaintiffs had not placed a specific psychiatric disorder directly at issue. The court also determined that the State had not established good cause for compulsory examinations. Depositions, cross-examination, and testimony from the State’s own witnesses remained available to dispute or test the plaintiffs’ evidence.
Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 170 into law on March 16, 2023. The legislation repealed the State Energy Policy challenged in the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Following the repeal, the State argued that the related claims were moot because the disputed statutory provisions no longer existed. The change removed the State Energy Policy from the matters awaiting trial, although the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the MEPA provisions remained unresolved.
Shortly before trial, Governor Gianforte signed House Bill 971 on May 10, 2023. The legislation amended Section 75-1-201(2)(a), Montana Code Annotated, to expressly prohibit state agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and corresponding climate impacts in Montana or beyond its borders during MEPA review, except where federal law required such consideration.
The State maintained that the amendment changed the constitutional claims that had been pending under the earlier version of the statute. The district court determined that the revised provision remained subject to constitutional review. The plaintiffs were therefore allowed to proceed with a facial challenge to the amended MEPA Limitation.
Governor Gianforte signed Senate Bill 557 on May 19, 2023. The legislation added Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), Montana Code Annotated, which restricted courts from vacating, delaying, or voiding certain permits based on greenhouse-gas emissions or climate impacts unless specified federal requirements applied.
The State relied on the new provision when disputing the relief available to the plaintiffs. Its constitutionality became part of the remaining dispute and was later addressed in the district court’s final judgment.
The district court dismissed the claims involving the repealed State Energy Policy without prejudice after determining that House Bill 170 had rendered them moot. It also dismissed claims based on the aggregate effects of multiple state actions on redressability and prudential standing grounds.
The court denied summary judgment on the remaining challenge to the amended MEPA Limitation. The upcoming trial was therefore confined primarily to whether Montana could constitutionally prevent agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and climate effects during environmental review.
Before the scheduled trial, the State petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for supervisory control. It asked the Court to reverse certain district court rulings and stay the bench trial.
The Supreme Court denied the petition on June 6, 2023. It determined that the State could present its legal arguments through the ordinary appellate process after entry of a final judgment. The trial proceeded as scheduled.
Judge Seeley presided over a seven-day bench trial and heard testimony from 27 witnesses. The plaintiffs called 24 witnesses, while the State called three.
The youth plaintiffs described experiences involving wildfire smoke, drought, flooding, declining snowpack, extreme heat, ecosystem changes, and other climate-related conditions. Their testimony addressed effects on their health, homes, outdoor activities, cultural traditions, and family livelihoods.
Scientific and technical testimony covered Montana’s climate history, greenhouse-gas emissions, public health, renewable-energy systems, and environmental review procedures. Dr. Steven Running and Dr. Cathy Whitlock discussed climate science, historical conditions, and projected environmental changes in Montana. Dr. Lori Byron addressed the effects of wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and air pollution on children, while Dr. Lise Van Susteren testified about physiological and psychological responses associated with climate change.
Peter Erickson presented evidence concerning emissions connected to Montana’s fossil-fuel production, transportation, and combustion. Dr. Mark Jacobson discussed renewable-energy resources and the technical feasibility of transitioning major sectors of Montana’s economy away from fossil fuels. Other testimony addressed economics, environmental policy, permitting practices, and the operation of MEPA review.
Following trial, Judge Seeley issued a 103-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The court determined that Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment encompasses climate as part of the environmental life-support system. It also found that the youth plaintiffs had standing to pursue the remaining constitutional claims.
Section 75-1-201(2)(a), Montana Code Annotated, was declared facially unconstitutional because it prohibited state agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts during MEPA review. The court separately invalidated Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), which limited judicial remedies in certain MEPA proceedings. Enforcement of both provisions was permanently enjoined.
The judgment was limited to the constitutionality and enforcement of those statutes. It did not cancel individual permits or direct the State to establish a statewide emissions reduction plan.
The Montana Supreme Court heard oral argument on the State’s appeal on July 10, 2024. The parties addressed the youth plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of Montana’s constitutional environmental protections, the validity of the amended MEPA Limitation, and the district court’s denial of the requested Rule 35 psychiatric examinations.
Although the district court had also invalidated Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), the State did not separately challenge that ruling on appeal. The appellate dispute principally concerned Section 75-1-201(2)(a) and its restriction on the consideration of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts.
In Held v. State, 2024 MT 312, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes a climate system capable of sustaining human life and liberty. The Court also agreed that the youth plaintiffs had standing to bring a facial constitutional challenge.
Applying strict scrutiny, the Court determined that the amended MEPA Limitation violated the Montana Constitution by preventing state agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and corresponding climate impacts during environmental review. It therefore affirmed the permanent injunction against enforcement of Section 75-1-201(2)(a).
The Court also upheld the denial of the State’s requested psychiatric examinations. Because the State did not separately appeal the ruling concerning Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), the district court’s judgment invalidating that provision remained in effect.
Supreme Court of Montana
Case Name:
Held v. State
Climate
Climate Models
Atmospheric Sciences
Carbon dioxide
Air Pollution
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Reports EIRs
Human Health Risk Assessment HHRA
Behavioral Health
Clean Energy
Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-2020-307, began on March 13, 2020, when 16 young Montana residents filed a constitutional lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County. The defendants included the State of Montana, Governor Steve Bullock in his official capacity, and several state agencies. The plaintiffs alleged that state laws and policies promoting fossil-fuel development, together with statutory restrictions on environmental review, violated Article II, Section 3, and Article IX, Section 1, of the Montana Constitution. Those provisions recognize the right to a clean and healthful environment and require the State to maintain and improve Montana’s environment for present and future generations.
The complaint initially challenged Montana’s State Energy Policy and provisions of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that limited consideration of certain environmental impacts. Legislative changes in 2023 narrowed the claims before trial by repealing the State Energy Policy and amending the disputed MEPA provisions. After a seven-day bench trial in June 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley declared two MEPA provisions unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment on December 18, 2024, in Held v. State, 2024 MT 312.
Sixteen Montana residents between the ages of two and 18 filed suit against the State, the Governor, and several state agencies. They alleged that state actions supporting fossil-fuel development and statutory restrictions on environmental review contributed to climate-related injuries involving their health, homes, cultural traditions, recreational activities, and economic interests. According to the complaint, those laws and government actions violated Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment.
The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Their requested remedies also included statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised emissions reduction plan, appointment of a special master, and continuing judicial oversight. The State disputed the claims on standing, redressability, separation-of-powers, and other constitutional grounds.
The State moved to dismiss the complaint on April 24, 2020. Judge Kathy Seeley later granted the motion in part and denied it in part, separating the claims that could proceed from the forms of relief the judiciary could not order.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ requests for statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised climate plan, appointment of a special master, and continuing judicial oversight. It concluded that those remedies exceeded the judiciary’s constitutional authority. The plaintiffs were permitted to continue seeking declaratory relief and an injunction against the enforcement of statutes found unconstitutional. The court also determined that they could challenge the MEPA provisions directly without first appealing a specific permitting decision.
During discovery, the State sought psychiatric examinations of eight youth plaintiffs under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The proposed examinations would have examined their psychological histories, emotional distress, school performance, and prior trauma.
Judge Seeley denied the request because the plaintiffs had not placed a specific psychiatric disorder directly at issue. The court also determined that the State had not established good cause for compulsory examinations. Depositions, cross-examination, and testimony from the State’s own witnesses remained available to dispute or test the plaintiffs’ evidence.
Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 170 into law on March 16, 2023. The legislation repealed the State Energy Policy challenged in the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Following the repeal, the State argued that the related claims were moot because the disputed statutory provisions no longer existed. The change removed the State Energy Policy from the matters awaiting trial, although the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the MEPA provisions remained unresolved.
Shortly before trial, Governor Gianforte signed House Bill 971 on May 10, 2023. The legislation amended Section 75-1-201(2)(a), Montana Code Annotated, to expressly prohibit state agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and corresponding climate impacts in Montana or beyond its borders during MEPA review, except where federal law required such consideration.
The State maintained that the amendment changed the constitutional claims that had been pending under the earlier version of the statute. The district court determined that the revised provision remained subject to constitutional review. The plaintiffs were therefore allowed to proceed with a facial challenge to the amended MEPA Limitation.
Governor Gianforte signed Senate Bill 557 on May 19, 2023. The legislation added Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), Montana Code Annotated, which restricted courts from vacating, delaying, or voiding certain permits based on greenhouse-gas emissions or climate impacts unless specified federal requirements applied.
The State relied on the new provision when disputing the relief available to the plaintiffs. Its constitutionality became part of the remaining dispute and was later addressed in the district court’s final judgment.
The district court dismissed the claims involving the repealed State Energy Policy without prejudice after determining that House Bill 170 had rendered them moot. It also dismissed claims based on the aggregate effects of multiple state actions on redressability and prudential standing grounds.
The court denied summary judgment on the remaining challenge to the amended MEPA Limitation. The upcoming trial was therefore confined primarily to whether Montana could constitutionally prevent agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and climate effects during environmental review.
Before the scheduled trial, the State petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for supervisory control. It asked the Court to reverse certain district court rulings and stay the bench trial.
The Supreme Court denied the petition on June 6, 2023. It determined that the State could present its legal arguments through the ordinary appellate process after entry of a final judgment. The trial proceeded as scheduled.
Judge Seeley presided over a seven-day bench trial and heard testimony from 27 witnesses. The plaintiffs called 24 witnesses, while the State called three.
The youth plaintiffs described experiences involving wildfire smoke, drought, flooding, declining snowpack, extreme heat, ecosystem changes, and other climate-related conditions. Their testimony addressed effects on their health, homes, outdoor activities, cultural traditions, and family livelihoods.
Scientific and technical testimony covered Montana’s climate history, greenhouse-gas emissions, public health, renewable-energy systems, and environmental review procedures. Dr. Steven Running and Dr. Cathy Whitlock discussed climate science, historical conditions, and projected environmental changes in Montana. Dr. Lori Byron addressed the effects of wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and air pollution on children, while Dr. Lise Van Susteren testified about physiological and psychological responses associated with climate change.
Peter Erickson presented evidence concerning emissions connected to Montana’s fossil-fuel production, transportation, and combustion. Dr. Mark Jacobson discussed renewable-energy resources and the technical feasibility of transitioning major sectors of Montana’s economy away from fossil fuels. Other testimony addressed economics, environmental policy, permitting practices, and the operation of MEPA review.
Following trial, Judge Seeley issued a 103-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The court determined that Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment encompasses climate as part of the environmental life-support system. It also found that the youth plaintiffs had standing to pursue the remaining constitutional claims.
Section 75-1-201(2)(a), Montana Code Annotated, was declared facially unconstitutional because it prohibited state agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts during MEPA review. The court separately invalidated Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), which limited judicial remedies in certain MEPA proceedings. Enforcement of both provisions was permanently enjoined.
The judgment was limited to the constitutionality and enforcement of those statutes. It did not cancel individual permits or direct the State to establish a statewide emissions reduction plan.
The Montana Supreme Court heard oral argument on the State’s appeal on July 10, 2024. The parties addressed the youth plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of Montana’s constitutional environmental protections, the validity of the amended MEPA Limitation, and the district court’s denial of the requested Rule 35 psychiatric examinations.
Although the district court had also invalidated Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), the State did not separately challenge that ruling on appeal. The appellate dispute principally concerned Section 75-1-201(2)(a) and its restriction on the consideration of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts.
In Held v. State, 2024 MT 312, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes a climate system capable of sustaining human life and liberty. The Court also agreed that the youth plaintiffs had standing to bring a facial constitutional challenge.
Applying strict scrutiny, the Court determined that the amended MEPA Limitation violated the Montana Constitution by preventing state agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and corresponding climate impacts during environmental review. It therefore affirmed the permanent injunction against enforcement of Section 75-1-201(2)(a).
The Court also upheld the denial of the State’s requested psychiatric examinations. Because the State did not separately appeal the ruling concerning Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), the district court’s judgment invalidating that provision remained in effect.
Climate Science Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs presented Dr. Steven Running and Dr. Cathy Whitlock as climate science experts. Dr. Running testified about greenhouse-gas emissions, the carbon cycle, hydrologic processes, ecosystem responses, and the relationship between fossil-fuel emissions and climate change. Dr. Whitlock discussed Montana's historical climate record, including long-term trends in temperature, precipitation, snowpack, streamflow, wildfire conditions, and projected future changes based on scientific research.
Pediatric and Public Health Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs called Dr. Lori Byron, a pediatrician, to testify about the effects of climate-related conditions on children's health. Her testimony addressed the health impacts of wildfire smoke, extreme heat, poor air quality, and other environmental conditions on developing children. She also discussed how those conditions related to the experiences described by several youth plaintiffs.
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs presented Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist, who testified regarding physiological and psychological responses associated with climate change. She explained how environmental disruption, repeated exposure to wildfire smoke, and uncertainty about future climate conditions can affect emotional well-being. Her testimony related to the plaintiffs' reported experiences rather than the diagnosis of specific psychiatric disorders.
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Accounting Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Peter Erickson testified regarding greenhouse-gas emissions associated with Montana's fossil-fuel industry. His analysis estimated carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the extraction, processing, transportation, and combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas produced in Montana. His testimony addressed how those emissions could be quantified for purposes of evaluating environmental impacts.
Renewable Energy and Atmospheric Science Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs called Dr. Mark Jacobson, who testified about renewable-energy resources and energy-system modeling. He discussed the technical feasibility of supplying Montana's electricity, transportation, heating, cooling, and industrial sectors through renewable energy technologies and explained how those technologies could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Montana’s Constitution Permits Environmental Claims Before Harm Becomes Irreversible
Article II, Section 3, of the Montana Constitution recognizes the right to a clean and healthful environment. Article IX, Section 1, requires the State and each person to maintain and improve Montana’s environment for present and future generations. The district court and Montana Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs may pursue constitutional relief before environmental damage becomes irreversible when an existing law infringes those protections.
Legislative Amendments Can Narrow a Case Without Ending the Remaining Constitutional Dispute
House Bill 170 repealed the State Energy Policy and caused the related claims to become moot. House Bill 971, however, amended rather than eliminated the disputed MEPA restriction. The district court therefore reviewed the constitutionality of the revised provision that remained in force instead of ending the entire lawsuit after the legislative changes.
Standing Did Not Depend on Proving That Montana Alone Caused Global Climate Change
The Montana Supreme Court did not require the plaintiffs to establish that Montana was solely responsible for global climate change. Its analysis focused on whether the plaintiffs had alleged concrete injuries connected to the challenged statutory restriction and whether a court order could address the constitutional injury created by that restriction. The Court concluded that declaratory and injunctive relief provided sufficient redress for the facial challenge.
The Courts Limited Relief to the Statutes Within the Judiciary’s Authority
The district court declined to order statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised emissions reduction plan, appointment of a special master, or continuing judicial oversight. The relief ultimately granted consisted of declarations that specific statutory provisions violated the Montana Constitution and injunctions preventing their enforcement. The judgment did not direct the political branches to create a particular statewide climate policy.
The Evidence Connected the Plaintiffs’ Injuries to the Challenged Review Restriction
The trial record combined personal testimony from the youth plaintiffs with evidence concerning climate science, public health, greenhouse-gas emissions, renewable-energy systems, environmental policy, economics, and permitting procedures. The courts considered whether the plaintiffs’ reported injuries were connected to a statutory restriction that prevented agencies from considering emissions and climate impacts during MEPA review. That connection formed part of the standing and redressability analysis applied to the remaining constitutional claim.
The claims in Held v. State of Montana changed as the case moved toward trial. The repeal of the State Energy Policy ended one part of the lawsuit, while amendments to MEPA left a narrower dispute over statutory restrictions on greenhouse-gas and climate-impact review. After hearing testimony from the youth plaintiffs and witnesses in several scientific and technical fields, the district court invalidated two MEPA provisions and permanently barred their enforcement.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment on December 18, 2024. The final rulings left the challenged MEPA restrictions unenforceable but did not cancel individual permits, prohibit fossil-fuel development, or require Montana to implement a court-supervised emissions reduction plan.
What Laws Did the Youth Plaintiffs Challenge in Held v. State of Montana?
The complaint challenged Montana’s State Energy Policy and provisions of MEPA that limited environmental review of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts. The State Energy Policy claims were later dismissed as moot after the Legislature repealed the policy.
Why Did the Amended MEPA Limitation Remain Before the Court?
House Bill 971 revised the disputed MEPA provision shortly before trial but did not eliminate the restriction. The district court determined that the amended statute remained subject to a facial constitutional challenge because it continued to prohibit agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and corresponding climate impacts during environmental review.
Why Did the State Seek Psychiatric Examinations of Some Youth Plaintiffs?
The State requested psychiatric examinations of eight plaintiffs after they presented claims involving psychological and emotional effects. Judge Seeley denied the request because the plaintiffs had not placed a specific psychiatric disorder directly at issue and the State had not established good cause under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 35.
What Relief Did the District Court Refuse to Order?
The court declined to require statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised emissions reduction plan, appointment of a special master, or continuing judicial oversight. It limited the available relief to declarations concerning the constitutionality of specific statutes and injunctions against their enforcement.
Did the Montana Supreme Court Review Both MEPA Provisions Invalidated by the District Court?
The appeal principally challenged the ruling concerning Section 75-1-201(2)(a), which restricted consideration of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts. The State did not separately appeal the district court’s ruling invalidating Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), so that portion of the judgment remained in effect.
Climate Science Expert Witnesses (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs presented Dr. Steven Running and Dr. Cathy Whitlock as climate science experts. Dr. Running testified about greenhouse-gas emissions, the carbon cycle, hydrologic processes, ecosystem responses, and the relationship between fossil-fuel emissions and climate change. Dr. Whitlock discussed Montana's historical climate record, including long-term trends in temperature, precipitation, snowpack, streamflow, wildfire conditions, and projected future changes based on scientific research.
Pediatric and Public Health Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs called Dr. Lori Byron, a pediatrician, to testify about the effects of climate-related conditions on children's health. Her testimony addressed the health impacts of wildfire smoke, extreme heat, poor air quality, and other environmental conditions on developing children. She also discussed how those conditions related to the experiences described by several youth plaintiffs.
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs presented Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist, who testified regarding physiological and psychological responses associated with climate change. She explained how environmental disruption, repeated exposure to wildfire smoke, and uncertainty about future climate conditions can affect emotional well-being. Her testimony related to the plaintiffs' reported experiences rather than the diagnosis of specific psychiatric disorders.
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Accounting Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Peter Erickson testified regarding greenhouse-gas emissions associated with Montana's fossil-fuel industry. His analysis estimated carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the extraction, processing, transportation, and combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas produced in Montana. His testimony addressed how those emissions could be quantified for purposes of evaluating environmental impacts.
Renewable Energy and Atmospheric Science Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
The plaintiffs called Dr. Mark Jacobson, who testified about renewable-energy resources and energy-system modeling. He discussed the technical feasibility of supplying Montana's electricity, transportation, heating, cooling, and industrial sectors through renewable energy technologies and explained how those technologies could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Montana’s Constitution Permits Environmental Claims Before Harm Becomes Irreversible
Article II, Section 3, of the Montana Constitution recognizes the right to a clean and healthful environment. Article IX, Section 1, requires the State and each person to maintain and improve Montana’s environment for present and future generations. The district court and Montana Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs may pursue constitutional relief before environmental damage becomes irreversible when an existing law infringes those protections.
Legislative Amendments Can Narrow a Case Without Ending the Remaining Constitutional Dispute
House Bill 170 repealed the State Energy Policy and caused the related claims to become moot. House Bill 971, however, amended rather than eliminated the disputed MEPA restriction. The district court therefore reviewed the constitutionality of the revised provision that remained in force instead of ending the entire lawsuit after the legislative changes.
Standing Did Not Depend on Proving That Montana Alone Caused Global Climate Change
The Montana Supreme Court did not require the plaintiffs to establish that Montana was solely responsible for global climate change. Its analysis focused on whether the plaintiffs had alleged concrete injuries connected to the challenged statutory restriction and whether a court order could address the constitutional injury created by that restriction. The Court concluded that declaratory and injunctive relief provided sufficient redress for the facial challenge.
The Courts Limited Relief to the Statutes Within the Judiciary’s Authority
The district court declined to order statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised emissions reduction plan, appointment of a special master, or continuing judicial oversight. The relief ultimately granted consisted of declarations that specific statutory provisions violated the Montana Constitution and injunctions preventing their enforcement. The judgment did not direct the political branches to create a particular statewide climate policy.
The Evidence Connected the Plaintiffs’ Injuries to the Challenged Review Restriction
The trial record combined personal testimony from the youth plaintiffs with evidence concerning climate science, public health, greenhouse-gas emissions, renewable-energy systems, environmental policy, economics, and permitting procedures. The courts considered whether the plaintiffs’ reported injuries were connected to a statutory restriction that prevented agencies from considering emissions and climate impacts during MEPA review. That connection formed part of the standing and redressability analysis applied to the remaining constitutional claim.
The claims in Held v. State of Montana changed as the case moved toward trial. The repeal of the State Energy Policy ended one part of the lawsuit, while amendments to MEPA left a narrower dispute over statutory restrictions on greenhouse-gas and climate-impact review. After hearing testimony from the youth plaintiffs and witnesses in several scientific and technical fields, the district court invalidated two MEPA provisions and permanently barred their enforcement.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment on December 18, 2024. The final rulings left the challenged MEPA restrictions unenforceable but did not cancel individual permits, prohibit fossil-fuel development, or require Montana to implement a court-supervised emissions reduction plan.
What Laws Did the Youth Plaintiffs Challenge in Held v. State of Montana?
The complaint challenged Montana’s State Energy Policy and provisions of MEPA that limited environmental review of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts. The State Energy Policy claims were later dismissed as moot after the Legislature repealed the policy.
Why Did the Amended MEPA Limitation Remain Before the Court?
House Bill 971 revised the disputed MEPA provision shortly before trial but did not eliminate the restriction. The district court determined that the amended statute remained subject to a facial constitutional challenge because it continued to prohibit agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and corresponding climate impacts during environmental review.
Why Did the State Seek Psychiatric Examinations of Some Youth Plaintiffs?
The State requested psychiatric examinations of eight plaintiffs after they presented claims involving psychological and emotional effects. Judge Seeley denied the request because the plaintiffs had not placed a specific psychiatric disorder directly at issue and the State had not established good cause under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 35.
What Relief Did the District Court Refuse to Order?
The court declined to require statewide greenhouse-gas accounting, a court-supervised emissions reduction plan, appointment of a special master, or continuing judicial oversight. It limited the available relief to declarations concerning the constitutionality of specific statutes and injunctions against their enforcement.
Did the Montana Supreme Court Review Both MEPA Provisions Invalidated by the District Court?
The appeal principally challenged the ruling concerning Section 75-1-201(2)(a), which restricted consideration of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate impacts. The State did not separately appeal the district court’s ruling invalidating Section 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), so that portion of the judgment remained in effect.
Climate
Climate Models
Atmospheric Sciences
Carbon dioxide
Air Pollution
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Reports EIRs
Human Health Risk Assessment HHRA
Behavioral Health
Clean Energy
Geotechnical Engineering, +4
Government
Government, +4
Government