HELENA, Mont. — On Wednesday, Montana’s Supreme Court upheld a groundbreaking ruling that determined the state is infringing upon its residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment. The court concluded that by allowing oil, gas, and coal projects without considering their contributions to global warming, the state is acting unconstitutionally.
In a decisive 6-1 vote, the justices dismissed the state’s claims that emissions from these fossil fuel projects were negligible on a global scale and that reducing them would hold no significant effect on climate change. They likened the argument to asking, “If everyone else jumps off a bridge, would you do it too?” Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who authored the majority opinion, emphasized that environmental rights could be asserted without needing everyone else to cease contributing to environmental damage. “Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless,” he stated.
A handful of other states, such as Hawaii, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, also enshrine similar environmental protections in their constitutions. The lawsuit, initiated in 2020 by 16 young Montanans now aged between 7 and 23, was seen as a significant step forward for young activists relying on the justice system to spur climate action. Lead plaintiff Rikki Held celebrated the ruling, asserting, “This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.”
During the trial held earlier in 2023, these young plaintiffs articulated how climate change has drastically impacted their lives. They discussed how increasingly severe wildfires compromise their air quality, while droughts and reduced snowpack threaten rivers crucial for agriculture, wildlife, and recreational activities, as well as Native American customs.
Following the ruling, attorney Melissa Hornbein, representing the plaintiffs and part of the Western Environmental Law Center, remarked that Montana must now “carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits.” In contrast, Governor Greg Gianforte voiced his disapproval of the decision, stating the state was still analyzing its implications. He cautioned against potential “perpetual lawsuits” that might squander taxpayer resources and increase energy costs for residents.
“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy,” Gianforte declared, promoting a strategy that utilizes both fossil fuels and renewable sources. The day before the ruling, he convened meetings aimed at exploring ways to boost energy production involving various stakeholders including energy suppliers, utility companies, and policymakers.
Republican leaders, including incoming Senate President Matt Regier and House Speaker Brandon Ler, accused the justices of exceeding their authority and encroaching on policy-making. They warned the justices to “buckle up,” as judicial reform was already a priority for Republican lawmakers this session. Recently, Montana courts have overturned several Republican-crafted laws passed in 2021 and 2023 on constitutional grounds, including legislation concerning abortion access.
To overturn the lower court’s ruling, the state contended that the plaintiffs should contest individual fossil fuel permits as they are released, which would entail challenging emissions in much smaller increments. The court’s ruling comes at a time when carbon dioxide emissions, predominantly from burning fossil fuels, significantly contribute to atmospheric warming. In June, global temperatures reached unprecedented highs for the 13th consecutive month, though the trend paused in July.
Montana’s Constitution mandates that state agencies “maintain and improve” the environment. However, a law enacted by Gianforte last year restricted environmental reviews from considering climate impacts unless the federal government categorized carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant. The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling deemed that law unconstitutional, setting a significant precedent for environmental protection in the state.