Statutes for A Livable Future as a Human Right
See the following section to read a student brief on a case that interprets the Montana Constitution.
Montana Constitution Art. II § 3
-
The statute guaranteeing the rights of the plaintiffs is the Montana Constitution, which creates a fundamental right to a safe and healthful environment.
References
Youth and Indigenous Voices in Climate Justice: Leveraging Best Practices from U.S. and Canadian Litigation
This article provides an overview of climate litigation in which activists have brought suits against both private companies and governments, and provides recommendations for future litigations in the US and Canada. This article was written at the time when Held v. State was proceeding to trial.
Held v Montana: the beginning of a climate change lawsuit trend in US state level courts or a one-shot wonder?
This article lists some important holdings and responses to the Montana case in which the court ruled in favor of youth climate activists. Implications of this case for future litigation are also discussed.
Cases that Interpret Statutes for a Livable Future:
Case that Interprets the Montana Constitution
-
Link to the case: https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2024/da-23-0575-0.html
Link to the Montana Constitution: https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0750/chapter_0010/part_0020/section_0010/0750-0010-0020-0010.html
Please note that the following brief was prepared by a student.
Facts: The defendants’ responsibilities include seeing that the states’ laws and constitution are executed faithfully, “ensur[ing] projects and activities [...] comply with Montana’s environmental laws and rules,” and planning and granting licenses for extraction of natural resources in the state such as fossil fuels and timber. It was found that climate change is occurring, resulting in injuries for the state of Montana and the plaintiffs through the depletion and degradation of the natural environment. Rising temperatures are a result of an increase in greenhouse gas, particularly CO2, concentrations. The defendants representing the State of Montana have authorized the extraction, transportation, and combustion of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gasses. Further, a limitation of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) allows permits to be granted without the consideration of their effects on climate change, and explicitly prevents state-conducted environmental reviews from taking into account climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Procedural History: This case was tried in the Montana state First Judicial District Court.
Holding: The MEPA limitation violates the plaintiff’s rights stipulated in the Montana state constitution, and is permanently enjoined.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs, as youth and as individuals, have standing because they maintain special injuries caused by the effects of climate change. The facts established that defendants’ actions contribute to climate change and harm the plaintiffs, and the MEPA limitation effectively “prevents full review of the technologically and economically available alternatives to fossil fuel energy in Montana,” granting the government the authority to favor fossil fuel use in the state. Since a fundamental right of the plaintiffs to a safe and healthful environment is at stake, strict scrutiny is applied to the MEPA limitation. The court found it unconstitutional, as there is a “traceable connection” between the State’s disregard for the impacts of the extraction, transportation, and combustion of fossil fuels, which is permitted under MEPA, and climate change. Held v. Montana holds that the fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment “allows plaintiffs to receive equitable relief before harm occurs,” and therefore that the MEPA Limitation should be permanently enjoined in order to account for harms caused by fossil fuel use and climate change in Montana.