In a major victory for climate activists that, if it stands on appeal, will be a powerful weapon for in the fight to prevent catastrophic change, a Montana state district court judge ruled that the failure of the State of Montana to protect the environment from the impact of climate change violates the state’s constitution. Montana’s constitution, as amended in 1972, includes the passage that the state should “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” A 2012 Republican backed law prohibiting state regulators from considering climate impact when approving mining projects was ruled unconstitutional.
In her decision, Judge Kathy Seeley wrote that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury.” She argued that the sixteen plaintiffs in the case, ranging in age from 5 to 22, have a constitutional right to a healthful environment.
According to lead plaintiff Rikki Held, who lives on a ranch in southeastern Montana, in August 20th, 2022 alone there were 25 wilderness fires within 50 miles of her home and 2,000 across Montana.
At a June trial, climate scientists testified that increased in greenhouse gas emissions were causing health and environmental damage and their destructive impact was accelerating. Many of the plaintiffs explained how extreme weather events were threatening family ranching in Montana, harming fishing, causing wildfires, exacerbating breathing problems, and interfering with Indigenous traditions.
Our Children’s Trust, which is supporting the plaintiffs in the Montana, is assisting another group in Oregon which has a court case challenging the federal government for failing to protect the environment.
Montana generally has cold and snowy winters, but warming there is at nearly twice the global rate. Glacier National Park on the Canadian border has already warmed nearly 3°F. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts that glaciers in the park may soon completely disappear.
A Republican dominated state legislature with close ties to the mining and fossil fuel industries will determine how to bring state policy into compliance with the court’s decision. A spokesperson for the Montana Attorney General called the ruling “absurd” and announced that the state government would appeal.
The law overturned by Judge Seely banned the state from considering “actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.” In May, Montana Republican forced through the legislature a new law, House Bill 971, that is even more anti-climate. It bars any consideration of climate change when conducting environmental impact reviews. It is not clear how this law will be affected by Seely’s ruling.
With the devastating fires in Maui, the Southern tier heat dome, and the toxic smoke-filled skies in the Northeast and Midwest, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny climate change. With a different United States Supreme Court, it might be possible in the future to secure a Court ruling interpreting the Preamble to the Constitution’s provision to “promote the general welfare” as requiring protection of the environment and action to prevent a climate catastrophe as necessary measures to promote the general welfare.