June 11th 2024 | Lydia Yu
Edited by Jill Ji
In August 2023, a landmark environmental decision was established in Held v. Montana, setting a precedent for future climate-related cases as the need to overturn frameworks rooted in unsustainable practices becomes more urgent and imperative to combat. Over a dozen young plaintiffs, aged 5 to 22, sued the state of Montana for violating their right to “a clean and healthful environment,” as stated in Article II, section 3 of the Montana state constitution under Inalienable Rights (NPR 2023). Judge Kathy Seely of the Lewis and Clark District Court found the state law exempting the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from adhering to air quality and emissions standards when authorizing or changing permits to be unconstitutional.
The policy found to be unconstitutional was signed into law in May 2023 by Governor Gianforte. The catalyzing issue that ignited demand for this law was the construction of a natural gas plant in Laurel, Montana, and the earlier trial, Montana Environmental Information Center v. Department of Environmental Quality (Ehrlick 2023). In April, environmental groups Earthjustice and the Montana Environmental Center sued the DEQ for its inadequate analysis of the power plant’s impacts on the climate. After further investigation, this plant was found to be faulty for disregarding its overly high carbon dioxide emissions, projected to produce 769,706 tons annually, and 23.1 million tons over its lifetime of 30 years (Ehrlick 2023). The defendants of the DEQ cited a specific clause of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), dubbed the Climate Change Exception, which asserts the DEQ should not consider the environmental consequences of a project that extends beyond the state’s borders. The judge sided with the plaintiffs, stating that “They [DEQ] did not take any sort of look at the [ecological] impacts because of their misinterpretation of the statute” (Budryk 2023). Thus, the judge suspended this project’s construction. However, this decision kindled momentum to change the law, also known as House Bill 971, challenged by Held v. Montana. This law allowed the DEQ to be exempt from Montana Title 75, no longer having to conform with the Clean Air Act of Montana, the Strip and Underground Mine Siting Act, Coal and Uranium Mine Reclamation, and so on. Held v. Montana was filed in March 2020, but in the light of recent events of MEIC v. DEQ, the trial included much discussion of the constitutionality of MEPA’s climate change exception and HB 971.
The rule on Held v. Montana was that the State Energy Policy, including HB 971, is unconstitutional, undermining the plaintiffs’ right to a clean environment. However, the court found the harms simply redressable by declaratory relief, concurring with the defense that ordering a remedial plan would violate the Political Question Doctrine. The significance of this decision is that it is the first of its kind in the United States, establishing precedent—although it is not federal precedent. Due to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, on the federal level, climate cases have been more regressive. For example, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court asserted that the use of the 1970 Clean Air Act to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority in controlling state-level greenhouse gas emissions is unconstitutional (Supreme Court 2022). The decision is based on the claim that the EPA is too unchecked: “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.” The overall federal backsliding highlights the need for passing Held v. Montana as an important step forward in the domestic environmental movement, as a morale booster and precedent.
Julia Olson, an attorney for the plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, stated that “[The] ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.” The DEQ has also announced that it will seek Montanans’ suggestions on updates to MEPA. But this is simply not enough. Since Judge Seely did not specify the next courses of action to modify the policies, the task falls to the conservative-dominated legislature. Already, in October, the Montana Attorney General filed a notice of appeal against Judge Seely’s decision, planning to present before the state Supreme Court (Miller 2023).
Worldwide, there have been similar efforts to establish the right to a healthy environment. A Brazilian climate case submission to the Supreme Federal Court in case ADPF 708 summarizes this phenomenon: “Prominent court decisions that have found violations of the right to a healthy environment include cases involving: damage to the habitat of an endangered species (Costa Rica, Greece and India); water pollution caused by mining (Chile, Colombia and the state of Montana, United States of America); deforestation (Colombia, Mexico and Philippines); extensive air, water and soil pollution (Argentina, India and Philippines)… hydroelectric projects in sensitive ecosystems (Ecuador and Finland); real estate development in biodiversity-rich areas (Hungary, Macedonia, Slovenia and South Africa); and an agricultural project in a protected forest (Uganda)” (OHCHR 2023). All of these cases, hailing from five continents, assert the interdependence and correlation between climate change, its effects on human health, people’s livelihoods, and the threat it poses to future generations. In 2022, the General Assembly of the United Nations added The Right to a Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment as a fundamental human right (OHCHR 2023).
Although the scientific community has conducted numerous studies on the causes and effects of anthropogenic climate change, there are still many deniers of this reality. Conspiracy theories run rampant on social media platforms. Corporations engage in green-washing, manipulating and misleading their consumers about the environmental impacts of their products. Governments contradict their promises of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many other cases limit our chances of tackling climate change, like West Virginia v. EPA and the appeal against Held v. Montana. Despite promises of cooperation in annual COP meetings, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Accords, the world continues to warm from the inaction of corporations and governments. To fight for our chance of survival and for our future, we need to continue to hold them accountable in the only way possible—lawsuits.
Sources:
Budryk, Zack. “Montana Appeals Landmark Climate Change Ruling in Case Brought by Young Advocates.” The Hill, October 2, 2023. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4234450-montana-appeals-landmark-climate-change-ruling-in-case-brought-by-young-advocates/.
Ehrlick, Darrell. “Judge Rules DEQ Failed to Properly Analyze Potential Harm from Laurel Generation Station.” Daily Montanan, April 7, 2023. https://dailymontanan.com/2023/04/06/judge-rules-deq-failed-to-properly-analyze-potential-harm-from-laurel-generation-station/.
“Held v. State.” Climate Change Litigation, October 10, 2023. https://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/#:~:text=The%20Climate%20Change%20Exception%20provides,which%20the%20State%20defendants%20were.
Michelotti, Megan. “First Constitutional Climate Case Set for Trial Clears Pretrial Conference.” Billings Gazette, April 28, 2023. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/first-constitutional-climate-case-set-for-trial-clears-pretrial-conference/article_0fe762b9-792b-5fc7-979d-b7083684777b.html.
Miller, Blair. “Montana Republicans Take Aim at Environmental Reviews, Regulations.” Daily Montanan, April 15, 2023. https://dailymontanan.com/2023/04/14/montana-republicans-take-aim-at-environmental-reviews-regulations/.
Montana Constitution, art. 2, sec. 3.
Press, The Associated. “Judge Sides with Young Activists in First-of-Its-Kind Climate Change Trial in Montana.” NPR, August 14, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193780700/montana-climate-change-trial-ruling.
“Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing | Ohchr.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Accessed November 19, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing.
“Supremo Tribunal Federal Fundo Clima Case ADPF 708 60 Distrito … – OHCHR.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, September 21, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Brazilian_climate_change_case.pdf.
West Virginia v. EPA (Supreme Court June 30, 2022).
JHULR 
Leave a comment