Today, a state court judge in Montana issued a long-awaited ruling in which the court found that the "Plaintiffs have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system" and that "Montana's GHG emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment and harm and injury to the Youth Plaintiffs."  In particular, the court held that a recent Montana law "prohibiting analysis of GHG emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate, as well as how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the Montana Constitution . . . violates Youth Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment and is unconstitutional on its face." 

The principle established by this court case is far-reaching, with numerous and significant implications.  Most importantly, this decision reflects the first constitutional climate case to proceed to trial and resulted in a victory for the plaintiffs.  Such a result will embolden other youth plaintiffs to pursue similar trial strategies--there are already a number of groups of young plaintiffs suing governments based on an asserted constitutional right to a clean climate that requires mitigation of climate change--and this decision will likely encourage further lawsuits.  Further, the principle that a state government's inaction on climate change violates the constitutional rights of its citizens is not only momentous, but offers powerful support for the broader environmental movement. 

However, the immediate practical impact of this legal decision will be relatively modest in scope.  The court's ruling is grounded specifically in the Montana state constitution, which incorporates more far-reaching environmental rights than most--indeed, the Montana Constitution expressly states that "all persons . . . have certain inalienable rights [] includ[ing] the right to a clean and healthful environment."  Few other states have such environmentally-friendly principles enshrined in their state constitutions.  Moreover, while this ruling will overturn recent Montana legislation that sought to prohibit the consideration by state agencies of GHG emissions and climate change when assessing projects and proposals, the ruling will be of limited precedential value--and no direct impact--outside Montana.  Finally, it is expected that this decision will be appealed by the state government to the Montana Supreme Court, which could reverse or otherwise limit this decision. 

Still, even if the practical impact is modest, it is also important not to minimize the significance of this decision.  In particular, this Court's ruling has demonstrated the feasibility of an alternative route to hold governments accountable for climate change, and how to compel certain government action to alleviate the burdens of climate change.  It is likely that other activists will seek to replicate this victory in other venues. 

A judge in Montana ruled on Monday that young people in the state have a constitutional right to a healthful environment, finding in a landmark case that the state’s failure to consider climate change when evaluating new projects was causing harm.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html