A constitutional climate trial has been heard for the first time in U.S. history. The hearing has begun on the 12th of June in a Montana court and will conclude on the 20th of June. The challenge was brought by 16 residents against the state of Montana, to protect their and the future generation’s constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, as well as their dignity and equality, both values protected by the Constitution. The lawsuit alleges that the state energy policy that promotes the development and use of fossil fuels, along with a part of the Montana Environmental Policy Act preventing the state from analysing how its energy economy contributes to climate change are unconstitutional.
A similar lawsuit will proceed later this year in the Utah Supreme Court. In Juliana v United States, 21 youths sued the governments for breaching their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by instituting policies supporting fossil fuels and, implicitly, climate change. Youth in Hawaii filed a lawsuit for which a trial date will be set, claiming that the Department of Transportation operates a transport system resulting in high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, breaching the youth’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment and the constitutional public trust doctrine to conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and resources. The Hawaiian youths seek a declaration of unconstitutionality and an injunctive relief bringing the state transportation system into constitutional compliance, based on the best available science.
The U.S. Supreme Court judgment has however recently limited the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency in combatting climate change.
The Petitioners in this case were issued a compliance order by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse their works on a plot of land they owned. The EPA argued that the site contained protected wetlands which fell within the agency’s jurisdiction, having a "sufficient nexus" to be deemed "adjacent" to "waters of the United States" according to the Clean Water Act. The Petitioners challenged the EPA’s decision on grounds that the wetlands on their property were not "waters of the United States".
By majority, the U.S. Supreme Court held the EPA could not assert jurisdiction over wetlands save where such wetlands were "adjacent" to waters of the United States, as set out in the Clean Water Act. Adopting the definition used in the earlier case of Rapanos, the court believed this required "a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between ‘waters’ and wetlands." Policy arguments regarding the ecological consequences of this narrower definition of "adjacent" were dismissed on grounds that the Clean Water Act did not define the EPA’s jurisdiction based on ecological importance.
This decision further reduces the powers of the EPA, which the U.S. Supreme Court had already significantly curtailed in 2022 in the case of West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency. There, the court held that Congress did not grant the EPA the authority via the Clean Air Act to determine emissions caps for sources of emissions (e.g. factories) based on a generation-shifting approach, through which the EPA could require a reduction in carbon-intensive electricity production.