The hearing begun on the 12th of June in a Montana court and concluded 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 alleged that the state energy policy that promotes the development and use of fossil fuels, along with a part of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) preventing the state from analysing how its energy economy contributes to climate change are unconstitutional.
Based on the extensive scientific evidence presented at the trial, the Judge found that the Montana youth are being harmed by climate change occurring in Montana. The evidence of expert witnesses prompted the judge to conclude that “there is overwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG (green-house gas) emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels,” and that “Montana is heating faster than the global average, because higher latitudes are heating more quickly”. The court found that climate change is already adversely affecting Montana’s natural environment.
Expert testimony from paediatric doctors stating that climate change and air pollution are negatively affecting children in Montana and that those effects will worsen in the absence of aggressive actions to mitigate climate change was found to be credible and informative by the Court. Similarly, testimony from clinical psychiatry experts stating that climate change causes psychological harm to Montana’s youth, in the form of anxiety and stress, was found to be credible, as well as evidence that climate change interferes with family and cultural foundations and integrity and causes economic deprivations. “The threat of loss can be enough to cause mental health harms, especially when there are no signs the future will be any different,” concluded the Judge.
The court found that the climate change effects could be attributed to the law the plaintiffs challenged – the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The policy of the act establishes that the state should use all practicable means to fulfil the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, should ensure for all Montana’s safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings, and should attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to the health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
However, MEPA contains a limitation preventing agencies from considering green-house gas emissions and climate impacts for any project or proposal, even to assess whether the project complies with the Montana Constitution. Montana’s Constitution provides that “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment” and that “Montana’s children under age eighteen have a fundamental tight to a clean and healthful environment”. Thus, the limitation conflicts with the very purpose of MEPA and through its enactment, the state is failing to meet their affirmative duties to protect the plaintiff’s rights and Montana’s natural resources from unreasonable depletion.
The court thus determined that declaring the law that forbids the consideration of climate impacts during environmental review unconstitutional would alleviate further harm to the youth. On these grounds, she held the law to be unconstitutional and invalidated statutes prohibiting analysis and remedies based on green-house gas emissions and climate impacts. The court ordered that injunctive relief is appropriate, prohibiting the state from acting in accordance with the statues declared unconstitutional.
However, the Montana legislature repealed the state policies promoting fossil fuel extraction just two months before the trial began. Since judges cannot rule on the constitutionality of repealed law, the state policies promoting fossil fuel extraction are yet to be found breaching people’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. The District Court Judge clarified before trial that she does not have the power to order the state to create a remedial plan to address climate change. Montana’s attorney general said the state plans to appeal the District Court ruling.
Click here for the decision of Rikki Held v State of Montana.