In 2020, 16 young activists from Montana filed a historic lawsuit charging the state of Montana with violating its constitution by prioritizing fossil fuel development over the health and safety of its residents. The complaint filed by the “climate kids” seized on language enshrined in Montana’s constitution that guarantees Montanans “the right to a clean and healthful environment,” and further stipulates the government is responsible for preserving the environment “for present and future generations.” Though the case has been mired in court battles ever since, today Montana’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming a district court decision from last year.

In their case, Held v. The State of Montana, the plaintiffs alleged that a provision added in 2011 to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), aimed specifically at preventing climate change-related impacts from being taken into account during environmental feasibility and permitting reviews conducted by the state, was unconstitutional. That provision barred state environmental reviews from taking into consideration “actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders,” adding that “it may not include actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.”

The plaintiffs also held that the state, through its promotion of fossil fuel use and extraction in state energy policy, was failing to meet its constitutional responsibility to Montana citizens.

In its 6-1 majority ruling upholding the plaintiffs’ case, the court used sometimes strikingly affirmative language. Regarding whether Montana’s constitutional responsibility to guarantee its residents a “clean and healthful environment” includes the state including climate-related impacts in its decision making, the court was unequivocal, stating that the “plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future. The State and its agencies have previously acknowledged such current and future impacts to the Montana environment stemming from climate change, many of which can already be increasingly seen today.3 Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.”

The court's ruling also declared the challenged MEPA provision, which prevents the state from taking climate change impacts into account when performing environmental reviews, to be unconstitutional and prohibited the state from acting in accordance with it.

“This is a monumental moment for Montana, our youth, and the future of our planet,” said Nate Bellinger, lead counsel to the plaintiffs. “Today, the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests. This is a victory for young people and for generations to come. The court said loud and clear: Montana's Constitution does not grant the state a free pass to ignore climate change because others fail to act--this landmark decision underscores the state's affirmative duty to lead by example.”

Kian Tanner, one of the plaintiffs in the case and an avid fly angler, reacted to the news, telling Hatch Magazine “We have hope! Hope for a better future. Hope for a world where our kids and grandkids have the same opportunities to enjoy, and appreciate, a clean and healthy environment. This ruling will have a lasting impact on Montana’s future and the fight against a changing climate. I am beyond overjoyed by the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to hold our government accountable for their promotion of fossil fuels.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.