## Facts

- Sixteen Montana youth residents sued the State of Montana, state agencies, and officials, alleging climate-change harms affecting their health, property, recreation, cultural practices, and well-being.
- Montana agencies responsible for permitting and oversight of resource development conduct environmental review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), a procedural statute.
- In 2011, the legislature adopted statutory limits on MEPA review that prohibited agencies from considering “regional, national, or global” impacts, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change; later amendments continued to restrict consideration of GHG-related effects.
- The court found the State long knew fossil-fuel extraction and combustion contribute to dangerous climate impacts and that Montana’s fossil-fuel-related emissions are substantial.
- The court found Montana’s GHG emissions were “fairly traceable” to the statutory prohibition and were a “substantial factor” in causing climate impacts that harmed the youth plaintiffs.
- After Montana repealed certain challenged energy-policy provisions, the case proceeded primarily on the constitutionality of the MEPA climate-review limitation.
- Following a June 2023 bench trial with extensive expert and plaintiff testimony, the court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order on August 14, 2023.

## Issues

1. Whether the youth plaintiffs had standing to challenge the MEPA climate-review limitation based on climate-related injuries in Montana.
2. Whether the Montana Constitution’s right to a “clean and healthful environment” (Art. II, § 3; Art. IX, § 1) protects against climate-change-driven environmental degradation.
3. Whether MEPA provisions that bar agencies from considering GHG emissions and climate change in environmental reviews violate that constitutional right.
4. Whether the MEPA limitation, if burdening a fundamental right, survives strict scrutiny.

## Decision

- The court held the youth plaintiffs had standing because they alleged concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injuries that were fairly traceable to State conduct and partially redressable by judicial relief.
- The court held the Montana Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to a “clean and healthful environment,” and that climate-change degradation falls within the scope of that protection.
- The court declared unconstitutional the MEPA provisions that categorically prohibited consideration of GHG emissions and climate change impacts in environmental review.
- The court enjoined the State from enforcing the unconstitutional MEPA limitation.
- The court declined to order adoption of a comprehensive statewide climate remedial plan, limiting relief to declaratory and targeted injunctive measures.

## Legal Principles

- The Montana Constitution’s right to a “clean and healthful environment” is judicially enforceable and is treated as fundamental for purposes of constitutional review.
- Government action that directly impairs environmental decision-making by requiring agencies to ignore climate-change effects can violate the constitutional environmental right.
- In constitutional litigation, causation and redressability do not require that the challenged state action be the sole cause of a global problem; partial redress of an unconstitutional impairment can be sufficient.
- A statute that implicates a fundamental constitutional right must satisfy strict scrutiny; a categorical ban on considering climate impacts in environmental review is not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
- Courts may grant declaratory and limited injunctive relief to vindicate constitutional rights while leaving broad policy design to the political branches.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment protects against climate-change-driven degradation and that MEPA provisions forbidding consideration of GHG emissions and climate impacts in environmental review unconstitutionally burden that fundamental right; it invalidated and enjoined enforcement of the limitation while declining to impose a comprehensive climate policy remedy.


Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023)