Description: Lawsuit seeking declaration of right under the Montana constitution to a stable climate system and to compel Montana to prepare and implement a remedial plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Held v. State
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/24/2024 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC for leave to file an amicus brief in support of appellants. 01/19/2024 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Frontier Institute for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the appellants. 01/18/2024 Order Download Motion by Treasure State Resources Association for leave to file an amicus brief granted. 01/17/2024 Amicus Motion Download Motion filed by Treasure State Resources Association for leave to file an amicus brief in support of appellants. 01/16/2024 Order Download Motion for relief from district court's order denied. Montana Supreme Court Declined to Stay Judgment for Youth Plaintiffs in Climate Case Against State of Montana. The Montana Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the State of Montana and other State appellants’ (State’s) motion to stay the trial court’s judgment that youth plaintiffs’ rights under the Montana Constitution were violated by a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that prohibited consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in environmental reviews. The Supreme Court found that the State did not meet its burden of demonstrating good cause for relief from the denial of the stay. Regarding the first factor for a stay—whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—the Supreme Court noted that the State had not made an argument to support its contention that the State “only needed to demonstrate that the case involves novel and unsettled legal questions.” Regarding the second factor concerning irreparable harm to the State, the Supreme Court found that the State did not explain “why it believes it would be exceedingly burdensome to reimplement methods for greenhouse gas and climate impacts analysis when it had previously done so” in MEPA reviews. The Supreme Court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to address whether enjoining a state from enacting legislation constitutes irreparable harm, an argument the State did not make before the trial court. Regarding the third factor, which concerns harms to other parties, the Supreme Court noted that the State did not address the trial court’s reasoning that loss of a constitutional right constitutes an irreparable injury and instead argued that the plaintiffs would not suffer harm because the State would continue to issue permits for fossil fuel projects regardless of whether a stay was in place. The Supreme Court said this failed to meet the State’s burden of showing abuse of discretion. With respect to the fourth factor—where the public interest lies—the Supreme Court found that where each side asserted “a valid public interest,” it could not conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. Two justices would have granted the motion for stay. 01/10/2024 Order Download Motion for leave to file an amicus brief granted. 01/09/2024 Amicus Motion Download Motion for leave to file a friend of the court brief in support of appellants filed by Montana legislators, candidates for office, concerned citizens, and climate scientists. 01/09/2024 Order Download Motion by Byron L. Trackwell to file a second amicus brief denied. 12/18/2023 Brief Download Amended brief filed in objection to appellants' Rule 22 motion for stay of order pending appeal. 12/01/2023 Motion Download Motion for stay of order pending appeal filed by appellant state agencies and governor. 11/22/2023 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae Byron L Trackwell pro se for the appellants. 10/17/2023 Order Download Ordered that appeal may proceed. 10/02/2023 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by Governor Greg Gianforte et al. 09/29/2023 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed. Montana Appealed Trial Court’s Rulings for Youth Plaintiffs in Constitutional Climate Case. The Montana Attorney General filed a notice in the Montana Supreme Court of its appeal of trial court rulings in favor of youth plaintiffs who asserted that the State’s energy-related policies violated their rights to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution. The trial court held in August that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated by a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act prohibiting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding climate change impacts in environmental reviews. -
Held v. State
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/22/2023 Reply Download Reply filed by defendants in support of motion for clarification and stay of judgment pending appeal. 11/21/2023 Order Download Defendants' motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal denied. Montana Trial Court Denied State Defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal in Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Climate Case. On November 21, 2023, the Montana District Court denied State defendants’ motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending the defendants’ appeal of the court’s August 2023 determination that a Montana Environmental Policy Act provision limiting considering of climate change violated youth plaintiffs’ right under the Montana Constitution to a clean and healthful environment. The court first concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion for clarification because the Montana Supreme Court has accepted the case for interlocutory appeal. Regarding the motion for stay, the district court found that the defendants failed to establish a likelihood that they would succeed on the merits of their appeal. The district court rejected any contention that the relief granted in the August 2023 order was beyond the scope of the court’s power, noting that it had not ordered the defendants “to prepare and implement a remedial climate recovery plan,” but rather had enjoined the defendants from following unconstitutional statutes. The district court also found that the defendants did not establish that considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts in environmental reviews would cause any irreparable harm, finding no evidence to support the defendants’ allegations that such consideration would “undermine Montana’s energy system, increase costs to consumers, compromise grid reliability, or cause any other irreparable harms to Defendants.” The court also rejected the defendants’ allegations that they would bear increased litigation and administrative burdens. The court found, moreover, that the youth plaintiffs would experience infringement of their constitutional rights in the absence of a stay, and that “[d]epletion or degradation of the environment and natural resources also constitutes irreparable harm.” The court also found that the public interest lay “in protecting Montana’s clean and healthful environment and in protecting the constitutional rights of all Montanans, especially the youth.” 11/06/2023 Opposition Download Response brief filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. 11/06/2023 Order Download Plaintiffs submitted proposed order denying defendants' motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. 10/16/2023 Brief Download Brief filed by defendants in support of motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. 10/16/2023 Declaration Download Declaration filed by Montana Department of Environmental Quality Air, Energy, and Mining Division in support of defendants' motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. 10/16/2023 Motion Motion filed by defendants for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. Montana Defendants Sought to Stay Judgment in Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Climate Case. Two months after a Montana trial court ruled that a Montana Environmental Policy Act provision limiting considering of climate change violated youth plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, the defendants filed a motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. 10/16/2023 Motion Download Motion filed by defendants for clarification and for stay of judgment pending appeal. 10/02/2023 Order Download Court granted unopposed motions for certification of order as final for purposes of interlocutory appeal and for stay of issue of attorneys fees and costs. 08/14/2023 Order Download Judgment found for the plaintiffs. Montana Trial Court Ruled that State Law’s Restriction on Consideration of Climate Change Impacts Violated Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. In a lawsuit brought by 16 youth plaintiffs, a Montana trial court ruled that a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) prohibiting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding climate change impacts in environmental reviews (the MEPA Limitation) violated the plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution. The court held that the plaintiffs had a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, “which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system.” The court also held that a statutory provision limiting the remedies available to MEPA litigants violated the Montana Constitution because “it removes the only preventative, equitable relief available to the public and MEPA litigants.” The court issued its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order less than two months after the conclusion of a seven-day trial at which the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ expert witnesses testified regarding climate science, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions in Montana, and the impacts of climate change on children in Montana. The court found that “[t]he unrefuted testimony at trial established that climate change is a critical threat to public health” and that the plaintiffs “have been and will continue to be harmed by the State’s disregard of [greenhouse gas] pollution and climate change pursuant to the MEPA Limitation.” The court further found that “[w]hat happens in Montana has a real impact on fossil fuel energy systems, CO2 emissions, and global warming” and that the State defendants’ actions to permit fossil fuel activities with no environmental review of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change increased Montana’s emissions and “exacerbate anthropogenic climate change and cause further harms to Montana’s environment and its citizens, especially its youth.” In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs proved standing to bring their claims based on injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property, recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic interests, tribal and cultural traditions, economic security, and happiness (though the court said mental health injuries “directly resulting from State inaction or counterproductive action on climate change” did not on their own establish a cognizable injury). The court concluded that “[e]very additional ton” of greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated the plaintiffs’ injuries. The court also concluded that there was a fairly traceable connection between the State’s disregard of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the MEPA Limitation and the plaintiffs’ injuries and that the plaintiffs proved redressability because the State defendants could deny permits for fossil fuel activities that would result in unconstitutional levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Citing the Montana Constitution, transcripts of the constitutional convention, and Montana Supreme Court precedent, the trial court held that the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment requires “enhancement” of Montana’s environment and “is complemented by an affirmative duty upon [the] government to take active steps to realize” the right. The court also cited Montana Supreme Court precedent holding that MEPA was essential to State efforts to meet its constitutional obligations. The court concluded that “[b]y enacting and enforcing the MEPA Limitation,” the State failed to meet its affirmative duty. The court further concluded that the MEPA Limitation did not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to present any evidence of a compelling governmental interest for the provision.” The court noted that undisputed testimony established that the defendants could consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and that “clean renewable energy is technically feasible and economically beneficial.” The court further found that even if a compelling interest were established, the MEPA Limitation was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Montana attorney general’s office indicated the State would appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. 07/05/2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Download Proposed final findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by plaintiffs. 06/12/2023 Not Available A trial began on June 12, 2023 and ended on June 20. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with Our Children's Trust and Montana co-counsel at the Western Environmental Law Center and McGarvey Law. Our Children's Trust issued press releases providing recaps of week one and week two of the trial. 06/01/2023 Opposition Download Response brief filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss MEPA claims. 05/23/2023 Order Download Claims involving the de facto State Energy Policy dismissed without prejudice for redressability and prudential standing issues and defendants' motion for summary judgment denied. Montana Trial Court Denies Summary Judgment on Claims that Statutory Provision Barring Consideration of Greenhouse Gases in Environmental Reviews Is Unconstitutional; Trial to Begin on June 12. On May 23, 2023, a Montana trial court dismissed youth plaintiffs’ constitutional claims challenging Montana’s statutory State Energy Policy, which was repealed in March 2023, but denied the State defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims. These remaining claims challenge a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that precludes consideration of climate change in environmental reviews. In April 2023, another court held that the MEPA provision in fact required consideration of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on Montana, but several weeks later the State enacted a provision that explicitly prohibits consideration of greenhouse gases in MEPA reviews.
With respect to challenge to the State Energy Policy, the court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate based on redressability and prudential standing issues, given that the relief contemplated was limited to a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of statutory provisions. Regarding the plaintiffs’ other claims, the trial court first found that the plaintiffs set forth specific facts to show that their claimed injuries from climate change were “concrete, particularized, and distinguishable from the public generally.” The court said it was not dispositive that other Montanans likely experience similar injuries. The court further found that the plaintiffs set forth specific facts to establish both that there was a “reasonably close causal relationship between the State’s permitting of fossil fuel activities under MEPA, [greenhouse gas] emissions, climate change, and Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries” and that the court could grant relief (i.e., an order striking down the MEPA provision that precludes consideration of climate change) that would redress the injuries. In addition, the court found that there were no prudential concerns that would prevent the court from striking down the MEPA provision. The court also rejected the State defendants’ arguments that interpreting the Montana Constitution’s right to a clean and healthful environment to include a right to a stable climate system would lead to absurd results and “open the floodgates” for private litigation. The court also found that there were no unnamed indispensable parties in the lawsuit, rejecting contentions regarding the suit’s impacts on permitting for fossil fuel-related activities. In addition, the court rejected the State defendants’ argument that the legislature, not the judiciary, should be the arbiter of the MEPA provision’s constitutionality. The court found that the MEPA provision “clearly implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment” and said that “[w]hether Plaintiffs can prove standing and whether the statute can withstand strict scrutiny will be determined after trial.” The court also denied the State defendants’ summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim and on their claims under the Montana Constitution’s right to seek safety, health, and happiness and public trust doctrine. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court said that whether climate change and the MEPA provision affect youths disproportionately would be determined at trial. The court’s decision identified the following material facts as in dispute: (1) whether plaintiffs’ injuries are mischaracterized or inaccurate; (2) whether Montana’s greenhouse emissions can be measured incrementally; (3) whether climate change impacts to Montana’s environment can be measured incrementally; (4) whether climate impacts and effects in Montana can be attributed to Montana’s fossil fuel activities; and (5) whether a favorable judgment will influence the State’s conduct and alleviate plaintiffs’ injuries or prevent further injury.05/18/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Brief filed by defendants in support of motion to dismiss MEPA claims. 04/14/2023 Opposition Download Response brief filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion to partially dismiss for mootness. 04/03/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Brief filed by defendants in support of motion to partially dismiss for mootness. 02/16/2023 Opposition Download Response brief filed by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 02/03/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Brief filed by defendants in support of motion for summary judgment. 10/27/2022 Expert Report Download Report of Judith Curry, PhD. 10/04/2022 Press Release Download Youth plaintiffs and their attorneys announced June 12, 2023 start date for trial. 06/15/2022 Order State's request for additional time granted. On June 15, 2022, the district court granted the State’s request for additional time to prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel said a new trial date would be set at a scheduling conference in April 2023. 02/07/2022 Not Available Trial date set. Montana Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Climate Case Set to Go to Trial in February 2023. It was reported in February 2022 that a trial date of February 6, 2023 has been set in the Montana state court lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs seeking a declaration of their right under the Montana constitution to a stable climate system. 08/04/2021 Order Download Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part. Montana Court Allowed Youth Plaintiffs to Proceed with Constitutional and Public Trust Climate Claims. A Montana District Court concluded that youth plaintiffs had standing for their claims that the Montana State Energy Policy and the “Climate Change Exception” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate the Montana Constitution—which includes provisions declaring that Montana citizens possess an inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment—and the public trust doctrine. The Climate Change Exception provides that environmental review under MEPA may not include “actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.” The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that their alleged harms were caused by carbon emissions for which the State defendants were responsible, that they had “sufficiently raised a factual dispute as to whether the State Energy Policy was a substantial factor in causing Youth Plaintiffs’ injuries,” and that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that actions pursuant to the Climate Change Exception implicated their right to a clean and healthful environment. The court further found that the harms would be redressable by declaratory relief. The court agreed with the defendants, however, that injunctive relief ordering a remedial plan or an accounting of greenhouse gas emissions would violate the political question doctrine. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, finding that the plaintiffs could bring a direct action in court without first seeking administrative review. 05/29/2020 Opposition Download Response filed by youth plaintiffs to defendants' motion to dismiss. 04/24/2020 Motion to Dismiss Download Brief filed by defendants in support of motion to dismiss under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), & 12(h)(3). 03/13/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Youth Plaintiffs Filed Climate Lawsuit Against Montana Asserting Violations of State Constitutional Rights. Sixteen young people filed a lawsuit in Montana state court asserting climate change-based claims under the Montana constitution against the State of Montana, its governor, and state agencies. In particular, the case challenges the constitutionality of Montana’s fossil fuel-based State Energy Policy and the “Climate Change Exception” in the Montana Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs allege that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were “already triggering a host of adverse consequences in Montana, including dangerously increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, increasing droughts and extreme weather events, increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, increasing glacial melt, and causing numerous adverse health risks, especially to children,” and that defendants had continued “to act affirmatively to exacerbate the climate crisis” despite their awareness that the plaintiffs were living under “dangerous climatic conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm.” The plaintiffs seek a declaration that their right to a clean and healthful environment includes a right a stable climate system, as well as declarations that the State Energy Policy and the Climate Change Exception violate the Public Trust Doctrine and constitutional provisions that protect the right to a clean and healthful environment; the right to seek safety, health, and happiness; and the right to individual dignity and equal protection. They also seek injunctive relief in the form of orders directing the defendants to prepare an accounting of Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions and to develop and implement a remedial plan to reduce emissions “consistent with the best available science and reductions necessary to protect Youth Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights from further infringement … , and to reduce the cumulative risk of harm to those rights.” -
State v. Montana First Judicial District Court
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/06/2023 Order Download Request for writ of supervisory control denied and stay of trial court proceedings denied. Montana Supreme Court Declined to Intervene in Youth Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Climate Case Against State Defendants; Trial Begins June 12. On June 6, 2023, the Montana Supreme Court denied the State defendants’ request for a writ of supervisory control over the trial court to reverse its denial of the State’s motion. The Montana Supreme Court also declined to stay the trial court proceedings. The State defendants argued that a trial was unnecessary because no material facts found at trial would change the case’s legal outcome and because the 2023 amendments to MEPA to explicitly exclude consideration of greenhouse gases in MEPA reviews had removed the language that the plaintiffs challenged. The Supreme Court noted that supervisory control is an “extraordinary remedy” that cannot be used to circumvent the appeal process. The Supreme Court found that the State defendants did not demonstrate that the MEPA amendments altered the plaintiffs’ allegations or the theory of their MEPA-related claim. The Supreme Court also found that the State defendants did not provide a reason why the district court’s ruling could not be reviewed on appeal. -
State v. Montana First Judicial District Court
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/14/2022 Order Download Petition for writ of supervisory control denied. Montana Supreme Court Declined to Step in to Dismiss State’s Request for Injunctive Relief in Youths’ Climate Case. The Montana Supreme Court denied the State of Montana’s petition for a writ of supervisory control dismissing youth plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief in their climate change lawsuit alleging that the State Energy Policy and the “Climate Change Exception” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act violate the Montana Constitution. The State had contended in a motion filed in the district court on May 6, 2022 that the district court’s failure to dismiss the request for injunctive relief in its August 2021 order on the State’s motion to dismiss was inadvertent. The State filed its petition in the Supreme Court on June 10. Noting that supervisory control is an “extraordinary remedy,” the Supreme Court found that the State had attempted to “manufacture urgency or emergency factors” to justify the relief by waiting nine months to resolve claimed “confusion” regarding the order on the motion to dismiss and “then claiming a crisis exists” when the district court did not immediately rule on its motions.