Landmark ruling: Montana judge affirms right to clean environment

Young environmental activists scored what experts described as a ground-breaking legal victory when a judge in the US state of Montana said that state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by allowing fossil fuel development.

The ruling in this first-of-its-kind trial in the US adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from the climate crisis.

If it stands, the ruling could set an important legal precedent, though experts said the immediate impacts are limited and state officials pledged to seek to overturn the decision on appeal.

District Court Judge Kathy Seeley on Monday found the policy the state uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to look at greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional.

It marks the first time a US court has ruled against a government for violating a constitutional right based on the climate crisis, said Harvard Law School Professor Richard Lazarus.

“To be sure, it is a state court, not a federal court and the ruling is based on a state constitution and not the U.S. Constitution, but it is still clearly a major, pathbreaking win for climate plaintiffs,” Lazarus wrote in an email.

The judge rejected the state's argument that Montana's emissions are insignificant, saying they were “a substantial factor” in the climate crisis.

Montana is a major producer of coal burned for electricity and has large oil and gas reserves. “Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,” Seeley wrote.

However, it’s up to the Montana Legislature to determine how to bring the state's policies into compliance. That leaves slim chances for prompt changes in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the statehouse.

Only a few states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have constitutions with similar environmental protections.

Montana to appeal

State officials had tried to derail the case and prevent it from going to trial through numerous motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal.

She criticised Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”

“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate," she said. "Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well.”

Attorneys for the 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, presented evidence during the two-week trial that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are driving hotter temperatures, more drought and wildfires and decreased snowpack.

The plaintiffs said those changes were harming their mental and physical health, with wildfire smoke choking the air they breathe and drought drying out rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.