(Article from Climate Change Alert, February 2025)
On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court recognized that Montana’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” implicitly includes a right to a “stable climate system.” Rikki Held. v. State of Montana, No. DA 23-0575 (Mont. Dec. 18, 2024). A group of sixteen youth sued the state challenging a limitation included in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”). Under that limitation, “an environmental review conducted pursuant [to MEPA] may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders” and “may not include actual or potential emissions that are regional, national, or global in nature.” The court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, concluding that the MEPA limitation is unconstitutional and violative of Montana citizens’ right to a stable climate system.
The Court began its decision by focusing on the plain text of Montana’s state Constitution, which provides, “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean a healthful environment for present and future generations.” The decision describes this language as broad and forward-looking. The court concluded that the constitution right of Montana citizens to a “clean and healthful environment” presents an actionable obligation for the state, not merely an aspirational goal. The court also accepted fact findings made by the lower court, concluding that “climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future.”
The Court reached three central holdings. First, the Court found that the sixteen individual youth plaintiffs had standing to challenge the MEPA limitation. The plaintiffs had standing, the Court concluded, because plaintiff sought to enforce a fundamental right and enjoining the State from acting in accordance with the MEPA Limitation would effectively redress the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries from climate change. The Court reasoned that “[i]t may be true that the MEPA Limitation is only a small contributor to climate change generally, and that declaring it unconstitutional will do little to reverse climate change” but “our focus here, as with Plaintiffs’ injuries and causation, is not on redressing climate change, but on redressing their constitutional injuries[.]”
Second, the Court determined strict scrutiny should apply to its assessment of the MEPA limitation. This heightened level of scrutiny applies because the MEPA limitation amounted to a “blanket prohibition on GHG emissions review in all MEPA analyses” and thereby “clearly implicates the right to a clean and healthful environment.” In applying strict scrutiny, a reviewing court will find the law proper only if (1) the government has a compelling interest; (2) the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and (3) the law uses the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
Third, the Court found the MEPA limitation could not survive strict scrutiny. The Court rejected the State’s argument that it has a “compelling interest” in protecting private property rights. Even if this asserted State interest is “compelling,” the Court found the MEPA Limitation is not narrowly tailored to achieve it. The Court explained that the MEPA Limitation arbitrarily excludes all activities from review of cumulative or secondary emissions, which is neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
Notably, the Rikki Held ruling provides that GHG emission evaluations cannot be prohibited outright but it does not outline when or how GHG emissions must be considered in permitting. Future litigation over that question is expected. More broadly, the Rikki Held decision is likely to invite additional litigation by Montana residents seeking to enforce the state’s obligation, as recognized by the Montana Supreme Court, to mitigate the effects of climate change.