One week before Christmas, the Montana Supreme Court delivered a landmark gift to sixteen youth plaintiffs in Head, et al., v. State of Montana, et al., 2024 MT 300 (Mont. 2024), holding that the State of Montana violated their constitutional rights to a clean environment. The court found that Montana’s failure to consider the global climate change impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from oil, gas, and coal projects under the Montana Environmental Procedure Act (MEPA) to be unconstitutional.
Four years ago, the youth plaintiffs sued the State of Montana, various state officials, and state agencies, challenging the constitutionality of a state law that excluded greenhouse gas emissions from environmental reviews under MEPA (the MEPA Limitation). Montana argued that emissions from fossil fuel use and development within the state had a negligible impact on global climate change and, therefore, did not need to be considered under the state’s Constitution or MEPA. However, in 2023, the district court ruled against Montana, stating that Article II, Section 3, and Article IX of the Montana Constitution guarantee a right to a “clean and healthful environment” and an “environmental life support system.” The State of Montana appealed.
In a 6-1 decision, the Montana Supreme Court first addressed the issue of standing before moving on to the substantive constitutional issue. The Court ruled that plaintiffs’ alleged injury to their constitutional right to a clean environment was a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to confer standing. One Justice dissented, reasoning that because the MEPA Limitation was strictly procedural and was not applied to an identified agency action, it could not have caused plaintiffs’ alleged injury, which would occur, if at all, when there was final agency action.
After upholding plaintiffs’ standing, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that they had a constitutional right to a clean environment. The Court reasoned that the broad environmental protection language in Montana’s Constitution, which mandates the state to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment,” prevented the state from ignoring the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions during formal permit reviews under MEPA, even if those impacts on global climate change were deemed insignificant. Because the MEPA Limitation prevented the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change, the Court held it to be unconstitutional.
As a result of the Head decision, Montana must now consider the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change each time it issues a permit or develops a rule addressing those emissions. Those in favor of policies aimed at increasing Montana’s energy production argue that the decision will unnecessarily delay and, in some cases, prevent fossil fuel development projects while not providing any identifiably benefits to global climate change.
Although the Head decision applies only to Montana, environmental groups will use the decision and its language as a blueprint for future litigation in other states. Currently, seven states have language in their state constitutions regarding protection of the environment. Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania provide their citizens with a guaranteed right to clean environments. Like Montana, Illinois also includes an affirmative duty by the state to provide and maintain a healthy environment. Although Rhode Island does not include clean environment as a right or a state duty, it recognizes the importance of protecting the environment. These states are now likely targets for the environmental groups pushing the climate change agenda.
