HELENA, MONTANA – JUNE 12: Supporters gather at a theater next to the court house to watch the court … [+] proceedings for the nation’s first youth climate change trial at Montana’s First Judicial District Court on June 12, 2023 in Helena, Montana. Sixteen plaintiffs, ranging in age from 6 to 22, are suing the state for promoting fossil fuel energy policies that they say violate their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment”. (Photo by William Campbell/Getty Images)
A judge ruled that Montana state officials have violated the constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.” However, it is not the sweeping win some claim.
The case, Held v. Montana, was brought in 2020 by Our Children’s Trust on behalf of 16 youth ranging from age two to 18. This is the same group that brought the case Juliana v. U.S. The plaintiff’s allege that Montana officials had enacted policies which favored the fossil fuel industry and violated the citizens’ right to a healthy environment. District Court Judge Kathy Seeley agreed, finding that the state’s policies which prohibit the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil fuel permits was unconstitutional.
In her opinion, Judge Seeley stated, citizens of Montana “have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system.” This has led many to believe the ruling will have nationwide repercussions. However, a further examination of the case shows it is very limited.
The use of the phrases “unconstitutional” and “constitutional right” is accurate, but also misleading. For most, when they hear about a constitutional right, they immediately think of the Constitution of the United States’ Bill of Rights. They may also think of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process right to “life, liberty, or property.” That is what the Juliana case is based on. Held is different.
Held is based on the Constitution of the State of Montana. Specifically, a 1972 amendment to the state constitution.
Article IX, Section 1 states: “(1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”
The language is rather unique. It is what advocates call a green amendment, or an amendment to a state constitution that creates a right to a healthful environment. Language like this only exists in two other state constitutions. Pennsylvania passed theirs first in 1971. New York added environmental rights to their constitution in 2021. Only in those three states does a right to a clean and healthful environment exist. Even then, the interpretation of that right by a Montana court may not impact how those state courts interpret the language.
It is important to understand how courts work. If this was a challenge under the U.S. Constitution, like Juliana, that would be tried in federal district court. Federal courts have narrow jurisdiction on what they can hear, but broader repercussions. Opinions by the federal court could be limited to the specific case, or be applied nationwide. However, federal courts cannot settle matters of interpretation of state law. That right belongs exclusively to the highest court of the state. The concept is simply that states have the right to write and interpret their own laws, as long as those laws are not in conflict with the U.S Constitution.
In Montana, a case of this type begins in a District Court. It can then be challenged to the Montana Supreme Court, which is the highest court of the state. If the Montana Supreme Court hears a challenge, that ruling will be the final ruling. That ruling will only apply to Montana.
Held is a case about interpretation of the Montana State Constitution. Judge Seely is a Montana District Court Judge. Her opinion can, and most likely will, be appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. It is then we will see a final resolution of the case.
Traditionally, the state courts are very unlikely to consider the opinion of a district judge in another state when faced with a similar case. The opinion of the highest court may have more credibility, but it is not considered a binding opinion. Meaning, they can just ignore it, or they can quote it in agreement, but will still need justification under their own state laws.
The Montana case is groundbreaking, a first of its kind victory for environmental protections against climate change, but don’t get fooled by it being a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right in Montana, and only in Montana. If New York and Pennsylvania courts choose to interpret their constitutional language the same, it will be a constitutional right there as well.
The real repercussions nationwide could be the opposite of what environmental activists are hoping. Green amendments are currently under consideration in nine other states. The Montana ruling could fuel opponents and have a chilling effect on the ability to enact similar amendments around the country.
