Rikki Held, et al. v. State of Montana, et al.

Helena, Montana environmental law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the State of Montana and others challenging the constitutionality of a statute.



Issues:



Issue One: Whether the Montana Constitution's guarantee of a "clean and healthful

environment” includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and

liberties.

Issue Two: Whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the

MEPA Limitation.

Issue Three: Whether the MEPA limitation is unconstitutional under the Montana

Constitution's right to a clean and healthful environment.

Issue Four: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying the State's

motion for a psychiatric examination under Rule 35.



The world is experiencing a fast rise in temperature that is unprecedented in the

geologic record, with the average global temperature increasing by 2.2°F in the last 120

years.1 Montana is heating faster than the global average and the rate of warming is 7

increasing. Overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus shows that this warming is

the direct result of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that trap heat from the sun in the

atmosphere, primarily from carbon dioxide (CO2) released from human extraction and

burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. See also 350 Mont. v. Haaland,

50 F.4th 1254, 1261–62 (9th Cir. 2022); Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 521–22,

127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455–56 (2007). These emissions accumulate in the atmosphere and may

persist for hundreds of years—causing atmospheric CO2 levels to increase from 280 parts

per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to above 424 ppm today.



These emissions result in extreme weather events that are increasing in frequency

and severity, including droughts, heatwaves, forest fires, and flooding. These extreme

weather events will only be exacerbated as the atmospheric concentration of GHGs

continues to rise. Projections indicate that under a business-as-usual emissions scenario,

Montana will see almost ten additional degrees of warming by 2100 compared to

temperatures in 2000. By 2050, Montana will have 11–30 additional days per year with

temperatures exceeding 90 degrees and a similar loss of days below freezing. Montana has

already seen (and will increasingly see) adverse impacts to its economy, including to

recreation, agriculture, and tourism caused by a variety of factors including decreased

snowpack and water levels in summer and fall, extreme spring flooding events,

accelerating forest mortality, and increased drought, wildfire, water temperatures, and heat

waves.



On March 13, 2020, Plaintiffs—a group of 16 youths between the ages of 2 and 18

at the time—sued the State of Montana, the Governor, and multiple state agencies alleging8

that the State's actions exacerbated the harm they were feeling from climate change and

seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, they sought a declaration that

certain provisions of Montana's State Energy Policy Act, § 90-4-1001(1)(c)–(g), MCA

(2011), and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), § 75-1-201(2)(a), MCA

(2011) (MEPA Limitation), were unconstitutional. At the time, the Montana State Energy

Policy Act promoted the development and use of fossil fuels, and the MEPA Limitation

stated that, except for narrowly defined exceptions, "an environmental review conducted

pursuant to subsection (1) may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond

Montana's borders. It may not include actual or potential impacts that are regional,

national, or global in nature.” Sections 75-1-201(2)(a), 90-4-1001(1)(c)–(g), MCA (2011).

¶6 The State authorizes and permits the extraction, transportation, and consumption of

fossil fuels. Many of these activities result in large amounts of GHG emissions such as the

mining and extraction of coal, oil, and gas; processing, refinement, and transportation of

fossil fuels; and consumption of fossil fuels such as in generating stations. Prior to

permitting any of these activities, the State is required to conduct environmental reviews

under MEPA. Section 75-1-201(1)(b)(iv), MCA. The State used to consider GHG

emissions for these types of projects prior to 2011, but agencies stopped analyzing impacts

from GHG emissions that would result from permitted activities pursuant to the MEPA

Limitation.



Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Montana Constitution's fundamental

right to "a clean and healthful environment” includes a stable climate system that sustains

human lives and liberties and that this right was being violated. Additionally, if awarded9

the declaratory relief that they sought, Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as follows:

(1) enjoining the State from acting in conformance with the unconstitutional laws; (2) an

order requiring a full accounting of Montana's GHG emissions; (3) an order requiring the

State to develop a remedial plan to reduce GHG emissions and to submit the plan to the

court; (4) an order for a special master to be appointed to review the remedial plan; and

(5) an order retaining jurisdiction until the State has fully complied with the plan.



* * *

Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the injury to their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment was violated by the MEPA Limitation, which precluded an analysis of GHG emissions in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements during MEPA review.



The MEPA Limitation, § 75-1-201(2)(a), MCA, is unconstitutional and the State is

enjoined from acting in accordance with it. Additionally, the State did not appeal the District Court’s finding that § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii), MCA (2023), is unconstitutional and its order enjoining the State from acting in accordance with it and it is thus affirmed.



Affirmed.