The Montana Supreme Court this month agreed that 16 youth plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated by a state law that excluded assessments of greenhouse gas emission impacts for a proposed development project.Six of the seven justices upheld a lower court ruling in Held v. Montana and overturned that policy. Agencies now have to considerclimate impacts in their permitting, but it doesn’t mean they have to denythe permit because of it.Constance Van Kley, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, says that in terms of addressing climate change, the court’s decision is relatively minor. But it is the precedent it sets, and the ripple effect that could have, that makes Held a landmark decision.”It’s going to take additional litigation, future cases, to give us a sense of how significant this case is for the development of Montana’s constitutional environmental rights,” she says.The Held case has made local and national headlines as the first of its kind to go to trial in the country.The lasting impact for now, Van Kley says, is that the state did not refute the reality of a changing climate, and its impacts on Montanans.”If this decision makes it possible to change state processes in permitting — even if it’s unclear the degree to which those changes may reduce greenhouse gas emissions — I do think that that will be seen as a win and something that can be replicated elsewhere.” This decision came a few weeks before lawmakers convene in Helena for the 2025 legislative session. It remains to be seen how the ruling will affect legislation, particularly regarding the state policy overturned in this case.
Ven. Gen 10th, 2025
