. On top of this, the group is consulting in a dozen similar cases overseas, including ones in Australia, New Zealand, Colombia, Uganda, and Pakistan. A positive ruling by Judge Seeley could serve as a powerful legal precedent.Montana Environmental Policy Act
, passed in 2011, which affirmatively forbids officials in the state’s Department of Environmental Quality from considering greenhouse gas emissions or other climate impacts when permitting such projects as coal-mining or power plant construction. In May, the state’s Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed“Some people had said that the language in the [original] law was vague and the state actually could consider climate change,” says Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust.
The plaintiffs argue that not only are those laws misguided, they’re flat-out unconstitutional—and on its face, they’re right. In 1972, a state constitutional convention passed amandating that, “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.
“We are at a decision point about taking action on climate change,” testified plaintiffs’ witness Peter Erickson, a climate change policy researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute in Seattle, Wash., on the fourth day of the trial. “The world community has decided that we must.”Publicly, the state has come out swinging against the case.
Lead claimant Rikki Held, 22, confers with members of Our Children's Trust legal team before the start of the nation's first youth climate change trial at Montana's First Judicial District Court on June 12, 2023 in Helena, Montana.During opening arguments, Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell echoed the idea that the case would not have any real effect on the state’s contribution to climate change. “Montana’s emissions are simply too minuscule to make any difference,” he said.