Held v. State

The Montana Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of supervisory control filed by the Montana, Kalispell, and Billings Chambers of Commerce (Chambers) in which the Chambers asked the Supreme Court to reverse the denial of their motion to intervene in youth plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 2025 amendments to environmental laws. The youth plaintiffs assert that the amended statutes are at odds with the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Held v. State and violate their right to a clean and healthful environment. The Supreme Court found that the Chambers of Commerce did not demonstrate the criteria for the Supreme Court’s “extraordinary intervention prior to final judgment.” The court found that the Chambers’ support for the 2025 amendments during the legislative process did not give them “a direct, legally protectable interest as a matter of law” and further found that the factual record did not substantiate their claim that their protectable business interests would be impaired if they were not granted party status. The court noted, for instance, that the Chambers did not provide evidence of existing permits or contracts that were in jeopardy. The Chief Justice and another justice dissented. They would have granted the writ because in their view “the Chambers have made a minimally sufficient showing of their interests, supported by declarations,” related to the permitting process challenged by the youth plaintiffs. The dissent also stated that there should not be a presumption that the government defendants would adequately represent the economic interests of the Chambers and their members.