Held v. State

On December 23, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction to consider the merits of a petition filed 13 days earlier by 13 Montana youth who alleged that 2025 amendments to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Montana Clean Air Act were unconstitutional under the court’s December 2024 ruling in Held v. State. The court concluded that the petitioners did not demonstrate why urgency or emergency factors made the normal trial court litigation and appeals process inadequate. The court noted that the petitioners had filed the petition seven months after the amendments took effect. The court acknowledged the petitioners’ argument that development of a factual record was unnecessary due to the factual record already created in Held, but the court found that the petitioners had not addressed why a district court could not address the legal issues “in a timely fashion and permit them to present an appeal in the ordinary course.”

Thirteen Montana youth filed a petition for original jurisdiction in the Montana Supreme Court alleged that 2025 amendments to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Montana Clean Air Act were unconstitutional under the court’s December 2024 ruling in <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/held-v-state_2e16b7">Held v. State</a>. The youth petitioners, who also were plaintiffs in Held v. State, argued in the petition that the 2025 amendments violated their fundamental rights to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution and Held because they “re-blindfold state agencies during MEPA reviews of fossil fuel projects” and unlawfully restrict the prevention and abatement of greenhouse gas air pollution. The petitioners argued that their petition justified an original proceeding before the Montana Supreme Court because (1) it presented an issue of statewide importance due to “ongoing state-wide harms from fossil fuel air pollution,” together with “the high-volume of MEPA reviews” conducted each year; (2) the enactment and implementation of the amendments was “plainly contrary to binding precedent,” including Held; (3) the constitutionality of the amendments presented purely legal questions; (4) “urgent resolution” was required because “every additional ton of GHG emissions emitted as a result of Respondents’ actions exacerbates Petitioners’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries”; and (5) respondents were currently engaged in reviews for large-scale fossil fuel projects and permits and in drafting a “GHG Guidance Document.”