Held v. State

–

On November 21, 2023, the Montana District Court denied State defendants’ motion for clarification and for stay of judgment pending the defendants’ appeal of the court’s August 2023 determination that a Montana Environmental Policy Act provision limiting considering of climate change violated youth plaintiffs’ right under the Montana Constitution to a clean and healthful environment. The court first concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion for clarification because the Montana Supreme Court has accepted the case for interlocutory appeal. Regarding the motion for stay, the district court found that the defendants failed to establish a likelihood that they would succeed on the merits of their appeal. The district court rejected any contention that the relief granted in the August 2023 order was beyond the scope of the court’s power, noting that it had not ordered the defendants “to prepare and implement a remedial climate recovery plan,” but rather had enjoined the defendants from following unconstitutional statutes. The district court also found that the defendants did not establish that considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts in environmental reviews would cause any irreparable harm, finding no evidence to support the defendants’ allegations that such consideration would “undermine Montana’s energy system, increase costs to consumers, compromise grid reliability, or cause any other irreparable harms to Defendants.” The court also rejected the defendants’ allegations that they would bear increased litigation and administrative burdens. The court found, moreover, that the youth plaintiffs would experience infringement of their constitutional rights in the absence of a stay, and that “[d]epletion or degradation of the environment and natural resources also constitutes irreparable harm.” The court also found that the public interest lay “in protecting Montana’s clean and healthful environment and in protecting the constitutional rights of all Montanans, especially the youth.”

–

–

–

–

–

–

In a lawsuit brought by 16 youth plaintiffs, a Montana trial court ruled that a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) prohibiting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding climate change impacts in environmental reviews (the MEPA Limitation) violated the plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution. The court held that the plaintiffs had a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, “which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system.” The court also held that a statutory provision limiting the remedies available to MEPA litigants violated the Montana Constitution because “it removes the only preventative, equitable relief available to the public and MEPA litigants.” The court issued its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order less than two months after the conclusion of a seven-day trial at which the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ expert witnesses testified regarding climate science, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions in Montana, and the impacts of climate change on children in Montana. The court found that “[t]he unrefuted testimony at trial established that climate change is a critical threat to public health” and that the plaintiffs “have been and will continue to be harmed by the State’s disregard of [greenhouse gas] pollution and climate change pursuant to the MEPA Limitation.” The court further found that “[w]hat happens in Montana has a real impact on fossil fuel energy systems, CO2 emissions, and global warming” and that the State defendants’ actions to permit fossil fuel activities with no environmental review of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change increased Montana’s emissions and “exacerbate anthropogenic climate change and cause further harms to Montana’s environment and its citizens, especially its youth.” In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs proved standing to bring their claims based on injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property, recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic interests, tribal and cultural traditions, economic security, and happiness (though the court said mental health injuries “directly resulting from State inaction or counterproductive action on climate change” did not on their own establish a cognizable injury). The court concluded that “[e]very additional ton” of greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated the plaintiffs’ injuries. The court also concluded that there was a fairly traceable connection between the State’s disregard of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the MEPA Limitation and the plaintiffs’ injuries and that the plaintiffs proved redressability because the State defendants could deny permits for fossil fuel activities that would result in unconstitutional levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Citing the Montana Constitution, transcripts of the constitutional convention, and Montana Supreme Court precedent, the trial court held that the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment requires “enhancement” of Montana’s environment and “is complemented by an affirmative duty upon [the] government to take active steps to realize” the right. The court also cited Montana Supreme Court precedent holding that MEPA was essential to State efforts to meet its constitutional obligations. The court concluded that “[b]y enacting and enforcing the MEPA Limitation,” the State failed to meet its affirmative duty. The court further concluded that the MEPA Limitation did not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to present any evidence of a compelling governmental interest for the provision.” The court noted that undisputed testimony established that the defendants could consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and that “clean renewable energy is technically feasible and economically beneficial.” The court further found that even if a compelling interest were established, the MEPA Limitation was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Montana attorney general’s office indicated the State would appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

–

–

On May 23, 2023, a Montana trial court dismissed youth plaintiffs’ constitutional claims challenging Montana’s statutory State Energy Policy, which was repealed in March 2023, but denied the State defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ other constitutional claims. These remaining claims challenge a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that precludes consideration of climate change in environmental reviews. In April 2023, another court held that the MEPA provision in fact required consideration of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on Montana, but several weeks later the State enacted a provision that explicitly prohibits consideration of greenhouse gases in MEPA reviews. With respect to challenge to the State Energy Policy, the court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate based on redressability and prudential standing issues, given that the relief contemplated was limited to a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of statutory provisions. Regarding the plaintiffs’ other claims, the trial court first found that the plaintiffs set forth specific facts to show that their claimed injuries from climate change were “concrete, particularized, and distinguishable from the public generally.” The court said it was not dispositive that other Montanans likely experience similar injuries. The court further found that the plaintiffs set forth specific facts to establish both that there was a “reasonably close causal relationship between the State’s permitting of fossil fuel activities under MEPA, [greenhouse gas] emissions, climate change, and Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries” and that the court could grant relief (i.e., an order striking down the MEPA provision that precludes consideration of climate change) that would redress the injuries. In addition, the court found that there were no prudential concerns that would prevent the court from striking down the MEPA provision. The court also rejected the State defendants’ arguments that interpreting the Montana Constitution’s right to a clean and healthful environment to include a right to a stable climate system would lead to absurd results and “open the floodgates” for private litigation. The court also found that there were no unnamed indispensable parties in the lawsuit, rejecting contentions regarding the suit’s impacts on permitting for fossil fuel-related activities. In addition, the court rejected the State defendants’ argument that the legislature, not the judiciary, should be the arbiter of the MEPA provision’s constitutionality. The court found that the MEPA provision “clearly implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment” and said that “[w]hether Plaintiffs can prove standing and whether the statute can withstand strict scrutiny will be determined after trial.” The court also denied the State defendants’ summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim and on their claims under the Montana Constitution’s right to seek safety, health, and happiness and public trust doctrine. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court said that whether climate change and the MEPA provision affect youths disproportionately would be determined at trial. The court’s decision identified the following material facts as in dispute: (1) whether plaintiffs’ injuries are mischaracterized or inaccurate; (2) whether Montana’s greenhouse emissions can be measured incrementally; (3) whether climate change impacts to Montana’s environment can be measured incrementally; (4) whether climate impacts and effects in Montana can be attributed to Montana’s fossil fuel activities; and (5) whether a favorable judgment will influence the State’s conduct and alleviate plaintiffs’ injuries or prevent further injury.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

A Montana District Court concluded that youth plaintiffs had standing for their claims that the Montana State Energy Policy and the “Climate Change Exception” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate the Montana Constitution—which includes provisions declaring that Montana citizens possess an inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment—and the public trust doctrine. The Climate Change Exception provides that environmental review under MEPA may not include “actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.” The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that their alleged harms were caused by carbon emissions for which the State defendants were responsible, that they had “sufficiently raised a factual dispute as to whether the State Energy Policy was a substantial factor in causing Youth Plaintiffs’ injuries,” and that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that actions pursuant to the Climate Change Exception implicated their right to a clean and healthful environment. The court further found that the harms would be redressable by declaratory relief. The court agreed with the defendants, however, that injunctive relief ordering a remedial plan or an accounting of greenhouse gas emissions would violate the political question doctrine. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, finding that the plaintiffs could bring a direct action in court without first seeking administrative review.

–

–