Montana’s young plaintiffs win climate change lawsuit: Why they sued the state; rise of climate litigation

It is the first time that a US court has held a government responsible for breaching the constitution based on climate change. The judgement could further invigorate the environmental movement and also influence thousands of pending climate change lawsuits in the country. Moreover, the development comes as climate litigation is on the rise across the world. Reports suggest that the number of cases like the Montana climate change lawsuit has more than doubled since 2017.

Why did Montana’s youth sue their state?

The case revolved around a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act that bars officials from evaluating “greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders” when deciding whether to approve new energy projects.

In their lawsuit, the young plaintiffs said the law enabled the government to promote and support fossil fuel extraction and burning, which is accelerating climate change and severely impacting their health and well-being. Furthermore, the law violated the Montana Constitution, which guarantees residents “the right to a clean and healthful environment,” and specifies that the state and individuals are responsible for maintaining and improving the environment “for present and future generations”, the petitioners argued.

Montana has a long history of mining oil, gas and coal, and it currently has 5,000 gas wells, 4,000 oil wells, four oil refineries and six coal mines, according to a report by The New York Times. Notably, annual average temperatures, including daily minimums, maximums, and averages, have spiked across the state between 1950 and 2015, a 2017 report by the Montana Climate Assessment (MCA) said. “The increases range between 2.0-3.0°F (1.1-1.7°C) during this period,” it added.

The plaintiffs, represented by non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust and other law firms, sued their state in 2020 when they were aged 2 to 18. The trial — the first-ever constitutional climate trial in US history — began in June this year, during which 10 climate experts and 12 out of 16 petitioners gave their testimonies.

What did the ruling say?

Judge Seeley rejected the state government’s defence that Montana’s emissions are negligible in comparison to the rest of the world’s. She said the state is a “major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, in absolute terms, in per person terms, and historically” and noted that it releases carbon dioxide as much as produced by Argentina, the Netherlands or Pakistan.

The judge added that Montana authorised new fossil fuel projects without evaluating their greenhouse gas emissions or climate impact, which has caused and contributed “to climate change and Plaintiffs’ injuries and reduce the opportunity to alleviate Plaintiffs’ injuries”. Therefore, she held the previously mentioned provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act unconstitutional.

What happens now?

The ruling mandates Montana to consider climate change before approving any new energy projects. But experts anticipate the state to soon challenge the decision, which would send the case to the Montana Supreme Court. The state attorney’s office, on Monday, called the ruling “absurd but not surprising” and labelled the trial a “publicity stunt”.

Regardless of the ultimate result, the Monday judgement is expected to have a ripple effect across America. It may encourage similar rulings in pending climate change lawsuits in states such as Hawaii, Utah and Virginia — they all provide constitutional guarantees of a clean and healthful environment to their residents like Montana.

“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos. This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate. More rulings like this will certainly come,” said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and executive director, Our Children’s Trust, on Monday.

How is climate litigation on the rise around the world?

The Montana climate change lawsuit is just one of numerous such litigations around the world. More and more people have, in recent years, sued governments, fossil fuel companies and other greenhouse gas emitters to hold them accountable for causing climate harm.

As of December 2022, there have been 2,180 climate-related cases filed across the globe — a significant rise from 884 cases in 2017 and 1,550 cases in 2020, according to a recent report by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. While most of the lawsuits were filed in the US, 17 per cent of the total cases have reached courts in developing countries. In India, 11 such lawsuits have been filed, the report added.

The cases fall broadly into six categories: cases relying on human rights enshrined in international law and national constitutions; challenges to domestic non-enforcement of climate-related laws and policies; litigants seeking to keep fossil fuels in the ground; advocates for greater climate disclosures and an end to greenwashing; claims addressing corporate liability and responsibility for climate harms; and claims addressing failures to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Climate litigation isn’t just about accountability though. The report found that such legal actions have also provided “greater protections for the most vulnerable groups in society” as well as forced “governments and corporations to pursue more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.”

“There is a distressingly growing gap between the level of greenhouse gas reductions the world needs to achieve in order to meet its temperature targets, and the actions that governments are actually taking to lower emissions. This inevitably will lead more people to resort to the courts,” said Michael Gerrard, Sabin Center’s Faculty Director.