It looks like they do. In Held et al v. State of Montana the Montana Supreme Court declared the “MEPA Limitation” unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were 16 youths, ages 2 to 18 at the time of filing.
The MEPA Limitation
The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is a regulatory structure first enacted in 1971 for the purpose of protecting the environmental resources of the State. Prior to granting permits for oil, gas and coal activities the State conducts environmental reviews under MEPA.
The MEPA Limitation, enacted in 2023, provides that except for narrowly defined exceptions, those environmental reviews “may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders. It may not include actual or potential impact on the regional, national or global in nature.” After the MEPA Limitation was enacted, state agencies stopped analyzing environmental impacts resulting from permitted activities.
The Constitution
Montana’s Constitution guarantees to each citizen “a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment”. Plaintiffs’ suit alleged that such right includes “a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties” and the right was being violated.
The Constitution further requires the Legislature to “provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”
The opinion
Telegraphing where it was headed, the Court opened by citing a federal Ninth Circuit opinion lamenting the perils of climate change, unprecedented global warming, and “overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus” that warming is “a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from CO2 released from human extraction and burning of fossil fuels.”
The Court then affirmed this 100+-page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order from the district court. The Order included over 60 pages of factual findings, some that appear to be rather far-fetched, including testimony from experts and the plaintiffs themselves and conclusions drawn from a number of sources, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The Supreme Court referred to those findings as ‘undisputed”. It appears that the State made virtually no effort to controvert the plaintiffs’ evidence at the trial court.
The State’s unsuccessful arguments (among others):
- The framers could not have intended to include an environment degraded from the effects of climate change because they did not specifically discuss climate change or other global issues when adopting the provision.
Rejected. A Constitution “is not a straitjacket but a living thing designed to meet the needs of a progressive society and capable of being expanded to embrace more extensive relations” and cited examples of situations not existing at the adoption of earlier constitutions that were nevertheless covered.
- Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.
Rejected. They had a sufficient personal stake in their inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment to justify the right to sue.
- Plaintiffs must prove that the MEPA Limitation has in fact caused climate change.
Rejected. The argument was misplaced; that was not the focus of the suit.
- Even if Montana addressed its contribution to climate change it would still be a problem if the rest of the world will not reduce emissions.
Rejected. Again that was not the focus of the suit.
- It is only a procedural statute that cannot cause harm to constitutional rights.
Rejected.
Commentary
There will be more of these kinds of suits.
The ruling drew praise from environmentalists and scorn by industry commentators such as Doug Sheridan.