Anyone in need of an extra dose of happy chemicals today will want to read about this uplifting, first-of-its-kind court decision in Montana. A few months back, an inspiring group of 16 young Montanans ranging in age from five to 22 rallied together in order to sue the state of Montana, claiming that its current energy policies were so harmful to the environment that the youth were being denied their constitutional right to “a clean and healthful environment.”
And well, the kids are all right, folks. On Monday, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of Our Children’s Trust, which is the name of the environmental youth group that is representing the young plaintiffs. Judge Seeley’s ruling said that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth.
The argument made by the plaintiffs, which the judge eventually supported, said that the way the state evaluated and permitted fossil fuel development did not take adequate care to evaluate the potential effect on the climate and living environment for youth and future generations.
The pro-environmental ruling was made possible largely because of a bit of unique wording in Montana’s state constitution, stating that “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” Not all states have language like this that would allow for similar lawsuits. In fact, Julia Olson, a legal representative for Our Children’s Trust, said in a statement to PBS that the organization has been attempting similar lawsuits in other states beginning in 2011, saying, “This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate. More rulings like this will certainly come.”
But today, we’re celebrating the fact that Montana residents are constitutionally guaranteed a clean and healthful environment and that 16 young people have been brave enough to demand it in court. The next issue, of course, is how the state’s legislature will take the state’s ruling and actually apply it. It’s going to be complicated in practice, especially since the state’s government is dominated by conservative Republicans who are not, historically, super into climate protections.
Emily Flower, a representative for the Montana attorney general, called the ruling “absurd” and argued that the judge was impartial and looking for attention, which is no small accusation for a district court judge. Specifically, she said, “This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial …Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”
Classy. That the court got the message and got things right after repeated attempts is a giant win for climate protectors. And we’re here for it.
(featured image: William Campbell/Getty Images)
