Montana’s constitution is unusual. The 1972 Constitutional Convention added language requiring the state to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment… for present and future generations,” making Montana one of only three states that explicitly include environmental protection in their Bill of Rights. Despite these protections, in recent years the state’s energy policy has steadily moved toward undermining those rights. A 2011 energy policy prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing development permits. Senate Bill 208 (2023) barred local governments from restricting polluting energy sources in new construction. And a 2023 amendment to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) attempted to ban the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews.

It was this final amendment that gave a group of 16 Montana youths the legal foothold to insist the state honor its constitutional commitment to a “clean and healthful” environment.

Fighting back against the State would be no simple matter. It required the kind of legal innovation and tenacity McGarvey Law is known for—one reason we signed on to represent the plaintiffs in this landmark case, which would ultimately reach the Montana Supreme Court and shape the future of environmental policy in our state.

We filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the State of Montana, alleging that the MEPA amendments infringed upon the plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. To prevail at trial, we needed to show that the harms caused by energy practices that ignored environmental impacts were real and were adversely affecting the plaintiffs’ livelihoods and health.

The State defended its actions by arguing that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) were insignificant in the context of global emissions. In response, we demonstrated that Montana has historically recognized the dangers of GHGs—and previously incorporated emissions estimates into project permitting—until fossil-fuel-aligned lawmakers prohibited such considerations in 2011. Our environmental science experts provided evidence that warming in Montana is already significantly higher than the global average. We further showed that, since 2011, Montana has approved an outsized number of fossil-fuel extraction projects, resulting in annual per-capita emissions comparable to entire nations such as Argentina or Pakistan—despite our population of just 1.1 million.

Once the state’s contribution to climate change was established, we turned to demonstrating that Montana’s environment was neither clean nor healthful, citing physical, cultural, and economic harms.

Lead plaintiff Rikki Held testified to the serious economic consequences of warming on her family’s 3,000-acre ranch, where drought and spring flooding had cost them cattle and crops. Other plaintiffs described wildfires of increasing severity and frequency threatening their homes. Those who fish testified that warming waters and declining streamflows endangered recreational opportunities that form the foundation of Montana family traditions. Tribal plaintiffs explained how climate change disrupts Indigenous cultural practices tied to traditional food sources. Pediatricians testified that children’s developing organs make them especially vulnerable to air pollution; five plaintiffs suffer from conditions like asthma and allergies exacerbated by smoke.

Crucially, expert witnesses also established that changes to MEPA prevented the state from even considering economically and technologically available alternatives to fossil fuels—alternatives that could alleviate the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. The law wasn’t just causing harm—it was blocking solutions.

After five days of compelling testimony and a truncated defense by the State, Judge Kathy Seeley issued her findings. We had proven standing. We had shown that Montana’s disproportionate GHG emissions were directly tied to the MEPA amendments. And we had established that those emissions were a substantial factor causing climate impacts and tangible injury to the plaintiffs. The MEPA limitations were therefore unconstitutional.

But the case wasn’t over. The State appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, challenging standing, disputing whether a “clean and healthful environment” includes a stable climate system, and defending the MEPA restrictions. In a 6–1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling, relying heavily on the framers’ intent when drafting the constitution. The ruling was groundbreaking: the first time a U.S. state court held a government liable for violating a constitutional right due to climate change. The Court affirmed that “Plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future.”

 “I was really pleased to see that the Montana Supreme Court grounded its analysis of harm in the testimony of the youth plaintiffs. It specifically mentioned the impacts on Montana’s working ranches, the diminishment of recreational opportunities, and the harm of breathing the smoke that annually descends on our valley.”

— Roger Sullivan, McGarvey Law

Above all, we are proud to have secured a decision that protects the rights and well-being of the people of Montana. Held v. Montana represents just one battle in the continuing effort to safeguard our remarkable environment and the health of the communities who call this place home. It is a battle McGarvey Law was honored to fight—and win.