On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Montana issued its ruling in Held v. State, affirming a lower court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The case has garnered national attention as Montanan youths claimed that certain portions of the Montana State Energy Policy Act (“MEPA”) violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA was aimed at promoting the further development and use of fossil fuels. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged the MEPA limitation that exempted environmental reviews from analyzing the actual or potential impacts of fossil fuel use beyond Montana’s borders. The plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment that their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” included a right to a stable climate system supportive of human life, and that this right was being violated. The Montana Supreme Court agreed with the youths, holding that the Montana Green Amendment guaranteed its citizens the right to a stable climate system and that MEPA violated that right.

What is Montana’s Green Amendment?

Montana adopted its Green Amendment in 1972, one year after Pennsylvania became the first state to do so in 1971. Although momentum for Green Amendments stalled out after the early 1970s, in 2021 New Yorkers voted to enshrine their own Green Amendment in the New York State constitution. Montana’s constitution recognizes the “right to a clean and healthful environment” as an inalienable right. The Montanan constitution further recognizes that “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

Why did the Montana Supreme Court agree with the plaintiffs?

In siding with the plaintiffs in Held, the Supreme Court of Montana stated that Montana’s Green Amendment is “anticipatory and preventative.” The Court found that the promise to a clean and healthful environment was not mere environmental embellishment, but a right that should be “as evident in the air, water, and soil of Montana as in its law books.” It held that the right to a clean and healthful environment included the right to a stable climate system, something not specifically enumerated in the amendment. The Court likened this to other constitutional protections evolving to meet issues not contemplated by the amendment’s framers.  For example, the freedom from warrantless searches protects against warrantless searches by thermal imaging even though this technology was not contemplated in 1889 when that right was first guaranteed. The plaintiffs offered extensive and undisputed evidence that climate change is causing severe damage to Montana’s air, water, and soil. Thus, the Court held “Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment.” The Court went on to hold that MEPA Limitation violated this right, and it was therefore unconstitutional.

What does Held mean for New York?

The pronouncement in Held v. State is likely to reverberate far beyond the borders of Montana. In the narrow sense, this decision strikes down a state law that would have allowed the State of Montana to ignore its contributions to climate change. Further, it buttresses and augments Montana’s Green Amendment, signaling a strong conviction to adhere to the principles and ideals that motivated its adoption. Given recent setbacks for environmental protection in the federal courts, this decision could signal a tidal shift in plaintiffs’ approaches to environmental protection cases, moving to friendlier waters in state courts.

In New York, the ultimate utility of its own recently adopted Green Amendment remains unrealized. Knauf Shaw LLP has appealed a Fourth Department Appellate Division decision in Fresh Air For the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Management of New York to the New York Court of Appeals regarding enforcement of the Green Amendment. The appeal, if taken, would offer New York’s highest court its first opportunity to interpret this nascent constitutional right. Whether it would view the Green Amendment as empowering those who seek to preserve our environment—as Montana’s Supreme Court did—or it would relegate New York’s Green Amendment to a mere ornamental statement of purported principles is yet to be seen.

For more information on Knauf Shaw’s work on New York’s Green Amendment, check out our Ground Rules Blog here.  Contact Knauf Shaw at info@nyenvlaw.com.