Montana Youths’ Legal Victory Sparks Legislative Pushback
In a landmark case, young activists in Montana successfully sued the state over its support for fossil fuels, arguing it infringed on their right to “a clean and healthful environment” as per the state’s constitution. This victory, however, set off a wave of legislative responses aimed at counteracting the court’s decision.
Since 2015, young plaintiffs have been bringing climate-related lawsuits against governments across the U.S., but Montana’s case is the only one to reach trial. The state Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the youths prompted a legislative counteraction, with new laws now enacted to circumvent the ruling. Montana Public Radio’s Ellis Juhlin provides insights into these developments.
Rising Concerns Amidst Legislative Action
Olivia Vesovich, a University of Montana student and one of the 16 youth plaintiffs, expressed her concerns while walking a trail near the Clark Fork River. “I don’t see any snow on these mountains,” she remarked, highlighting the tangible effects of climate change in the region.
The court’s decision emphasized that Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a clean environment includes maintaining a stable climate. This interpretation sparked outrage among conservative lawmakers who argued that a global issue like climate change cannot be pinned solely on Montana.
Vesovich voiced her frustration: “To watch our legislatures actively dismiss a constitutional ruling is devastating.”
Legislative Response and Economic Concerns
State Senator Wylie Galt criticized the court’s decision, describing it as a “gift-wrapped present to radical environment activists” and a threat to Montana’s fossil fuel industry. Montana holds about a third of the nation’s recoverable coal reserves, and the court’s ruling mandates that the state evaluate the climate impact of fossil fuel projects.
Galt contended, “It had nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with weaponizing the courts to strangle our economy.”
In response, Galt sponsored a new law that requires an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions without regulating them. Additional measures further prevent Montana from regulating emissions unless federal action is taken, a scenario deemed unlikely under the Trump administration.
Amending the state constitution to remove environmental protections is a challenging process, so lawmakers have opted for legislative changes instead. University of Montana law professor Constance Van Kley noted, “There has been a response to the courts striking down the legislation on the part of the legislature, with the legislature kind of claiming that the Montana judiciary is out of control and super liberal.”
This ongoing friction between Montana’s conservative leadership and the judicial branch has been a recurring theme, with environmental groups predicting further legal challenges to the new laws. Van Kley anticipated, “I think it’s very likely to end up being litigated.”
Future Implications and Youth Perspectives
Back on the trail, Vesovich reflected on the broader implications of climate inaction: “They care more about protecting the fossil fuel industry than they care about protecting the lives of children.” She emphasized the urgency of climate action, warning that delays would exacerbate future issues, and hoped lawmakers would reconsider their stance.
For NPR News, this report was brought to you by Ellis Juhlin from Missoula, Montana.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
This article was originally written by www.npr.org
