The First Major Climate Trial in the United States: Montana’s Violation of Constitutional Rights

The first major climate trial in the United States, in which a dozen young people accuse the State of Montana of violating their constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment,” has concluded with the verdict expected in a few weeks. The decision will have significant implications not only for local environmental activists and Montana, which defends the fossil fuel industry, but also for many other similar lawsuits filed across the country. This is the first time that the constitution of an American state has been invoked in court to challenge local authorities on a climate issue.

The trial, which began on June 12 in Helena, ended on Tuesday after closing arguments. Demonstrators showed their support for the young complainants outside the court, holding signs and chanting slogans. Judge Kathy Seeley, who presided over the hearing, has asked the lawyers of both parties to submit their written conclusions within two weeks before she makes her decision. One possible outcome is the striking down of a Montana law that prohibits the local government from considering climate impacts when granting permits to fossil fuel companies.

At the heart of the debates is an article of the local constitution that states, “the State and everyone must maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment in Montana for present and future generations.” The 16 plaintiffs, aged 5 to 22, argue that the “dangerous effects of fossil fuels and the climate crisis” have harmed them, with children being particularly vulnerable to these worsening effects. They are not seeking monetary compensation but rather asking their government to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to mitigate the harm caused by its own actions.

The representative of the State of Montana, Michael Russell, defended the position that these questions should be decided by the people through their elected representatives. He emphasized that the case should not be seen as a political rally or popularity contest but rather as a court of law. While acknowledging the responsibility of human emissions in global warming, Russell pointed out that the experts cited by the plaintiffs were unable to precisely quantify the consequences of Montana’s laws on climate change. Montana, with just over a million inhabitants, emits about as much CO2 as Argentina.

During the trial, the plaintiffs emotionally described how their health, well-being, family finances, and traditions have been disrupted. Lead plaintiff Rikki Held, 22, shared the story of a wildfire that caused power outages on their ranch for a month, resulting in the death of livestock because the family could not pump water. Another plaintiff, Claire Vlases, 20, compared the smoke from the fires to a disaster movie, emphasizing that it is a real and ongoing issue.

A decision in favor of these climate activists would be seen as a significant victory for other similar cases filed across the country. Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Law at Columbia University, believes it would be very encouraging for young people and activists nationwide.

The verdict is eagerly awaited by both the plaintiffs and defendants, as well as environmental activists and legal experts. It remains to be seen how this historic climate trial will shape the future of climate litigation in the United States.

Source: 20 Minutes with AFP

How could the outcome of this trial impact the fossil fuel industry in Montana and potentially set a precedent for climate-related lawsuits in other states

Ulnerable to the impacts of climate change. They claim that the state of Montana has failed to protect their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment by allowing the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

The lawsuit, filed in 2011, has garnered attention nationwide as it challenges the long-standing relationship between Montana and the fossil fuel industry. The state is known for its rich coal reserves and has been a stronghold for the coal, oil, and gas industries. The outcome of this trial could set a precedent for future climate-related lawsuits across the country.

Throughout the trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence highlighting the adverse effects of climate change, such as increased wildfires, droughts, and changes in wildlife habitats. They argue that the state government’s support for the fossil fuel industry has contributed to these damages, thus violating their constitutional rights.

On the other hand, Montana’s defense has emphasized the economic benefits of the fossil fuel industry. They argue that the state has taken steps to improve environmental regulations and that the plaintiffs have failed to prove a direct link between their health issues and the state’s actions.

Environmental advocates, who see this trial as a crucial step towards holding governments accountable for their role in exacerbating climate change, have held protests outside the court to show their support for the young plaintiffs.

If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could result in the invalidation of the Montana law that restricts the consideration of climate impacts in permitting decisions. This would have significant implications for the fossil fuel industry in the state and could set a precedent for other similar lawsuits challenging government actions that contribute to climate change.

The verdict is expected to be delivered in the coming weeks, and regardless of the outcome, this trial has already brought attention to the responsibility of governments and the fossil fuel industry in addressing climate change. It has provided a platform for young people to demand action and highlights the growing momentum of climate activism.