SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
our children's trust
'Monumental Win': Montana Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Youth Climate Case
The court, said one attorney, "has affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests."
Dec 18, 2024
Youth plaintiffs celebrated on Wednesday after the Montana Supreme Court upheld a judge's August 2023 decision that the state government's promotion of climate-wrecking fossil fuels violates the young residents' state constitutional rights.
"This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change," said Rikki Held, the named plaintiff for Held v. State of Montana, in a statement. "We have been heard, and today the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed that our rights to a safe and healthy climate cannot be ignored."
Highlighting that "this will forever be in the court record, despite any continued rhetoric of denial coming from people in power in the state," Grace, another plaintiff, said, "I am thrilled that the Montana Supreme Court has sided with Montana citizens to protect the people and the places we love."
Another plaintiff, Olivia, welcomed the ruling as "a monumental win" and "a call to action for all Montanans."
Plaintiff Georgi similarly asserted that "this is a time for Montana to embrace the future—clean energy offers economic benefits and new jobs," and added that "we look forward to working with the state to implement this transition and ensure that Montana leads the way in tackling the climate crisis."
Plaintiff Kian pointed to other ongoing cases across the globe, declaring that "this ruling is not just a win for Montana—it's a signal to the world that youth-led climate action is powerful and effective."
"We hope this decision inspires others across the country and beyond to stand up for their rights to a livable climate," Kian continued. Just as the youth plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation secured historic climate justice through a settlement this past June, the eyes of the world are now on us, seeing how youth-driven legal action can create real change."
In Montana, the state government appealed District Court Judge Kathy Seeley's historic ruling in favor of the 16 young plaintiffs to the state's highest court, which heard arguments in July. Wednesday's 6-1 decision—only Justice Jim Rice dissented—is the first of its kind for a state supreme court.
The majority's 70-page opinion discusses the drafters of the Montana Constitution, which says in part that "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations," and "the Legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty."
Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote that the court's majority rejects "the argument that the delegates—intending the strongest, all-encompassing environmental protections in the nation, both anticipatory and preventative, for present and future generations—would grant the state a free pass to pollute the Montana environment just because the rest of the world insisted on doing so."
"The district court's conclusion of law is affirmed: 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 chief justice added.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs joined the young Montanans in applauding the opinion. Nate Bellinger of Our Children's Trust said that "this is a monumental moment for Montana, our youth, and the future of our planet."
"Today, the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests," he added. "This is a victory for young people and for generations to come. The court said loud and clear: Montana's Constitution does not grant the state a free pass to ignore climate change because others fail to act—this landmark decision underscores the state's affirmative duty to lead by example."
Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, noted that "the Montana Supreme Court's decision compels the state to carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits."
"Specifically, Montana's regulatory agencies must now evaluate the potential harm to the environment and the health and safety of the state's children from any new fossil fuel projects, and determine whether the project can be justified in light of the ongoing unconstitutional degradation of Montana's environment, natural resources, and climate," she explained. "This ruling clarifies that the constitution sets a clear directive for Montana to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the nation on a per capita basis, and to transition to a clean, renewable energy future."
Whether the state government will comply with the decision remains to be seen. In a statement to The Hill, a spokesperson for Republican Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office called the ruling "disappointing, but not surprising" and claimed that the court majority "yet again ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate."
Separately, Knudsen on Tuesday filed his 59th lawsuit against the Biden administration, challenging its plan to halt federal coal production in the Powder River Basin, which the attorney general said would "effectively kill Montana's coal industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic' Settlement With Youth Will Force Hawaiian Transit System to Speed Decarbonization
"I hope our case inspires youth to always use their voices to hold leaders accountable for the future they will inherit," said one plaintiff.
Jun 21, 2024
Days before a case brought by 13 young climate advocates in Hawaii was set to go to trial, the state's governor and Department of Transportation on Thursday announced an "unprecedented" settlement that will expedite the decarbonization of Hawaii's transit system—and formally "recognizes children's constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate."
The plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportationwere between the ages of 9 and 18 when they filed their case in 2022, alleging that the state government was violating their rights under the Hawaii Constitution by investing in fossil fuel-intensive infrastructure that would worsen the effects of the climate crisis.
The case is the first youth-led legal challenge addressing constitutional rights related to pollution from the transportation sector, and according to Earthjustice, which represented the plaintiffs along with Our Children's Trust, the settlement is the first agreement "of its kind, in which government defendants have decided to resolve a constitutional climate case in partnership with youth plaintiffs, committing to comprehensive changes" to reduce fossil fuel dependence and emissions.
Under the settlement, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) agreed to "plan and implement transformative changes of Hawaii's transportation system to achieve the state's legally established goal of net-negative emissions by 2045," said Earthjustice.
Specific actions the HDOT agreed to take include:
- Establishing a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan within one year;
- Creating a lead unit and responsible positions within HDOT to coordinate the mission of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction throughout the agency; oversee climate change mitigation and adaptation for the highways program; and ensure public highways are upgraded to be accessible for all users, ages, and abilities;
- Establishing a volunteer youth council to advise on HDOT's mitigation and adaptation commitments in the years to come;
- Improving its transportation infrastructure budgeting process to prioritize reduction of GHG and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transparently analyze and disclose the GHG and VMT impacts of each project and the overall program; and
- Making immediate, ambitious investments in clean transportation infrastructure.
The department agreed to complete pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks within five years, dedicating a minimum of $40 million to expanding the state's public electric vehicle charging stations by 2030.
Earthjustice credited HDOT Director Edwin Sniffen with taking "unprecedented leadership to negotiate a resolution and embrace the government's kuleana (responsibility) to lead the way on bold and broad climate action."
The Navahine youth plaintiffs, said Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, "activated the courts and inspired true democracy in action—all three branches of government committing to work together to do what needs to be done according to best available science, to safeguard their futures."
"Our courts are essential guardians of children's constitutional rights and empowered to protect the planet, but they rely on our collective engagement," said Olson. "Young people across the country and around the world will follow in [the plaintiffs'] footsteps, carrying the same values of care, defense, and love of the land to action."
The settlement was announced nearly a year after young climate advocates in Montana won another historic victory in a case arguing that the state had violated their constitutional rights by prioritizing fossil fuel projects.
Three federal judges who had been appointed by former President Donald Trump angered climate groups last month when they granted the Biden administration's request to dismiss Juliana v. United States, a case originally filed in 2015, which argues the U.S. government has violated the rights of children by continuing to support planet-heating fossil fuel extraction.
A judge in Hawaii last year dismissed the state's request to dismiss the Navahine case. Hawaii officials argued that state laws aimed at reducing carbon emissions were "aspirational" and could not be used in legal arguments claiming the state had violated children's rights.
"Transportation emissions are increasing and will increase at the rate we are going," Judge Jeffrey Crabtree of the O'ahu 1st Circuit Court said as he denied the state's request. "In other words, the alleged harms are not hypothetical or only in the future. They are current, ongoing, and getting worse."
Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, echoed Crabtree's words on Thursday as he announced the settlement.
"We're addressing the impacts of climate change today, and needless to say, this is a priority because we know now that climate change is here," Green said. "It is not something that we're considering in an abstract way in the future."
Andrea Rogers, deputy director of U.S. strategy for Our Children's Trust, said the "historic agreement offers a holistic roadmap for states and countries to follow around the world."
The partnership between the plaintiffs and the state, said a plaintiff identified as Rylee Brooke K., "marks a pivotal step towards preserving Hawaii for future generations—one that will have a ripple effect on the world."
"Being heard and moving forward in unity with the state to combat climate change is incredibly gratifying, and empowering," said Rylee. "I hope our case inspires youth to always use their voices to hold leaders accountable for the future they will inherit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tragic and Unjust': Trump Judges Grant Biden DOJ Request to Toss Youth Climate Case
"We will keep fighting for climate justice," said one plaintiff, "but this is another dark day for protecting young people from climate harm imposed by their government."
May 02, 2024
A panel of three Trump-appointed judges on Wednesday granted the Biden Justice Department's request to have a landmark youth climate case dismissed, another setback for a long-running effort to hold the U.S. government accountable for damaging the planet and violating the rights of younger generations.
The order handed down by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel instructs an Oregon district court to toss Juliana v. United States for lack of standing, siding with the Justice Department's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus—which the DOJ itself describes as "an extraordinary remedy" that "should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance."
Julia Olson, co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, a public interest law firm backing the youth plaintiffs, said in a statement Wednesday that "the Biden administration was wrong to use an emergency measure to stop youth plaintiffs from having their day in court."
"The real emergency is the climate emergency," said Olson. "This emergency was not created by these young people, who have just been stripped of their fundamental constitutional rights by one of the highest courts in our country. Children deserve access to justice."
Calling the 9th Circuit decision "tragic and unjust" and "wrong on the law," Olson said the legal fight is "not over" and stressed that President Joe Biden "can still make this right by coming to the settlement table."
"We will keep fighting for climate justice, but this is another dark day for protecting young people from climate harm imposed by their government."
Juliana v. United States was brought in 2015 by 21 young Americans who argued the federal government has violated their "fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property" by continuing to allow the extraction of fossil fuels despite knowing their central role in destructive planetary heating.
Three consecutive administrations have worked aggressively to prevent a trial, deploying emergency legal tactics to delay and derail the youth-led case even as climate impacts became increasingly devastating in the U.S. and around the world.
Mat dos Santos, general counsel of Our Children's Trust, warned last month that "it's a mistake" for the Biden administration to "take this position in an election year, especially when young voters continue to be more and more disenchanted with the current administration and the permitting of big fossil fuel projects."
"This is an opportunity for the administration to do right by young people," he added.
Earlier this year, just before parties to the case were set to receive trial dates from a federal judge in Oregon, the Biden Justice Department filed a motion to stay the case and then another to have it tossed, drawing outrage from the youth plaintiffs. Dozens of members of Congress have weighed in on the side of the plaintiffs, arguing they should be allowed a trial to present their arguments and evidence.
Avery McRae, one of the plaintiffs, said in response to the 9th Circuit order on Wednesday that "every time we get a decision as devastating as this one, I lose more and more hope that my country is as democratic as it says it is."
"I have been pleading for my government to hear our case since I was 10 years old, and I am now nearly 19," said McRae. "A functioning democracy would not make a child beg for their rights to be protected in the courts, just to be ignored nearly a decade later. I am fed up with the continuous attempts to squash this case and silence our voices."
Another plaintiff, Nathan Baring, said that "we will keep fighting for climate justice, but this is another dark day for protecting young people from climate harm imposed by their government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular