Climate activists scored a pair of landmark legal victories in Montana over the past two years, giving momentum to similar youth-led efforts across the globe.
Now state lawmakers have responded by targeting the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which helped propel the young activists to a courtroom win after they argued the law violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, signed a package of bills into law this month that rewrite sections of the 1971 law. Flanked by Republican lawmakers and the state’s top environmental appointee, Gianforte said the legislation “reduces red tape and provides certainty to small and large businesses across our state.”
The measures that were added to the law restrict the scope of environmental reviews related to greenhouse gases and declare that the analyses are for informational purposes only and can’t be used to deny permits.
“No more fantasyland ideas from climate crusaders who think Montana can run on solar panels and wishful thinking,” state Sen. Wylie Galt said at a Republican leadership press conference as the bills advanced.
Environmentalists, however, said the changes put the state increasingly at odds with the courts.
“They are attempting to unwind what is constitutionally guaranteed,” said Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center. “Once again, we’re passing laws that are clearly problematic in terms of what our constitution requires.”
Republicans in the state House and Senate acknowledged that the legislation was a response to the state’s loss in Held v. Montana, which Galt called a “present to radical environmental activists.”
In the case brought by 16 young people, a state court declared in August 2023 that lawmakers had violated the Montana Constitution by barring state agencies from considering the climate effects of fossil fuel projects.
At issue was the Legislature’s decision in 2011 to revise MEPA to exclude consideration of out-of-state climate emissions when weighing whether to approve projects such as power plants. In-state climate emissions were excluded by the Legislature in 2023, before the case went to trial.
Later that year, Judge Kathy Seeley of the 1st Judicial District Court in Montana struck down the two emissions-related measures that were added to the environmental policy act, finding that youth in the state have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.”
The 2023 ruling was a major victory for the young people, who made history by securing a win in the nation’s first climate trial brought by young plaintiffs. It also boosted other climate litigation, including a similar lawsuit in Hawaii that was settled last June when state officials reached an agreement with the youth.
And it was upheld in December by the Montana Supreme Court, which found that the delegates who wrote the 1972 Montana Constitution intended to provide “the strongest environmental protection provision found in any state constitution.”
Neither ruling sat well with Republican lawmakers — who had filed their own friend of the court brief urging the high court to reject the case.
“In that Held decision, it was kind of like we had — and I’m going to say something a little spicy — a bunch of little Greta Thunbergs, it seemed like,” state Rep. Randyn Gregg, a Republican, said on a podcast in January as the legislative session opened.
Held v. Montana “didn’t just make headlines, it sent shock waves through Montana’s economy,” said state Rep. Greg Oblander, a Republican, calling it an “open invitation for activists to weaponize our environmental laws against the very industries that keep Montana running.”
‘Weaponizing and litigation’
Republicans proposed a package of bills to counter the court rulings, arguing that MEPA was intended to provide guidance to government officials — not serve as a means to deter coal, oil and gas projects.
“In the Held v. Montana court case, they tried to twist MEPA into something it was never meant to be — a tool to deny permits and block development,” state House Speaker Brandon Ler (R) said as Gianforte signed the package into law earlier this month.
Ler, who sponsored one of the bills, said his legislation underscores the idea that environmental reviews are only procedural: “It’s a way to gather facts, weigh impacts and make informed decisions — not dictate them,” he said. “We’re making it clear that Montana’s environmental policy is about informed decision-making, and not weaponizing and litigation.”
Most Montana environmental laws begin with a reference to the state constitution, but Ler’s bill strikes that language from MEPA. Another bill sets guidelines for MEPA assessments, narrowing the scope so that it does not not include greenhouse gas emissions beyond the boundaries of a proposed plant. That would mean a coal mine’s exports wouldn’t be a factor, for example.
A third bill does not revise MEPA, but prevents the state from adopting any clean air standards that are more stringent than federal ones.
A parade of fossil fuel interests, business groups and unions supported the measure. Federal standards “are more than adequate,” Dan Brooks of the Billings Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers.
Eva Lighthiser, one of the 16 young challengers who testified at the Held trial, told lawmakers that it was wrong to prevent the state from regulating harmful greenhouse gases.
“This bill goes against our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment,” she said. “This bill evades the state’s responsibility to uphold our constitutional rights.”
Other legislative efforts aimed at blunting Held were not as successful. Less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Held decision, the court cited the decision in a ruling that determined state officials had not conducted an adequate review of a controversial gas-fired power plant.
That ruling, along with the court’s decision to uphold Held, prompted lawmakers to call for partisan judicial elections, as well as a new court that would focus on business interests. Neither of the measures passed the Legislature.
Our Children’s Trust, the public interest law firm that represented the young people in Montana, said it plans to stay active in the state.
“The disdain lawmakers showed for the decision really affirms it’s a momentous decision and will have significant effects in Montana,” said Nate Bellinger, supervising senior staff attorney at the Oregon-based firm.
He noted that lawmakers did not alter the constitution, which says public officials have a constitutional duty to protect people’s right to a clean and healthful environment.
“We will continue to be there, to help represent youth and enforce and uphold the right to a clean environment,” Bellinger said. “If that means follow-up litigation, that’s what it means.”
