Landmark Climate Trial Ends After Focus on Montana Constitution

The first US youth climate change trial came to a close on Tuesday, ending the latest round of courtroom proceedings that will influence how future challengers will use the legal system to push for emissions reductions.

Attorneys for plaintiffs and the state in the youth climate case Held v. Montana rested their cases in a little over a week of examination into whether the state of Montana violated its constitution by promoting fossil fuel development.

The trial was scheduled for two weeks, but the state concluded its side early after testimony from witnesses, including the director of Montana’s department of environmental quality and an economist.

The decision now lies with Judge Kathy Seeley at the Lewis & Clark County District Court in Helena, Mont. She will decide whether to grant declaratory relief to the 16 young people, which would amount to a court order stating the state violated their rights.

“A stable climate system is integral to each and every one of the constitutional rights that have been implicated in this proceeding,” Our Children’s Trust attorney Nate Bellinger said in closing arguments for the plaintiffs. “And plaintiffs have established—through overwhelming evidence—that their rights have been violated.”

Regardless of the outcome, Held v. Montana is a historic first look at how climate arguments can be presented in a trial setting. Plaintiffs across the US in other climate lawsuits have been fighting for years to move their arguments into similar legal proceedings.

“This will really serve as inspiration, I hope, in a demonstration of the importance of other states following this pathway,” according to Maya van Rossum, founder of the Green Amendment for the Generations national movement and trial attendee.

Expert and Youth Testimony

Youth plaintiffs—represented by legal nonprofit Our Children’s Trust—took the stand to outline how climate change disrupts their daily lives and family businesses, some of which rely on tourism and ranching in remote parts of the state.

Lead plaintiff Rikki Held has been herding cattle with her family since the age of 4. She was the first young person to testify on how increasingly severe weather makes it harder to work outside, hydrate their cattle, and bring in tourists for their family’s hotel business.

Our Children’s Trust also brought on climate scientists, professors, and experts who testified on the severity of the climate crisis and Montana’s individual contributions.

“We are at a decision point about taking action on climate change,” Stockholm Environment Institute climate change policy researcher Peter Erickson said during questioning. “The world community has decided we must. Montana continues to issue fossil fuel permits.”

The state was diligent in insisting the question at issue is not nearly as dire, and instead amounts to a straightforward legal question of whether or not the court can address a grievance that is global in nature. That argument is similar to those used in other kinds of climate change litigation such as challenges against alleged climate misinformation from oil and gas producers.

Montana attorneys also grilled plaintiff witnesses on climate change severity, and whether the harm was as pronounced for plaintiffs as claimed in their complaint.

Emily Flower, spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), said in a statement that the trial amounted to a “publicity stunt staged by an out-of-state organization.”

“The plaintiffs’ witnesses spent their time testifying about the parts of the lawsuit that have already been dismissed as they try to blame Montanans for changing the climate,” Flower said. “In reality, this case is a challenge to a discrete provision of a procedural state statute that has only been in existence in its current form for less than a month and a half and has no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.”

Judge Seeley will now deliberate on the facts presented and give a verdict in the coming weeks.

The case is Held v. Montana, Mont. Dist. Ct., No. CDV-2020-307, Trial concludes 6/20/23