Children’s Wild Climate Crusade Culminates in Montana Court

Karen Kirk for Yale Climate Connections:

When I got an assignment to cover the landmark youth climate lawsuit that went to trial in Montana this week, I thought I was going to be able to pop in, grab some salient quotes, and write up a story.

But the trial at a state district court in Helena has turned out to be unexpectedly wild. The testimony has been gripping. And the contrast between the polished lawyering of the plaintiffs’ side compared to the somewhat rough-and-tumble approach by lawyers for the state of Montana took me by surprise.

The case, Held v. Montana, pits a group of 16 young plaintiffs against the state of Montana. The youth argue that the state’s unabated pursuit of fossil fuel extraction is violating their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment.

Their argument draws on an unusual feature of Montana’s constitution. Written in 1972, it reads: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

In fact, the right to a clean and healthful environment is spelled out twice in the constitution, and it’s listed first among Montanans’ inalienable rights.

Montana’s constitution is part of why this is the first of several youth climate lawsuits to make it to trial in the U.S. Montana attempted several times to have the case dismissed.

The trial is being closely watched by climate advocates across the U.S. because it has the potential to establish a precedent that future cases could build upon. If Judge Kathy Seely finds that Montana’s fossil fuel activities violate the state constitution, then the state may have to reconsider its all-in approach toward fossil fuels — though it’s uncertain how that would play out.

Despite the high stakes, the lawyers representing Montana appeared to struggle with the topic of the case at times. During the proceedings on June 13, attorney Thane Johnson pressed climate scientists on the impracticality of electric tractors as he tried to make the point that it wasn’t realistic for the agricultural sector to reduce its emissions of climate-warming pollution. (Tractors are not a large source of such emissions in the state, nor are they in the agriculture sector as a whole.)

Johnson got hung up in attempts to pronounce acronyms such as “IPCC,” which refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Nobel Prize-winning group that produces scientific reports on the causes and consequences of climate change. After being corrected repeatedly by the scientist on the witness stand, Johnson said, “I’m going to write that down. There’s a lot of Cs and Ps involved in this.”

During the cross-examination of climate scientist Steven Running, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work as an IPCC author, the state asked Judge Kathy Seeley to dismiss IPCC reports as “hearsay.” The request was denied.

By contrast, the young plaintiffs showed remarkable composure and poise.

Eva L., whose name is not included in court filings because she is a minor, settled into the witness stand on the first day of the trial wearing a black blazer and a somber expression.

In her testimony, she recalled the record-breaking flood on Yellowstone River in 2022. Spurred by a rain-on-snow event, a season’s worth of snowpack surged down river channels and spilled out over the landscape, pulling bridges, roadways, and houses along for the ride. Eva lives a few blocks from the iconic river and spent seven hours filling sandbags that day.

“It made me feel very, very scared,” she recalled.

Lead plaintiff Rikki Held spoke of the harm caused by wildfires during the summer of 2021.

“There was a lot of smoke most of the days in the summer,” she said from the witness stand.

That summer, she lived and worked on her family’s ranch in southeastern Montana. Her community endured relentless, searing heat and poor air quality for weeks as smoke began to feel like a permanent part of the landscape. Held wiped tears away as she recounted what it felt like to work outdoors in 110-degree heat and acrid smoke.

“You just have to keep working through it,” she said. “It needs to get done. That’s our livelihood and we can’t stop.”

She sat back in her chair, emotional, and took a breather from the lawyers’ questions.

“It’s just stressful,” she continued. “It impacts the well-being of myself, my family, my community, and people in this state.”

“I know that climate change is a global issue but Montana needs to take responsibility for our part in that. We can’t just blow it off and do nothing about it,” she said.

“Just one step in the right direction would be most important,” she said. “It would mean so much for our futures.”

“Montana’s environment is neither clean nor healthful,” argued Roger Sullivan, attorney for the youth plaintiffs, in his opening statements. Climate change is taking a physical and emotional toll on the plaintiffs that worsens each year, Sullivan said.

Montana has warmed faster than the global average, heating up by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1950, leading to a cascade of environmental impacts. The state’s snowpack has declined, the loss of glaciers is accelerating, and wildfire season is now longer and more intense, pumping smoke into the air and putting young bodies at greater risk.

Montana’s children are already experiencing the effects of climate change, said climate scientist Cathy Whitlock in her testimony, and “the harms will get worse.”