Thirteen young Montanans who successfully challenged the legality of the state’s climate policies are now asking the Montana Supreme Court to weigh in on several bills state lawmakers passed earlier this year in response to that victory, which blocked a law barring the state from considering climate in permitting decisions.
In a lawsuit filed today, Rikki Held and a dozen co-plaintiffs from that earlier lawsuit argue that three bills passed by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year don’t comply with the state Supreme Court’s December 2024 order. The bills the plaintiffs are challenging revise sections of the Montana Environmental Policy Act and the Montana Clean Air Act dealing with greenhouse gases and the state’s regulatory review process.
Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, wrote in a press release that the bills “put blinders back on state agencies to ensure their ongoing approval of fossil fuel permits.”
“The Montana Supreme Court has already affirmed that we have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including a stable climate system, and the facts show we are being harmed right now, yet the state just passed new laws that make these harms worse,” Held said in the release. “We are returning to the Supreme Court to enforce our prior win and because the state has a constitutional duty to protect us now.”
RELATED
Montana Supreme Court sides with youth plaintiffs in landmark climate lawsuit
The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling in a precedent-setting constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 16 young Montanans.
Neither Attorney General Austin Knudsen or Gov. Greg Gianforte responded to a request for comment on the litigation against the state by publication Wednesday afternoon. The Department of Environmental Quality, also a named defendant, declined to offer insight into its energy-permitting approach in the wake of the court’s 2024 order, citing agency policy to refrain from commenting on active litigation.
In a statement to Montana Free Press, House Speaker Brandon Ler, R-Savage, who sponsored one of the challenged bills, criticized the use of courts to effect environmental policy.
“Activists are using the courts to achieve outcomes they cannot win through the legislative process,” Ler said. “That undermines representative government and the separation of powers Montanans expect.”
During the 2025 legislative session, proponents of the three bills in question argued that they enact a commonsense approach to environmental regulation that won’t hamstring industry or create burdensome permitting requirements. Opponents characterize the legislation as gifts to the fossil fuel industry that fail to comply with the justices’ order and weaken MEPA’s “look-before-you-leap” foundation.
All three bills were sponsored by Republican lawmakers and supported by industry groups including the Montana Petroleum Association and the Treasure State Resources Association.
Under Senate Bill 221, state agencies including the Department of Environmental Quality are directed to inventory large projects’ emissions of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the most common one. SB 221 also specifies that such emissions “will not be regulated” by state agencies and directs the state not to incorporate “upstream” or “downstream” emissions in its environmental analyses. The law effectively bars agencies from considering emissions associated with the extraction, processing and transportation of fossil fuels.
House Bill 285 eliminated significant portions of the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which dates to 1971 and was expanded by the 1972 state Constitution. During a hearing on the bill in February, Ler said his measure was intended to keep industry-adverse groups from using MEPA to block large projects with “endless hurdles for responsible development.”
House Bill 291 prohibits state agencies like DEQ from adopting air quality standards stricter than those outlined in federal laws such as the Clean Air Act. It was introduced in late January, shortly after President Donald Trump started his second term and began dismantling his predecessor’s climate policies.
RELATED
MEPA and the Montana Legislature
State lawmakers are debating a half-dozen proposals to change the Montana Environmental Policy Act, a law that passed the state Legislature with broad, bipartisan support in 1971. This year, discussions about MEPA have fallen along party lines, with Republicans backing industry-friendly legislation and environmentalists supporting bills sponsored by Democratic lawmakers.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers indicated earlier this year that they anticipated lawsuits related to the MEPA bills.
Speaking in opposition to SB 221 on Feb. 10, Sen. Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, argued that the bill’s passage would “invite exactly what we don’t want” — more litigation.
At a Feb. 12 press conference, House Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, said litigation regarding changes to MEPA were likely “no matter what.”
“If we can get some guidance from the courts as to what meets the standard and what doesn’t meet the standard for conducting a MEPA analysis, I think that’s OK,” Fitzpatrick said. “Our goal here is obviously to clarify so we can get some certainty for people so they know what they can expect.”
RELATED
Montana Supreme Court directs DEQ to study gas plant’s greenhouse gas emissions
The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling on Jan. 3 provides a window into how state agencies might study climate impacts associated with large projects in response to the Held v. Montana youth climate ruling.
Kalispell attorney Roger Sullivan told MTFP Wednesday morning that the plaintiffs brought the lawsuit, which Our Children’s Trust has dubbed Held v. Montana II, directly to the Supreme Court in hopes of swift action.
“The element that is really important here is urgency,” he said. “We have a climate crisis in Montana on our hands, now. These laws will only make this climate crisis worse for these young Montanans. That’s why we’re asking the Montana Supreme Court to act now.”
If the court accepts the petition, it can order a round of briefing for its consideration. It can also deny the request, effectively directing the plaintiffs to take the matter to a lower court first.
LATEST STORIES
After weeks of public outcry, Yellowstone County asks state to clarify 2025 data center law
In a letter signed this week, Yellowstone County commissioners asked local legislators to review a new law they said is stopping them from regulating the 5,000-acre project near Broadview by developer Quantica Infrastructure. The letter, approved Tuesday, is addressed to the “Members of the Yellowstone County Legislative Delegation” and asks them to “refine” a 2025 law called the Right to Compute Act. The Legislature is slated to reconvene in 2027.
Supreme Court: Butte-Silver Bow data center initiative will miss November ballot
The Montana Supreme Court has vacated its own injunction, which temporarily allowed a proposed data center initiative to appear on the November ballot in Butte-Silver Bow County, less than 48 hours after issuing it. The justices said they would not have granted initiative organizers’ request for an injunction had they known that the county’s ballots have already been printed and mailed, with some having already been returned by voters.
State committee votes to replace Capitol’s iconic ‘Montana’ statue
A new statue will replace the state Capitol’s iconic copper “Montana” as part of an extensive renovation of the building’s exterior, according to state officials.
