{"id":296,"date":"2024-12-19T11:16:41","date_gmt":"2024-12-19T15:16:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/?p=296"},"modified":"2026-06-02T10:47:17","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T14:47:17","slug":"montana-supreme-court-rules-proposed-state-law-that-restricts-consideration-of-greenhouse-gas-impact-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/2024\/12\/19\/montana-supreme-court-rules-proposed-state-law-that-restricts-consideration-of-greenhouse-gas-impact-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"Montana Supreme Court rules proposed State law that restricts consideration of Greenhouse Gas Impact Unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Earlier this week (December 17, 2024), in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Rikki Held et al. vs, the State of Montana<\/span>, the <strong>Montana Supreme court<\/strong> affirmed a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed state law that barred consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in state permitting decisions.  In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that <strong>greenhouse gas emissions can be considered in permitting decisions<\/strong>.  <a href=\"https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/case-documents\/2024\/20241218_docket-DA-23-0575_opinion.pdf\">20241218_docket-DA-23-0575_opinion.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court agreed with the plaintiffs who made the argument to the lower court that the Montana state lawmakers attempted amendments to the Montana Environmental Policy Act prohibiting regulators from taking into consideration greenhouse gas emissions in permitting decisions violated the plaintiffs&#8217; constitutional right to a &#8220;clean and healthful environment&#8221;.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court <strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">rejected<\/span><\/strong> the state&#8217;s argument that the authors of the State constitutional provision could NOT have intended to include climate change concerns in the right to a &#8220;clean and healthful environment&#8221;. Instead, they indicated that &#8230;&#8221;new advancements, consistent with the object and true principles of the constitution are provided for within Montana&#8217;s living constitution.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs had sued in 2020, claiming that the Montana Legislature had compromised their future and the rights of Montana citizens by prioritizing the development of carbon intensive fossil fuels and by barring the review of greenhouse gas impacts as part of the permit review process.  The lower court had agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down the proposed legislation as unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The justices also agreed with the plaintiffs in ruling that they had <strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">standing<\/span><\/strong> to bring the suit based on the plaintiffs providing that that they had a sufficient personal stake in their right to a clean and healthful environment as well as that they had shown sufficient injury resulting from the proposed amendments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Plaintiffs showed at trial\u2014&#8221;without dispute\u2014that <em>climate change<\/em> is harming Montana\u2019s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,\u201d the order states. \u201cPlaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Green Spouts<\/strong>: While this case is limited to the facts and drafting of the Montana proposed legislation and the State&#8217;s constitution, plaintiffs in other states will likely take notice of the arguments used by the Rikki Held plaintiffs in crafting similar arguments to a recent proliferation of legislation in various states that seek to limit regulatory bodies from taking into account greenhouse gas emissions in their rule making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Duane Morris<\/strong>\u00a0has an active Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. For more information, please contact\u00a0<strong>Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Jeff Hamera, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo\u00a0<\/strong>or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Earlier this week (December 17, 2024), in Rikki Held et al. vs, the State of Montana, the Montana Supreme court affirmed a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed state law that barred consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in state permitting decisions. In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that greenhouse gas emissions can &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/2024\/12\/19\/montana-supreme-court-rules-proposed-state-law-that-restricts-consideration-of-greenhouse-gas-impact-unconstitutional\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Montana Supreme Court rules proposed State law that restricts consideration of Greenhouse Gas Impact Unconstitutional&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":285,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[5],"class_list":["post-296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":5,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/285"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=296"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/esg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}