Held v State of Montana: A Constitutional Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?

Abstract

Abstract This analysis examines the decision in Held v State of Montana by the Montana First Judicial District Court, in which 16 youth plaintiffs successfully argued that provisions within the state energy policy and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. As the first climate case in the USA to be brought based on a constitutional right to a healthy environment, it has received considerable attention and is being hailed as a landmark victory. This analysis examines the case in the context of recent trends in climate change litigation and argues that whilst the decision is indeed noteworthy, the circumstances that led to the decision make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful claims will follow in the USA. Nevertheless, the case could mark a so-called ‘constitutional rights turn’ in climate litigation, as the case bolsters support for stronger protections for environmental rights.