(TheIndependentStar.com) – In a painful upset for conservatives, Montana’s Supreme Court has favored environmentalists with a landmark verdict, highlighting the state’s constitutional obligation to safeguard environmental rights.
See the tweet below!
In a move welcomed by climate advocates, the court declared that Montana must consider environmental impacts before approving fossil fuel projects.
This landmark decision challenges the state’s previous stance and positions Montana as an environmental battleground.
The court upheld a district court ruling, affirming youth plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
By a 6-to-1 decision, the court invalidated two Montana statutes that hindered environmental reviews from considering greenhouse gas emissions, deeming them unconstitutional.
This ruling reinforces Montana’s responsibility to account for climate considerations before issuing permits for fossil fuel projects.
A lawsuit filed by 16 youth plaintiffs claimed the state violated their rights by endorsing fossil fuels without examining their environmental impact.
The court dismissed Montana’s argument that addressing greenhouse gas emissions locally would make little global difference.
Instead, the court emphasized state responsibility in safeguarding the environment, a move seen as a victory for youth and future generations.
“This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change. We have been heard, and today the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed that our rights to a safe and healthy climate cannot be ignored,” declared lead plaintiff Rikki Held, cited by The Epoch Times.
Montana Supreme Court, 5-1, affirms lower court decision in youth case of Held v. Montana: Climate change violates environmental rights clauses of state constitution; strikes down state law barring consideration of climate in setting energy policy. Text: https://t.co/TvkitRlTex pic.twitter.com/QovJnj2tBr
— Michael Gerrard (@MichaelGerrard) December 18, 2024
Republican leaders, including Governor Greg Gianforte, criticized the decision, warning it could prompt expensive lawsuits and raise energy costs.
Gianforte argued the court had overstepped its boundaries, impacting Montana’s strategies to provide affordable energy.
This tension is likely to fuel political efforts to curtail the judiciary’s influence.
One dissenting voice, Justice Jim Rice, expressed concerns about the plaintiffs’ standing and judicial overreach.
While the majority found the plaintiffs’ claims sufficient, Rice warned of shifting policy decisions from elected representatives to the courts.
Despite his dissent, the court’s decision has set a precedent that could inspire similar legal efforts nationwide.
“This ruling clarifies that the Constitution sets a clear directive for Montana to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the nation on a per capita basis, and to transition to a clean, renewable energy future,” Western Environmental Law Center attorney Melissa Hornbein said.
The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling insists that climate impacts must be considered in the approval process for future fossil fuel projects.
As arguments for economic stability clash with environmental imperatives, the debate over the court’s role in climate policy will likely continue.
Copyright 2024, TheIndependentStar.com
