Judge rules in favor of young Montana activists in US climate trial; state constitution guarantees a “clean and healthful environment”

[essentialsaltes]

‘Game-changer’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial​

Sixteen young plaintiffs had alleged the Montana state government had violated their right to a healthy environment

The judge who heard the US’s first constitutional climate trial earlier this year has ruled in favor of a group of young plaintiffs who had accused state officials in Montana of violating their right to a healthy environment.

“I’m so speechless right now,” Eva, a plaintiff who was 14 when the suit was filed, said in a statement. “I’m really just excited and elated and thrilled.”

On Monday, Judge Kathy Seeley said that by prohibiting government agencies from considering climate impacts when deciding whether or not to permit energy projects, Montana is contributing to the climate crisis and stopping the state from addressing that crisis. The 103-page order came several weeks after the closely watched trial came to a close on 20 June.

“In a sweeping win for our clients, the Honorable Judge Kathy Seeley declared Montana’s fossil fuel-promoting laws unconstitutional and enjoined their implementation,” she said.

The state, which previously vowed to fight the decision if the plaintiffs won, now has 60 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Montana supreme court.

 

[durangodawood]

I do think us "older" people are failing the younger ones, who will have to live through the consequences of the filth we left behind in pursuit of comfort and wealth.

And deciding which constitutional text "matters" should not be an arbitrary process.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm assuming they'll be an appeal here...but it does raise some interesting questions.

Primarily, how the right to life is interpreted.

If someone is going claim "the right to life is paramount" or other issues, it would seem as if "an environment that supports life" is a logical prerequisite for that.

Now, where it will get messy is in the details.

If the plaintiffs are asserting that the state is under the obligation to go along with every policy idea that's floated in the name of "addressing climate change" then that's not a reasonable ask. It's possible to both identify a real problem, but have totally unfeasible ides for a solution.

And it probably doesn't help their case, in terms of solidity, that one of the plaintiffs is 5 years old which is likely going to be fodder for whoever ends up deciding to appeal it. I'm guessing that was a kid who was dragged along by a parent or older sibling...that kind of thing doesn't help.


The climate issue is a serious one, and I feel it deserves a certain amount of seriousness. While you can get a court victory (in a friendly local court) with tactics like an adult rallying a bunch of kids together and coaching them on what to say, that's the kind of thing that's not going to hold up long term once it gets appealed in a higher court. And it could backfire in the form of the opposing sides legal counsel getting these kids on the stand and making them look foolish once it becomes clear that most of them likely don't know much outside of the rehearsed talking points.

This seems like something of a Greta 2.0...the youth speaking accurately about a problem (thanks to adult coaching on what they should say), but tending to crumble when facing questioning from an unfriendly audience, thereby ruining legitimacy for the argument.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This seems like something of a Greta 2.0...the youth speaking accurately about a problem (thanks to adult coaching on what they should say), but tending to crumble when facing questioning from an unfriendly audience

Funny way to characterize their court win.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Funny way to characterize their court win.

It's a shallow win (which, if it gets appealed, and likely will) that won't amount to anything.

We need adults an scientists talking about this stuff, not adults coaching kids on what to say in front of a friendly judge.

They literally had a 5 year old as one of the plaintiffs on this one. A "non-friendly" appeal lawyer (in a place like Montana no less) simply has to call them on the stand and ask them to spell "Environmental" or ask them one serious question about carbon emissions in a stern voice (at which point, they'll likely start crying, ask for their parents, and say they want to go home) and it delegitimizes this whole thing.

Serious issues require substance, not theatrics.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We need adults an scientists talking about this stuff,

Both sides had expert witnesses testify.

 

[SimplyMe]

It's a shallow win (which, if it gets appealed, and likely will) that won't amount to anything.

We need adults an scientists talking about this stuff, not adults coaching kids on what to say in front of a friendly judge.

They literally had a 5 year old as one of the plaintiffs on this one. A "non-friendly" appeal lawyer (in a place like Montana no less) simply has to call them on the stand and ask them to spell "Environmental" or ask them one serious question about carbon emissions in a stern voice (at which point, they'll likely start crying, ask for their parents, and say they want to go home) and it delegitimizes this whole thing.

Serious issues require substance, not theatrics.

Sorry, no, it isn't a shallow win. Additionally, I think it could be difficult for the state to successfully appeal. The legislature passed a law (signed by the governor) that bans new energy projects in the state to considering greenhouse gas emissions in the environmental reviews. Since the Montana Constitution specifically requires the state to, "maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” To me, that requirement that actually bans taking greenhouse gas emissions into account when approving new energy projects is a clear violation of the Montana Constitution requirement for a "clean and healthful environment."

This case is about a real life issue and not obligating the state to go along with every "policy idea that's floated;" the case was specifically to overturn the portion of the law that bans looking at greenhouse gas emissions when approving new energy projects.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sorry, no, it isn't a shallow win. Additionally, I think it could be difficult for the state to successfully appeal. The legislature passed a law (signed by the governor) that bans new energy projects in the state to considering greenhouse gas emissions in the environmental reviews. Since the Montana Constitution specifically requires the state to, "maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” To me, that requirement that actually bans taking greenhouse gas emissions into account when approving new energy projects is a clear violation of the Montana Constitution requirement for a "clean and healthful environment."

This case is about a real life issue and not obligating the state to go along with every "policy idea that's floated;" the case was specifically to overturn the portion of the law that bans looking at greenhouse gas emissions when approving new energy projects.

Per Axios: https://www.axios.com/2023/08/14/montana-youths-climate-change-landmark-lawsuit

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193780700/montana-climate-change-trial-ruling

Picked up by NPR, the state AG's spokesperson made the following statement:
Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as "absurd" and said the office planned to appeal. She criticized Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a "taxpayer-funded publicity stunt."

"Montanans can't be blamed for changing the climate," Flower said in an email. "Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary."