Since 2015, groups of young people have been suing state and federal governments over climate change. Only one of those suits has made it all the way to trial, in Montana. And in December, they won at the state supreme court.
This year, conservative Montana lawmakers responded with new bills to get around that court's Held v. Montana decision, which have now been signed into law.
The court ruling that prompted the new laws was based on Montana's constitution, which guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment. In the lawsuit brought by sixteen young residents of Montana, the state supreme court ruled that right also includes a stable climate — and struck down 2023 legislation barring environmental regulators from considering climate impacts, when permitting energy projects.
The young plaintiffs initiated the court action by suing the state in 2020. They argued that the state's fossil fuel-friendly policies contributed to climate change, violating their constitutional rights.
Despite multiple attempts by the state to have the case thrown out, it went to trial in June of 2023.
A few months later, state district court judge Kathy Seeley ruled in the youths' favor. The state appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, only to have the court uphold the ruling in December, just days before Montana's 2025 legislative session began.
The decision outraged conservatives, who argued that because climate change is a global issue, Montana cannot be held responsible for it.
Republican state lawmakers lambasted the court's decision — and responded with a suite of bills to limit the ruling's impact. State Sen. Wylie Galt, one of the bill sponsors, called the court's decision, "a gift-wrapped present to radical environment activists, an open door for endless lawsuits to shut down Montana's fossil fuel industry."
Montana has long been a big coal producing state. The federal government estimates that it's home to about a third of America's recoverable coal reserves. But the court ordered Montana to "consider the climate impacts" of developing fossil fuel projects, and their greenhouse gas emissions.
A move that, "had nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with weaponizing the courts to strangle our economy," Galt said.
The new law Galt sponsored appears to address the court's order to consider climate impacts by requiring Montana to now inventory greenhouse gas emissions, but it won't regulate them. It also excludes certain fossil fuel projects from environmental analyses altogether.
Galt's bill, and others, support the state's fossil fuel industries, and were endorsed by industry groups.
New laws, not constitutional change
"It is an interesting bill in that in some ways, it does implement what the court says in Held, but it does it in a way that conflicts with the spirit of Held," says University of Montana law professor Constance Van Kley.
Other new state laws go one step further, barring Montana from regulating planet warming emissions, unless the federal government does so first. That is unlikely under the Trump administration.
Lawmakers could have tried to change Montana's constitution, eliminating its guarantee of environmental protection. But that's a higher threshold and requires significant voter buy-in. Attempts to bring constitutional amendments failed, even when Republicans had a legislative supermajority in 2023.
Olivia Vesovich signed on as a plaintiff in the case to have her voice heard when she wasn't yet old enough to vote. Now, she's a college student at the University of Montana. On a break between finals, she walked along a trail between campus and Missoula's Clark Fork River. Scanning the peaks of the nearby Sapphire mountains, she said signs of the changing climate are evident.
"I don't see any snow on these mountains," Vesovich said.
That's unusual, and concerning at this time of year. Research shows that, due to the warming climate, fire seasons in western American forests are now nearly three months longer than 20 years prior, and that they last longer, and are more destructive.
"I would love if my teenage years were not defined by climate change," Vesovich said.
She watched in shock as Montana's Republican legislative majority passed bill after bill eroding the state supreme court's decision.
"To watch our legislators actively dismiss a constitutional ruling is devastating", Vesovich said.
Underpinning the Held case is ongoing tension between the legislature and the courts, said Van Kley.
"There has been a response to the court striking down the legislation [passed in 2023] on the part of the legislature, with the legislature kind of claiming that the Montana judiciary is out of control and super liberal," she said.
Montana's conservative lawmakers and governor challenging the authority of the judicial branch has been a theme for several years.
Van Kley explained that although the Held decision doesn't actually stop the permitting of any fossil-fuel project, she still sees it having an impact on Montana environmental policy moving forward.
"The court said, it's enough to have a constitutional right that is being violated in maybe a fairly general way by legislation when that constitutional right is the right to a clean and healthful environment," Van Kley said.
Van Kley says due to the court's decision, there is now a broad potential for any Montanan to challenge any environmental legislation — based solely on their constitutional rights.
Environmental groups say Montanans won't stand for the new laws passed in response to the state supreme court decision. That means more confrontation in and with state courts.
"I think it's very likely to end up being litigated," Van Kley said.
Back on the river trail, Olivia Vesovich said she and countless other young people will continue to feel the effects of human-caused climate change. She's disappointed by the Montana legislature's priorities.
"They care more about protecting the fossil fuel industry than they care about protecting the lives of children," Vesovich said.
She explained the longer the state delays on climate action, the worse things will be in the future — and she hopes that lawmakers will keep that in mind.
Copyright 2025 NPR