Montana Youth Ask State Supreme Court To Reinstate Landmark Climate Ruling After Legislature Undercuts It

Thirteen of the young plaintiffs who won the groundbreaking Held v. Montana climate case have asked the Montana Supreme Court to strike down new 2025 laws they say nullify that victory and weaken the state’s ability to consider greenhouse gas impacts in environmental reviews.

Background

In August 2023 a Montana trial judge ruled for 16 youth plaintiffs who argued state officials violated their constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment" by promoting fossil fuels. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s key findings in late 2024. The victory held that laws preventing agencies from factoring greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts into environmental reviews are unconstitutional.

What Changed In 2025

The petition filed this week by 13 of the original plaintiffs — represented by Our Children’s Trust — says the 2025 legislature passed several measures that directly conflict with the Held decision. Key changes include:

• A law barring Montana from adopting air-quality standards stricter than those in the federal Clean Air Act, effectively turning the federal baseline into an upper limit rather than a minimum level of protection.
• An amendment to the Montana Environmental Policy Act that narrows the list of greenhouse gases agencies must inventory to six specified gases and excludes consideration of upstream and downstream emissions (those from fuel transport or combustion outside the state).
• Language expressly preventing state agencies from using emissions or pollution information they collect to condition or deny permits for energy projects.

Why Plaintiffs Say The Laws Violate The Ruling

“These new policies mean the state is going to just continue to act in a way that will increase greenhouse gases which during the Held case were shown to be disproportionately harming youth,” said Rikki Held, the 24-year-old lead petitioner and the named plaintiff in the original lawsuit. She urged the court to enforce its earlier findings so agencies can fully evaluate climate harms when reviewing projects.

“It means we’ll continue down a path we already know and have proven is detrimental.” — Rikki Held

Nate Bellinger, supervising staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust, called the new measures a re-imposition of the “blinders” the Held decision found unconstitutional: restricting what agencies may consider and prohibiting them from acting on the information they gather.

Context And Stakes

The petition comes as federal environmental protections are facing rollbacks under the current administration, making state-level enforcement more consequential, the plaintiffs say. Advocates also point to state-level signals — including a governor-directed task force to encourage fossil-fuel development — as evidence the legislative changes are intended to enable expanded fossil-fuel permits.

Personal Impact

Held described direct effects of climate change on her family’s Montana ranch: worsening drought that has harmed livestock and crops and extreme weather that limits outdoor life. "We don’t have another five years to wait for protections while the state keeps using fossil fuels," she said.

Next Steps

The petition asks the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate the 2025 laws as inconsistent with the state constitution and the court’s prior rulings. If the court agrees, agencies would be able to resume full consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, including upstream and downstream impacts, and could use that information to condition or deny permits where appropriate.

The state of Montana did not immediately respond to requests for comment.