In a landmark ruling, a Montana judge decided that the state government has violated its own constitution ensuring every citizen’s “right to a clean and healthful environment” by subsidizing fossil fuel harvesting and use over other energy sources, the Washington Post reports.  The case, brought by Montanans between the ages of five-years-old up to age 22, is believed to be the first successful constitutionally-based argument about the right to a clean environment brought by minors suing to ensure governments honor their stewardship of the nation for future generations.

The Montana Environmental Protection Act, originally passed in 1971, was updated in 2001 to loosen environmental protections to be more fossil-fuel friendly.  Recent revisions and other legislation, however, provided funds for fossil fuel harvesting and use in the state, while impeding the development of renewable fuels.  Article II Section 3 of the state constitution, however, requires the government to protect the environment:

All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.  [Emphasis added]

With the largest coal reserves in the country, Montana provides significant subsidies and tax benefits to fossil fuel companies; the plaintiffs’ attorneys asserted the state of Montana has never denied a fossil fuel permit.  Highlighting the breech of duty over five days of testimony, the plaintiffs included a 15-year-old asthma patient who testified that drought conditions and smoke from grassfires required him to stay in his home, a violation of his civil rights.  Rikki Held, a 22-year-old plaintiff from a ranching family, testified about the detrimental impact climate change accelerated by fossil fuels have detrimentally impacted their ability to run a ranch in Montana.

Montana state attorneys did not mount a defense attempting to undermine the argument made by the plaintiffs which would have required them to demonstrate the right-wing claim that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide do not impact climate.  Instead, the attorneys wrapped up their defense in one day by claiming the issue should be taken up by the legislature, not the judicial branch.

The argument did not work.  District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found that the state failed to rebut any of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the responsibility of the state, and she found the state’s argument that the issue should be decided by the legislature to be uncompelling.