Bold truth: Montana’s youth fought for their future, and now they’re insisting the court make that victory real. The young activists behind Held v. Montana are asking the state’s highest court to enforce the ruling that protected their constitutional right to a healthy environment and held the state accountable for promoting fossil fuels.
In August 2023, a Montana judge sided with 16 youth plaintiffs, finding that state officials violated their rights by facilitating fossil fuel activities. The Montana Supreme Court later upheld those findings in 2024. Yet, this year, lawmakers enacted new laws that critics say contradict the court’s decision. Thirteen of the sixteen plaintiffs filed a petition this week arguing that these new policies will keep driving up greenhouse gas emissions, continuing a pattern the Held case already established as harmful to young people.
The Held decision determined that laws restricting agencies from considering climate impacts and emissions during environmental reviews are unconstitutional. It also affirmed that while climate change is a global issue, Montana bears a duty to address the harms caused by emissions within the state.
“Narrowing agencies’ view of climate impacts is unconstitutional,” said Nate Bellinger, supervising staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust, which helped file the petition and the Held v. Montana case. “Now the state is effectively narrowing them again.”
During the 2025 legislative session, a new challenge argues, lawmakers passed a law preventing the state from adopting air-quality standards stricter than those in the federal Clean Air Act. In other words, federal standards would act as a ceiling rather than a floor—an inversion that worries advocates, according to Bellinger.
The petition also points to amendments to Montana’s Environmental Policy Act, which now inventory only six climate-warming gases for reviews of energy projects. It further excludes upstream and downstream emissions—those tied to transporting fossil fuels or burning Montana-produced fuels elsewhere—from analysis, even though agencies previously considered these impacts.
Even more troubling, Bellinger notes, is a clause that prohibits state agencies from using any pollution data to condition or deny permits for proposed projects. He calls this provision unconstitutional.
The state did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Lawmakers behind the changes have signaled that the new policies are in response to the youth challengers’ 2023 victory. City and state leaders even warned the court to prepare for a heated session, signaling heightened partisan energy around the issue.
In their petition, the plaintiffs urge Montana’s Supreme Court to strike down these new laws to ensure the state fulfills constitutional duties, including the right to a clean and healthful environment.
The move comes as national debates over climate regulation intensify, with federal actions under scrutiny under the current administration. The youth advocates argue that states must shield their citizens by strengthening protections, not rolling them back.
Montana has taken the opposite approach, according to supporters of the challenge. The governor has formed a task force to explore expanding fossil-fuel production, aligning with a broader national push toward energy expansion. State officials are also evaluating proposals to broaden coal, oil, and gas development to align with a pro-fossil-fuel agenda.
Bellinger says time is of the essence: these laws should be removed quickly so the state can enforce protections that help deny risky permits and safeguard environmental health.
Held, now 24, says she has felt the climate crisis firsthand. On her family’s Montana ranch, drought and extreme weather have harmed crops and livestock, and limited outdoor time. Since filing Held v. Montana in 2020, the situation has worsened, she notes, underscoring urgency: “We don’t have another five years to wait for protections while the state continues to rely on fossil fuels.”
The core message is clear: the next steps in Montana will either advance or undermine the protections that youth activists have fought to secure. How this legal dispute unfolds could influence how seriously Montana—and perhaps other states—take their constitutional duty to a healthy environment in the face of climate change. Where do you stand on balancing regulatory constraints with environmental protection, and what questions would you pose in the comments about the path forward?
