‘Historic moment’: First climate action case goes on trial in US

World
By William

A trial begins Monday in Helena for Held v State of Montana, the first youth-led constitutional climate case to see its day in court in the United States.

In court documents filed in March 2020, 16 plaintiffs between the age five and 22 years claim that Montana’s promotion of a fossil fuel-dependent energy system violates their right to a clean and healthy environment under the state constitution. The process is expected to be completed on June 23.

“While these cases have been filed nationwide, the other cases have been dismissed before going to trial,” Michelle Bryan, a professor of natural resources and environmental law at the University of Montana, told Al Jazeera.

“So this will be the first time young people have appeared on the stand and testified and scientists will have appeared on the stand and testified about climate injury and the government’s role in preventing climate injury. For that reason alone, it will be a historic moment in the climate dispute.”

Barbara Chillcott, a Western Environmental Law Center attorney on the case, told Al Jazeera that viewers of the live streamed process can expect just that: an opportunity for young people to share stories of how they have been harmed by climate change alongside climate scientist witnesses.

‘Nuts and bolts of climate change’

The plaintiffs’ case begins “with the basics, the nuts and bolts of climate change, and addresses the damage caused by climate that our plaintiffs are experiencing,” says Chillcott.

It will also cover “Montana’s contribution to the climate crisis, as well as the analysis showing that Montana can move into the renewable energy space and now phase out fossil fuels – the technology is available”.

For Chillcott, getting this evidence on the court record is monumental, both in its own right and given the extent to which it can serve as a springboard for other climate cases in jurisdictions across the country.

Should the plaintiffs prevail in their case, Bryan says, “We will have an example in the United States of government being required to consider climate impacts when making decisions about fossil fuels.”

It would be for the state legislature and executive to amend relevant statutes to match the judge’s order.

In addition to Montana, other US states, such as New York and Pennsylvania, have similar clauses about clean and healthy environments in their constitutions.

“In those states, they can get similar results if the plaintiffs are successful,” Bryan notes. “Having multiple states engage in that practice and figure out how to do it could create a new practice in agency environmental assessment.”

She describes the extent to which climate-focused environmental assessments could eventually bubble up at the federal level as “an open question.”

‘Strategy to avoid lawsuits’

The start of the trial marks the end of the concerted efforts of Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and the state’s Republican supermajority to derail the trial.

After failed attempts by Knudsen to persuade Judge Kathy Seeley reject the case and the Montana Supreme Court Reverse Seeley’s decisionthe state legislature has amended two of the statutes that match some of the claims of the plaintiffs in the case.

Voting along party lines, Republicans repealed the state’s 30-year-old energy policy in April and changed the Montana Environmental Policy Act to ban government agencies that conduct environmental assessments from evaluating “greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate impacts” in May.

“The reasons given during the legislature failed to mention Held v State when the bill sponsor discussed reasons for repealing the state’s energy policy,” says Bryan. “It’s speculation, but it makes sense that the state has used that as a strategy to avoid litigation.”

Following these developments, Knudsen again unsuccessfully petitioned the state Supreme Court to dismiss the case.

Emily Flower, Knudsen’s press secretary, declined to make Knudsen available for an interview. Instead, she provided Al Jazeera statements from herself and Kyler Nerison, Knudsen’s communications director.

‘Deserving publicity stunt’

Nerison claims the lawsuit is “a meritless publicity stunt” designed to increase fundraising for “political activism”, despite the fact that no monetary compensation or damages can be awarded in the case and that the plaintiffs are largely represented by institutions non-profit.

Nerison brought the case as a result of climate activists attempting to “use liberal courts to impose their authoritarian climate agenda on Montana.”

He did not respond to a follow-up question on whether the state’s use of its conservative legislature to repeal relevant statutes amounted to a similar attempt to advance a political agenda.

Flower claimed that “most of this case has now been thrown out, and what remains of the case must also be dismissed”. Flower did not respond to follow-up questions about what she specifically considered the most important part of the case.

According to environmental law professor Bryan, each claim a plaintiff makes in a case stands alone. A fairly routine denial of one claim does not affect a plaintiff’s right to sue for other claims.

“[The state’s] tactics are rather desperate. They don’t want to go to trial, of course, but they’re on trial Monday morning and will have to represent the state on trial for the climate damage it has caused,” Chillcott says.

“The position of the state is that there is nothing left to go to court. Our position is the exact opposite, that everything remains and we will prove our case.”

You might also like More from author