Karin Kirk writes:

When I got an assignment to cover the landmark youth climate lawsuit that went to trial in Montana this week, I thought I was going to be able to pop in, grab some salient quotes, and write up a story.

But the trial at a state district court in Helena has turned out to be unexpectedly wild. The testimony has been gripping. And the contrast between the polished lawyering of the plaintiffs’ side compared to the somewhat rough-and-tumble approach by lawyers for the state of Montana took me by surprise.

The case, Held v. Montana, pits a group of 16 young plaintiffs against the state of Montana. The youth argue that the state’s unabated pursuit of fossil fuel extraction is violating their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment.

Their argument draws on an unusual feature of Montana’s constitution. Written in 1972, it reads: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

In fact, the right to a clean and healthful environment is spelled out twice in the constitution, and it’s listed first among Montanans’ inalienable rights.

Montana’s constitution is part of why this is the first of several youth climate lawsuits to make it to trial in the U.S. Montana attempted several times to have the case dismissed.

The trial is being closely watched by climate advocates across the U.S. because it has the potential to establish a precedent that future cases could build upon. If Judge Kathy Seely finds that Montana’s fossil fuel activities violate the state constitution, then the state may have to reconsider its all-in approach toward fossil fuels — though it’s uncertain how that would play out. [Continue reading…]