In a landmark ruling, a Montana state judge has declared unconstitutional laws which prohibited state officials from taking into account potential climate impacts while issuing fossil fuel-related permits. The ruling, a first of its kind in the U.S., resonates with the constitutional right to a stable climate and renders it enforceable, as noted by Harvard Law Professor Richard Lazarus.
This significant ruling came after Montana defended its case in a single day, relying on only three witnesses. The state concentrated its argument on the legality of the issue, sidestepping the facts of climate change. This legal-centric approach has attracted national media attention, with the outcome of the case potentially endorsing this strategy for future legal battles over climate change.
Irrespective of the ruling, Montana plans to file an appeal at the Montana Supreme Court. However, the outcome of the appeal is unpredictable due to the influence of previous court decisions. The ruling struck down a state law that required state agencies to forecast all potential impacts of new regulations on small businesses. The law in question was Senate Bill 215, enacted in Montana in April 2021.
The Montana Environmental Information Center and the Montana Federation of Public Employees had initially filed lawsuits against the law. They challenged the law based on its vagueness and the potential for it to create confusion among the public and businesses.
This ruling by Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley could potentially set a precedent for other U.S. states. Similar laws across the country could be contested based on their practicality and constitutionality. The decision underscores the growing recognition of the importance of considering climate impacts in policymaking and could mark a significant shift in the fight against climate change.
