A number of youth involved in the historic Held v. Montana climate lawsuit are returning to court, alleging a number of laws passed by the 2025 Legislature violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. 

The new petition, filed directly with the Montana Supreme Court last week against the state, Gov. Greg Gianforte, and the Department of Environmental Quality, seeks to overturn three laws passed earlier this year — House Bills 285 and 291, as well as Senate Bill 221  — which came about as a direct response to the state’s highest court upholding the young plaintiff’s victory last year. 

“Montana’s leaders are openly defying the Constitution and the Supreme Court,” said Nate Bellinger, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, in a press release. “Held made clear that these youth are being harmed now and that Montana has a constitutional duty to protect them. Instead, lawmakers passed laws with the explicit intent to undermine the court’s ruling.”

But in a statement to the Daily Montanan, Speaker of the House Brandon Ler said the “activists are using the courts to achieve outcomes they cannot win through the legislative process,” undermining the separation of powers in Montana. 

In 2023, a district court judge ruled the state could not limit the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, affirmed the youth plaintiffs have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, and rolled back two laws challenging the Montana Environmental Policy Act. 

Following December’s Supreme Court ruling upholding that decision, Republicans brought a suite of bills aimed at addressing the Held decision by altering MEPA and the Montana Clean Air Act. 

“In the Held v. Montana court case, they tried to twist MEPA into something it was never meant to be — a tool to deny permits and block development,” said Ler, R-Savage, said during a signing ceremony for five of the bills. 

Ler sponsored House Bill 285, which passed along party lines. He said it was designed to provide clarity and efficiency to MEPA. 

While the law adds a mechanism for agencies to conduct greenhouse gas analysis of proposed actions, it emphasizes MEPA is a tool for assessing environmental impacts without regulatory teeth. 

It specifically states that “An agency may not withhold, deny, or impose conditions on any permit or other authority to act,” based on MEPA. 

The Held litigants argue the change effectively “blinded” state agencies, such as as the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, by prohibiting the use of information gathered during MEPA reviews to alter a permit, even if the environmental impacts could be a violation of the state constitution. 

“The laws unconstitutionally eliminate a means to prevent harms from happening before they occur,” the petition states. 

Senate Bill 221, brought by Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, also changed MEPA by narrowing the scope of review to “proximate” environmental impacts and defining a “proposed action” as excluding “upstream, downstream, or other indirect action that occurs independently or is caused in part or exclusively by the proposed action.”

“Such restrictions on the scope of environmental reviews under MEPA require agencies to turn a blind eye to known environmental harms caused by fossil fuel projects and (greenhouse gas) emissions,” the petition states. 

A third challenged law, HB 291, brought by Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Billings, prohibits the state from adopting more stringent standards for air pollutants than the federal government.

The petition argues the provision turns the floor of the federal Clean Air Act regulations “into a ceiling,” and prevents the DEQ from exercising broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“Federal air pollution standards tell Montana’s agencies little to nothing about the impact of (greenhouse gas) emissions on Montana’s environment,” the petition argues. 

The thirteen plaintiffs in the suit, ages 15 to 24, were all involved in Held vs. Montana. 

“I love Montana, which is why I am taking action again to protect my home and its people,” Rikki Held said. “The Montana Supreme Court has already affirmed that we have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including a stable climate system, and the facts show we are being harmed right now, yet the state just passed new laws that make these harms worse. We are breathing polluted air, losing access to the lands and waters that sustain us, and confronting heat, wildfires, and climate impacts that endanger our health, our lives, and our futures.”

The petition is requesting the state Supreme Court take up the case as an original proceeding focused on legal questions, as the scientific record of the effects of fossil fuels on the climate and Montana youth was established in Held vs. Montana during a district court trial. 

A spokesperson for the governor’s office did not respond to questions from the Daily Montanan by publication.

Petition+for+Original+Jurisdiction