HELENA — A year after the Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of young plaintiffs in the Held v. Montana climate lawsuit, 13 of those 16 plaintiffs are challenging another set of state laws.
On Wednesday, the plaintiffs – again led by 24-year-old Rikki Held – filed a motion with the Supreme Court, asking justices to accept the case without sending it to district court first. They want the court to rule that three laws passed during the 2025 Montana legislative session violated the state constitution’s guarantee of a “right to a clean and healthful environment,” as stated in the first Held decision.
Nate Bellinger, an attorney with the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, represented the plaintiffs in the first case and is now the lead attorney again. He told MTN Wednesday that state regulators, using the new laws, were still not fully accounting for harms from greenhouse gas emissions.
“We've tried to get them to do the right thing, they've shown they're not willing to do that, so we decided it was time for a new lawsuit,” he said.
The laws at issue are:
- House Bill 285, sponsored by House Speaker Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage, which revised the Montana Environmental Policy Act to state that it was meant to be “procedural,” and that MEPA reviews weren’t intended to be used to stop or delay projects.
- Senate Bill 211, sponsored by Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, which laid out rules for when and how state reviews of greenhouse gas emissions are conducted.
- House Bill 291, sponsored by Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Shepherd, which limited agencies’ authority to enact stricter air quality standards at the state or local level than what’s enforced at the federal level.
Republican leaders in the Legislature positioned the laws as responses to the Held decision, saying they were intended to streamline environmental reviews and provide more certainty for businesses and workers.
Bellinger said the laws clearly went against the Supreme Court’s ruling in the first Held case and showed “disdain” for the justices’ decision.
“Normally we expect the political branches to comply with court orders, and they've shown that they're not only not complying, but they're actively seeking to undermine those court orders,” he said. “I think that should be really concerning for everyone.”
The plaintiffs in the new case now range in age from 24 to 15. They have argued that, regardless of how much Montana contributes to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, every additional ton of emissions directly harms them, by affecting their health and the world around them.
“They're frustrated and dismayed that they have to do this again,” Bellinger said. ‘I think they would much prefer that their state was doing the right thing, complying with the court order, taking the climate and greenhouse gas concerns seriously and trying to alleviate those harms. But at the same time, there’s a resolve and determination among them, and they are in this fight for the long haul.”
Republican leaders quickly criticized the new filing.
“Activists are using the courts to achieve outcomes they cannot win through the legislative process,” Ler said in a statement to MTN. “That undermines representative government and the separation of powers Montanans expect.”
“People who want to implement their preferred political agenda should run for the legislature instead of continually seeking activist decisions from our courts,” said Senate President Sen. Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, in a statement. “That's the way our system of government is meant to work.”
Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office defended the state in the first Held case. Amanda Braynack, a spokesperson for Knudsen, told MTN Wednesday afternoon that they had not yet been officially served.
“However, it’s clear this is an attempt by a radical environmentalist activist group to circumvent the litigation process and use their friends in the judiciary to veto duly enacted laws,” she said in a statement. “If the Montana Supreme Court orders us to respond, we plan to expose the flaws.”
Several of the plaintiffs in the two Held lawsuits also challenged federal energy policy this year, in Lighthiser v. Trump. Among them was that case’s namesake, Eva Lighthiser.
In October, a U.S. district judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, saying he didn’t believe the court had the jurisdiction to grant what they were asking for. Bellinger said they are currently appealing that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
