The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a district court ruling in Held v. Montana, affirming the young plaintiffs have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.In a 6 to 1 ruling, Montanas high court ruled the public's right to a clean and healthful environment under Montana's constitution was violated when the state legislature passed a law removing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from environmental reviews under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Chief Justice Mike McGrath authored the opinion."Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the injury to their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment," wrote McGrath. "Montanans right to a clean and healthful environment was violated by the MEPA Limitation, which precluded an analysis of [greenhouse gas] emissions in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements during MEPA review."Held v. Montana is a landmark constitutional climate change lawsuit that has drawn significant attention since it was announced.The Held case started back in 2020 when 16 young plaintiffs aged between 5 and 22 filed suit against the state. They claimed Montanas policies on greenhouse gas emissions were contributing to climate change and harming their right to a clean and healthful environment guaranteed under the state constitution. The defendants include the State of Montana, Governor Greg Gianforte, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Department pf Natural Resources and Sonservation and the Montana Department of Transportation. In 2023, the Montana State Legislature Passed House Bill 971 which stated environmental review may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions. HB 971 became a key part of the youth plaintiffs' argument at trial.Last year, after a week-long trial in Helena, District Judge Kathy Seeley sided with the plaintiffs, in what supporters called a landmark decision. Her ruling invalidated HB 971 which prevented regulators from considering greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews.One of the states primary arguments throughout the trial and during appeal is that Montanas overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is minuscule when compared to the rest of the world. McGrath directly addressed this in his opinion."The State argues that it should not have to address its affirmative duty to a clean and healthful environment because even if Montana addresses its contribution to climate change, it will still be a problem if the rest of the world has not reduced its emissions," wrote McGrath. "This is akin to the old ad populum fallacy: 'If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?'"Governor Greg Gianforte reacted Wednesday to the announcement.While we are reviewing the decision from the Montana Supreme Court, we know what its impact will be: perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans," wrote Gianforte in a statement. This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy. This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montanas all-of-the-above approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state. A spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's Office also expressed disappointment in the decision. The decision is disappointing, but not surprising. The majority of the state Supreme Court justices yet again ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate, wrote Chase Scheuer, Press Secretary for Attorney General Austin Knudsen, in a statement. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Jim Rice stated the plaintiffs alleged injury was abstract, indistinguishable from that of the public as a whole, and was thus not sufficiently concrete for legal challenge.Editors note: This is a developing story.