The Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in the state’s appeal of a district court judge’s decision in the Held vs. Montana case, setting the stage for a decision that will have broad impacts on environmental law and regulations in Montana.
Considering the arguments from both sides, and additional briefs from Republican-led states and recreation businesses like Orvis and Patagonia, the court will have to decide whether to uphold Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Kathy Seeley’s order from last August finding the state was violating the constitutional rights of the 16 youth plaintiffs to a clean and healthful environment.
Seeley’s order struck down the so-called “limitation” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act that prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts from energy and mining projects, the Daily Montanan reports.
She also enjoined a portion of another bill passed by Republican lawmakers last year that said permits approved by Montana agencies that did not include a greenhouse gas emissions evaluation could not be vacated or voided unless Congress voted to start regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.
Attorneys representing the state, Gov. Greg Gianforte, and three state agencies will get 40 minutes to make their case to the justice, while attorneys for the youth plaintiffs will have 30 minutes. The hearing will be held in the Supreme Court chambers in Helena and start at 9:30 a.m.
The Montana Environmental Information Center and other Montana environmental groups are also hosting watch parties of the oral arguments, which will be live streamed online, in Missoula, Billings and Kalispell.
What the two sides and their supporters are arguing
The youth plaintiffs in the case filed their response to the state’s appeal in March, and the case was fully briefed in April when attorneys for the state, Gianforte, and the state agencies filed their replies. About 20 separate amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs have been filed in the case either in support of the youth plaintiffs or the state that the Supreme Court can also consider when deciding the case.
…
(Content continues)