Montana’s legal battle over climate change took another twist as the state’s Supreme Court denied the Gianforte administration’s second attempt to pause a groundbreaking climate case. In a 2-5 decision the court upheld a lower ruling that found the state violated residents’ constitutional rights to a clean environment by neglecting climate impacts in permit decisions. This marks the second setback for the administration already stung by a climate change case loss earlier this year.
Photo from Google
Montana’s Uphill Legal Battle Continues
In a 2-5 split, the Montana Supreme Court rejected the state’s plea to delay the enforcement of a district court decision favoring young plaintiffs in the Held v. Montana climate case. The ruling underscores the administration’s struggle in the legal arena after its initial loss.
The district court’s judgment, handed down by Judge Kathy Seeley, accused the state of violating citizens’ rights by disregarding climate impacts when granting permits. This decision gained international attention as a milestone for climate activists challenging established legal norms.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is not final, but it signifies a significant step in the ongoing legal battle. The defendants including Governor Greg Gianforte, sought a pause, arguing legal uncertainties and practical challenges in implementing new regulations. However, the court remained unconvinced emphasizing the state’s failure to demonstrate the alleged burdens.
READ ALSO: DC Police Seek Vehicle Linked To Southeast Shooting, Leaving Man Injured
Plaintiffs Object to Delay Emphasizing Urgency
A group of 12 Montanans, aged 6 to 22 during the trial, vehemently opposed the state’s plea for a stay. They argued that the administration failed to follow proper legal procedures and stressed the urgency of addressing climate change for a sustainable future.
The plaintiffs, buoyed by the initial victory insisted that allowing the state’s actions to continue during the appeal process would cause further harm to Montana’s children. The legal clash unfolds in a state where constitutional clauses mandate a “clean and healthful environment,” setting the stage for a protracted and precedent-setting legal battle.
READ ALSO: Accused 17-Year-Old In December Shooting Deaths Of Two Teenagers
