February 13, 2025
Helena, MT – Several bills in the Montana Legislature currently focus on bringing clarity to the hotly contested Supreme Court ruling upholding Held vs State of Montana (2024).
Critics of the Supreme Court ruling argue the court is overstepping into legislative matters, accusing it of “legislating from the bench.” The 69th Montana Legislature is now tasked with navigating the implications of this ruling.
Background
The Montana lawsuit, filed in 2020 by 16 young plaintiffs with the backing of Our Children’s Trust (OCT), has ignited debate over climate policy, children’s rights, and the role of the courts in shaping environmental law. OCT, an Oregon-based nonprofit, uses a legal strategy called atmospheric trust litigation (ATL) to push for stronger climate action. Their argument is based on the “public trust” principle, claiming that Montana’s environmental policies, particularly under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), fail to adequately consider greenhouse gas emissions—violating children’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
Supporters see this as a clever strategy, while some would say it is inappropriate to exploit children to advance one’s own political agenda.
According to their website, in 2011, OCT assisted youth in all 50 states to file a petition for rulemaking authority. Most states dismissed the petition outright; however, lawsuits were filed in some states, resulting in favorable rulings in just two: Hawaii and Montana.
Where We are Now
This ruling has spurred legislators to write multiple bills this session aimed at clarifying the ruling and reinforcing the position of MEPA as having no regulatory weight of its own. A brief read in the Guide to the Montana Environmental Policy Act ” states that “MEPA is not an act that controls or sets regulations for any specific land or resource use.” And “If implemented correctly and efficiently, MEPA should encourage and foster economic development that is environmentally and socially sound. By taking the time to identify the environmental impacts of a state decision before the decision is made and including the public in the process, MEPA is intended to foster better decision making for people and the environment.”
The four bills being highlighted as “MEPA Bills” are HB285, HB270, HB291, and SB221.
At a press conference on Wednesday, House Speaker Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage, stated that the courts ignored common sense in their ruling and emphasized that HB285 was restoring balance. He highlighted that Montana is an energy-rich state that supports our families and argued that the lawsuit was based on speculation. “Montanans focus on facts, not fear,” he declared.
HB285 points out the 16 statutes and accompanying rules already in place that establish the requirements to satisfy the “anticipatory and preventative” test set forth by the Supreme Court. It states the goal of revising environmental review laws is to clarify that the act is intended to be “procedural,” and that MEPA reviews are not meant to be used to stop or delay projects.
Rep. Katie Zolnikov R-Billings, proposed clean-up language in HB 270 to align with the recent court ruling (Held v MT) and to provide clarity and consistency. Her bill focuses on “practical outcomes” and clarifies informed decisions, rather than power.
Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Shepherd, spoke about HB291 establishing clear guidelines for agencies that seek to create their own rules instead of adhering to legislative guidance. This approach aligns with both state and federal regulations outlined in the Clean Air Act. Rather than relaxing environmental standards, it ensures that all parties are operating on the same level playing field, free from ideological bias.
Senator Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, is confident when he calls SB221 a “Goldilocks bill.” It provides guidance on greenhouse gas assessments while avoiding unnecessary red tape for development. The bill states in part “the Legislature is troubled by the court’s overreach and strongly disagrees with the court’s Held decision but recognizes that without providing direction and clear statutory sideboard, there will be regulatory uncertainty and unnecessary, expensive, and continued litigation.”
Galt described it as a solution that involves “no activist lawsuits, no bureaucratic overreach, just facts.”
Moving ForwardThere will be more work ahead, but these four “MEPA bills” are a huge step toward a clearer, more efficient process. Since rulemaking falls under the Legislature’s authority, not the judiciary, it is encouraging to see lawmakers taking action and owning their authority.