Montana
A Landmark Victory in the Legal Fight Against Climate Change
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
With the federal judiciary increasingly hostile toward the battle against climate change, environmental litigators have turned to state courts for progress. They scored a major victory on Wednesday when the Montana Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that the state constitution protects residents against climate change. On this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the case and its consequences for other climate-curious state supreme courts. A preview of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Dahlia Lithwick: This week, the Montana Supreme Court boldly went where we keep hoping state supreme courts will go.
Mark Joseph Stern: It all started with a provision of the state constitution that guarantees the right “to a clean and healthful environment” and requires the state “to maintain and improve” that environment “for present and future generations.” Citing this language, the Montana Supreme Court, by a 6–1 vote, held that the state constitution limits the government’s ability to exacerbate climate change. The court discussed the obvious and undeniable reality of climate change, not just globally but in Montana. Refreshingly, it began the opinion with facts about how climate change is ravaging Montana and threatens everybody’s way of life.
Then the court declared that the plaintiffs in this case, a group of young people, could bring this suit and hold the government to its constitutional obligation to protect the environment for future generations. It explained that this obligation is about not just preventing oil spills and other disasters but also limiting carbon emissions so that everyone can enjoy a clean Montana for hundreds of years to come.
If we’ve learned anything about environmental law, it’s that nothing stops or starts within the confines of a state. So while this sounds like an incredibly cool and lofty win, it also sounds like an abstraction, right? Does this actually change anything on the ground in Montana?
It does, and that’s what’s so extraordinary about the opinion to me. Montana Republicans enacted a statute that prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions when permitting energy projects. The state government essentially said that agencies could not consider the effect of fossil fuels when allowing fossil-fuel projects to move forward. And the court actually struck down that statute, requiring the government to once again consider greenhouse gas emissions when permitting projects. It’s laying the groundwork to limit permits in the future that exacerbate climate change.
That takes this case outside the realm of abstraction and moves it into a much more concrete area. The courts really do have the power to examine a statute or a permit and say, No, this is repugnant to the constitution and must be set aside. They can do the direct work of limiting the devastating impact of fossil-fuel projects today and in the future.
I want to talk for a minute about the question of standing, which is a persistent problem in climate litigation. Lawsuits fall apart on standing because the courts seem to believe that nobody is personally injured by environmental catastrophes that harm absolutely everybody. How did the Montana Supreme Court get around that problem?
The state, in fighting this lawsuit, did argue that climate change affects everyone, so the plaintiffs here did not have a “particularized” injury that gave them the right to sue. The Montana Supreme Court shut that down. It held that because climate change affects everyone in some way, these individual plaintiffs aren’t unharmed. Quite the opposite: It illustrates that these plaintiffs clearly do have real grievances, that their future in Montana is jeopardized, and they should be able to vindicate a constitutional guarantee that applies to each and every person under the state’s foundational law.
Here, the state Supreme Court departed a bit from the U.S. Supreme Court’s standing doctrine—and properly so, because the Montana Constitution provides broader access to the state’s courts than the U.S. Constitution provides to federal courts. Here, the majority refused to turn a provision so central to the Montana Constitution into a nullity just because climate change happens to affect the whole world. We know that it’s affecting Montana in a heightened way. We know that the plaintiffs’ future is imperiled by the acceleration of climate change. And the court said that’s enough for them to come into state court and challenge a law that will exacerbate Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Some of the actual drafters of the Montana Constitution are still alive, right? And they were able to say that this was indeed the intent of their work?
Yes, that’s absolutely right. The current Montana Constitution was enacted in 1972, so there’s a very clear record of what the delegates wanted. And some of those delegates are still alive and have made it abundantly clear that at the time they wanted the strongest, most all-encompassing environmental protections in the nation. The delegates labored over this language to ensure that it would be the strongest found in any state constitution and rejected language that might limit it. Their protections were designed to be, as the court put it, “anticipatory and preventative” for both “present and future generations.”
Why? Because for decades, big corporations had destroyed Montana’s environment. They had harvested all these resources from the state without concern for the lives of residents. And in 1972, the delegates said: enough. They saw that their state was being ravaged by corporations, and they decided to make it a fundamental guarantee that any Montanan could walk into court and vindicate their right to a clean environment. And that is what happened in this decision.
One last thought: Is this utterly Montana-specific, to this one Supreme Court, or is this scalable and replicable across the country?
It is scalable. Montana isn’t alone here: Hawaii also has a state constitutional provision that guarantees the right to a “clean and healthful environment,” and its Supreme Court has vindicated that guarantee, holding that it includes the right to a stable climate system. It will continue to be a watchdog on this. Of course, the Hawaii Supreme Court is one of the most progressive in the country, but these provisions exist in the constitutions of five other states: Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
I think there is so much potential—especially in a state like Pennsylvania, which has a lot of dirty-energy projects going on—for the state judiciary to impose some limits on a corporation’s ability to destroy the environment. All these states have left-leaning supreme courts. And I hope they will be emboldened and inspired by what happened in Montana to take action here and vindicate residents’ right to an environment that not just is free of litter and toxic materials but can endure for centuries into the future. That means taking climate change into account and imposing limitations on a state’s ability to exacerbate it.
Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.
Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.
Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:
The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….
There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:
While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.
The Missoulan article includes this response:
In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”
As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.
Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.
HELENA — You probably have goals and plans for 2026—the Montana Department of Agriculture does too.
“We’re really focusing on innovative agricultural practices,” Montana Department of Agriculture director Jillien Streit said.
It’s no secret that agriculture—farming and ranching—is not easy. There are long days, planning, monitoring crops and livestock, and other challenges beyond farmers’ and ranchers’ control.
(WATCH: Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026)
Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026
“We have very low commodity prices across the board,” Streit said. “We still have very high input prices across the board, and we have really high prices when it comes to our equipment, and so, it’s a really tough year.”
But innovation, including new practices, partnerships and technology use, can help navigate some of those challenges.
“We can’t make more time and we can’t make more land, so we need to start putting together innovative practices that help us maximize what our time and land can do,” Streit said.
Practices range from using technology like autonomous tractors and virtual fencing—allowing rangers to contain and move cattle right from their phones—to regenerative farming and ranching.
“It is bringing cattle back into farming operations to be able to work with cover cropping practices to invigorate the soil for new soil health benefits,” Streit said.
The Montana Department of Agriculture is working to help producers learn, share, and collaborate on new ideas to work in their operations.
The department will share stories of practices that work from farms and ranches across the state. Also, within the next year or so, Streit said the department is hoping to roll out technology to help producers collaborate.
“(It’s) providing a communication platform where people can get together and really help each other out by utilizing each other’s assets,” she said.
While not easy, agriculture is still one of Montana’s largest industries, and Streit said innovating and sharing ideas across the state can keep it going long into the future.
Indiana’s Curt Cignetti cashes in on title run with 8-year extension worth $13.2 million per year
Where Iowa State basketball stands in NCAA Tournament bracketology
Deadly 4-car crash kills 2 people, injures others in Kansas City
Watch: Blast brings down Northern Kentucky bridge
National Guard deployment in New Orleans extended for six months
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California
Gas prices could jump as Middle East tensions threaten global oil supply
Pakistan calls troops, orders 3-day curfew as 24 killed in pro-Iran rallies
US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets
House Republicans push Johnson to go to war with Senate over SAVE Act
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers