Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

OMD NewsOMD News


State Charged with Environmental Neglect in Montana Supreme Court Landmark Case

Photo from Legal Planet

In Montana’s unprecedented climate trial, 16 teenage residents are suing the state for failing to protect the environment. As similar legal challenges arise in other jurisdictions, this landmark case has far-reaching ramifications.

Photo from The Washing Post

Montana’s Climate Battle: Supreme Court Rejects Second Attempt to Halt Landmark Case

Montana’s second attempt to stop a landmark climate change case was rejected by the Supreme Court. A district court decided against the Gianforte government earlier this year in a complaint brought by teenage citizens. Even though the state sought a halt, the Supreme Court upheld the district court’s favorable verdict for the plaintiffs 2-5.

This is the state’s second delay attempt. Judge Kathy Seeley refused the request, therefore the Supreme Court heard it since there was no irreparable injury. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, saying it did not act arbitrarily or beyond reasonable limitations. Jim Rice and Dirk Sandefur of the five justices dissented.

Judge Seeley’s ruling earlier this year started Held v. Montana. By providing Montana Environmental Policy Act licenses without considering greenhouse gas emissions and climatic implications, the state violated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to a “clean and healthful environment.” This initial triumph for climate change campaigners garnered national and worldwide attention.

READ ALSO: Ex-Police Officer Buys A Sex Toy And Raped A 14-Year-Old Girl In Kentucky

Supreme Court Rejects Delay as Legal Battle Heats Up

Remember that the latest Supreme Court ruling is just an early view until the complete case is heard. In the unclear legal landscape of environmental rights and climate change, Gov. Greg Gianforte and various state departments appealed to the Supreme Court to delay the lower court’s judgment.

State counsel argued that hasty adjustments were unworkable and beyond the court’s power. This argument was insufficient, the Supreme Court noted, because the state failed to explain the hardship of reimplementing greenhouse gas emission analysis procedures.

Youth plaintiffs and their counsel contested the state’s stay request, arguing that the state violated legal procedure and emphasized the need to solve environmental issues for a sustainable future. The case has drawn international attention to constitutional rights and climate change in the courts.

READ ALSO: Bride Arrested In Mexico On Wedding Day For Trying To Get Money Illegally

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like


There is finally an update on 4th stimulus check for Social Security Recipients! Individuals who receive Social Security benefits can expect to receive a...


The attack using 14 military choppers that Russian President Vladimir Putin planned was destroyed by Ukraine using US-supplied long-range tactical missiles. Russian President Vladimir...


The Biden administration has announced recently that it plans to increase the monthly payments of seniors and veterans to $2,000. $2,000 in Monthly Payments...


In Texas, this September the SNAP payments will end, worth up to $1,691, on Friday. The household income determines eligibility. A single-person household must earn more than...