Held v State of Montana: A Constitutional Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?

Erin Ferguson* (Corresponding Author)

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This analysis examines the August 2023 decision in Held v State of Montana, in which 16 youth plaintiffs successfully argued that provisions within the state energy policy and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. As the first climate case in the United States to be brought on the basis of a constitutional right to a healthy environment, it has received considerable attention and is being hailed as a landmark victory. This analysis examines the case in the context of recent trends in climate change litigation and argues that whilst the decision is indeed noteworthy, the particular circumstances that led to the decision make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful claims will follow in the US. Nevertheless, the case could mark a ‘constitutional rights turn’ in climate litigation, as the case bolsters support for stronger protections for environmental rights.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)453–460
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Environmental Law
Volume36
Issue number3
Early online date23 Jul 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2024

Data Availability Statement

No data availability statement.

Keywords

  • Held v State of Montana
  • climate change litigation
  • environmental constitutionalism
  • environmental rights
  • youth-led climate change litigation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Held v State of Montana: A Constitutional Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this