Litigation group wins in Montana court in case it lost in Alaska over climate change and the constitution


A Montana court has ruled that the Big Sky state’s failure to consider climate change implications when approving fossil fuel projects is unconstitutional.

The decision comes on the heels of a nearly identical case that was lost by the same litigation group, Our Children’s Trust, in January of 2022, when Alaska justices ruled against it.

The Montana case, Held v. Montana, is seen as a win for environmentalists fighting oil, gas, and coal, which they say contributes to global warming.

“Today’s ruling in Montana marks a crucial turning point. As wildfires fueled by fossil fuel emissions devastate the West, this decision is emblematic of a broader change in perspective on the climate crisis,” said Julia Olson, of Our Children’s Trust. “This victory isn’t just for Montana but stands as a beacon for democracy, youth, and our planet. It’s a sign that more of these favorable rulings are on the horizon.”

Under the Montana’s judge’s directive, Montana must factor in climate change in any decisions related to fossil fuel projects.

Montana’s attorney general’s office will appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

“The ruling is a mere outcome of a week-long, taxpayer-funded show presented as a trial. Montanans shouldn’t be held accountable for global climate changes,” said Emily Flower, spokesperson for the attorney general. “Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate.”

“This legal battle is not an isolated incident. The Our Children’s Trust group is preparing to challenge the State of Alaska again this year after their previous defeat in Sagoonick v. State of Alaska,” said Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

The impending lawsuit in Alaska alleges that the State of Alaska’s promotion of fossil fuels aggravates the state’s climate issues, thus infringing on the constitutional rights of its younger citizens.

The Our Children’s Trust group argues that the Alaska State Constitution promises every Alaskan a stable climate and equal access to essential natural resources, which the present government is allegedly jeopardizing with its policies.

The earlier Sagoonick case saw the Alaska Supreme Court dismiss the lawsuit because the court, in a split decision, deemed the plaintiffs’ requests non-justiciable political questions, largely leaning on a precedent set in an earlier case.


    • Trig, The children are a sympathetic front. If you don”t get on board with the climate change agenda you hate children. You want them to be harmed for your selfish purposes.

    • Over population and human activities have turned God’s green planet into a pressure cooker.
      Don’t be in denial people 😉

      • In all realty, no. It is the climate cult that is in denial. Denial that the earth is dynamic, always changing and has endured heat and cold, long before there was any significant human population. Alaska alone has evidence of tropical conditions, dinosaurs, and ice ages. As the glaciers were receding along with the last ice age, the earth was minimally populated and there were no fossil fuels. The cult agenda is about power and control and is an arm of the elitist globalist agenda.

          • Go ahead, cman, just like your Covidian cult hero — go and claim that “I am THE science”.

            Your invariably kneejerk defenses of the status-quo power establishment sure don’t seem very “libertarian” to me. Maybe livertarian.

          • All the surrounding mountains in Juneau were formed by ancient glaciers, which have all melted. What caused the ancient glaciers to melt? Mammoth farts?

        • In case you actually want to understand the difference, here you go. The transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period took about 5,000 years to occur. The RATE at which the current warming has occurred would mean that a similar process or period of warming would only take about 110 years to happen. So 5 millennia versus one century. That’s the difference. If you don’t understand this or don’t WANT to understand this, then there’s nothing else to discuss on the matter. I’m not sure why this is so difficult for so many to understand.

  1. The sun. The sole source of heat in our galaxy, is not static. It has cycles and its behavior changes from time to time. Sometimes it is hotter, sometimes cooler. But no matter how much you pay in taxes, no matter how much you donate to climate activism, there is not a damn thing anyone can do to change what the sun does.

    I hear of all these folks wanting to reduce carbon. Do you maybe think that YOU are the carbon they wish to reduce?

  2. As wildfires fueled by fossil fuel emissions devastate the West, this decision is emblematic of a broader change in perspective on the climate crisis,” said Julia Olson, of Our Children’s Trust.

    Are you trying to say fossil fuels emissions are to blame?? Oh for God’s sake .. No, mother Earth is doing exactly what it has been doing for thousands of years! Where were all the car emissions the four or more times the earth has gotten hot then cold in all the ice ages? There was more than one!
    If you seriously think our mere existence and cars is doing anything to do with weather you are truly a stupid person. I’m not buying what you are selling!

  3. Picking a jury is everything. Here, picking a bias jury and an ignorant, irrational, woke jury is equal to picking a DUMB jury. Attention lawyers: get professional jury experts and pay them well before trial. Voir dire examination is more crucial than evidence presentation.

  4. I’m sure I will be ridiculed for this but with the corporate greed and destruction of waterways and nature, all I can think of is Noah,,,, who said….. Get on the boat! There’s going to be a great flood! Almost everyone laughed at him and his family. You know how a big wind can come and burn the whole city down?????? Wait till you see what happenes when we get a few major fires that join together. Call me stupid and laugh at me, however I could imagine theese fire’s combined could burn the whole country down or worse. So let’s all just keep doing what we are doing and thrash the place! There are allot of things our fathers and grandfather’s were able to enjoy,,,,clean air,,,clean water,,, clean fish. Does anyone think that our children or our grandchildren or their grandchildren deserve to inherit a livable planet? That is not, I repeat NOT, the direction we are heading!

    • Lori says: “Does anyone think that our children or our grandchildren or their grandchildren deserve to inherit a livable planet? That is not, I repeat NOT, the direction we are heading!”

      “Deserves got nothing to do with it.” – Clint Eastwood (Will Munny) to Gene Hackman (Little Bill) in Unforgiven, 1992.

      In order to prove your point, you’re gonna have to demonstrate that no forest fires took place before the Industrial Revolution. Don’t think you can do that, but knock yourself out trying. OTOH, crummy forest management (no logging or brush clearing) all but guarantee massive fires. Final point: Fires require O2 to sustain the burn. CO2 tends to suppress fire, which means more CO2 is better than less. Who knew? Nice hysterical rant, though. Thanks for playing. Cheers –

    • Lori: This isn’t about the destruction of waterways and nature or poisoned fish. It’s about stopping all forms of fossil fuel extraction and use, no matter the methods used. And that is all about validating the environmentalists that invested their entire life’s value on being anti-fossil fuel before James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Al Gore gave them the “global warming” foothold and self validation they were collectively looking for. Would you rather see lithium dug up all over the place, unrecyclable lithium batteries that can become unstoppable fires, windmills as far as the eye can see and permanent large clearings for solar panels that require loads of toxic chemicals to manufacture, or would you like free agency and scientific debate based on agreeable facts and logic and far less to do with pride and moral authority. The latter is the only way to arrive practical, efficient, and effective decisions for humanity to thrive in harmony with this beautiful planet.

      And if you want to talk about fires… California stopped nearly all logging and forest management that could be used to greatly minimize the control fires and it is all because of this spirit that seems to influence you that any touching of the planet by humans is a negative.

      I’m not in denial. I know we need metals, fossil fuels, plastics, wood etc etc. They are the most practical materials for many things, for our existence. And logging, drilling, mining and the burning of fossil fuels all can be done responsibly while preserving a clean planet and while protecting some wilderness areas. All of this “climate change” alarmist bullpucky is standing in the way of what we should be focusing on. Just like the self righteous virtue signaling banning of plastic straws distracts people from the real issue of countries having poor communities that resort to using rivers as their dumpsters because they have no sanitation services. If the Californians that spend extra money to avoid buying things with plastic would divert that money and effort into helping those communities, the oceans would be 100 times better off and maybe they could get a bracelet for it so they can “set a good example” (virtue signal).

  5. There is zero Constitutional right to climate anything.

    This will get laughed out of DC by SCOTUS.

    • It’s based on the Montana State Constitution, not the Federal Constitution. The Montana Constitution does have a section on which this lawsuit was based. I’m not saying I agree with the decision, but they have an actual provision in law to refer to.

  6. I would like to see those 22 children and their relatives be denied all petroleum products, and their byproducts. Put their money where their stupidity is. Let’s sue anybody that uses fossil fuels.

  7. I am amazed at the shear stupidity of the “climate change” agenda – and the complete disbelief of the communist polluters who, laughing, expect us to destroy our lives and our nations while they take over with their cheaper energy economies intact. Scarier: lawfare being waged over this balderdash using tax dollars and donated funds from propagandized “true believers” to strangle any development – particularly in Alaska.
    This meteorological professional does not believe that human activity has anything to do with “global climate change” – locally, perhaps your smog could be called “climate change”, but it was actually worse 200 years ago when we were burning wood, coal, and dung and slinging our sewage into the street outside our homes… George Washington complained about the foul air in Philadelphia, but didn’t blame the locals for fouling the whole planet and endangering our children. That a court would even consider such action is astounding – their argument is not scientific nor is their legal reasoning truthful or logical. It’s simply an attack on our nation and welfare for lawyers.

    • All very well said, Rich.

      But this is not just “an attack on our nation”, it is an attack against civilization itself, and against humanity. It is just a further demonstration that radical leftism is, at heart, nothing more than a death cult and a suicide club.

  8. Absent specific guidance from one judge on how climate change will be factored into any decisions related to fossil fuel projects, in a manner acceptable to this one judge, the decision seems irrelevant, ripe for noncompliance.
    Should be fun to see what happens if Montana legislators decide that issuing such guidance is their job, not the court’s, if legislators forbid the use of appropriated funds in enforcing the decision, or if Montana’s executive branch decline en masse to enforce the court’s decision.

  9. The utopia these people are going for isn’t a thriving green and bountiful earth. It’s a world where they are proven right and deserve to have the final moral authority over all.

Comments are closed.