Historic Victory in Held v. Montana

In this CLX webinar, Phil Gregory, co-lead trial counsel for the youth plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, discusses the 2023 trial court victory and what it could mean for youth-led climate litigation. The conversation covers the constitutional claim, the evidence presented at trial, the plaintiffs’ testimony, and the decision’s practical implications. (Starts around 6:00)

The plaintiffs challenged a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act that barred state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when reviewing proposed projects. They argued that this restriction conflicted with Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” Gregory explains how the case came to focus on that provision before trial. (Around 7:30–11:40)

The court held that the restriction on considering climate impacts violated the youth plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. Gregory explains that the court drew on evidence of the plaintiffs’ injuries, Montana’s role in greenhouse gas emissions, and the state’s actions concerning fossil fuels. The ruling removed the restriction that had prevented agencies from considering those impacts. (Around 17:30–19:30)

Gregory describes a trial strategy that paired expert testimony with the youth plaintiffs’ accounts of how climate change affected their lives in Montana. Experts addressed climate science, the state’s emissions, and impacts on glaciers, water, health, and other aspects of the environment. Gregory emphasizes the importance of building a detailed evidentiary record that the court could use in its decision. (Around 13:00–26:30)

The plaintiffs described their own experiences of climate harm, giving the court a direct account of what was at stake. Gregory discusses the preparation involved in bringing young people into litigation and says their testimony was among the most compelling parts of the trial. He also reflects on how participating in the case gave the plaintiffs a way to act on their concerns. (Around 27:00–32:30)

Gregory discusses how the trial and ruling may offer a model for lawyers bringing rights-based climate claims, particularly where constitutional protections for the environment exist. He points to the combination of youth testimony, scientific evidence, and a claim about government action as features other litigators could examine. The webinar presents these as potential lessons from the case, rather than a ruling that binds courts outside Montana. (Around 12:00–13:00 and 41:15–46:10)

No. The webinar distinguishes between requiring agencies to consider climate impacts and determining the outcome of a particular permit application. In response to an audience question, Gregory discusses how climate evidence and the court’s reasoning could matter in future permitting decisions and legal challenges. (Around 47:30–50:55)

The conversation is useful for climate litigators, advocates, students, and researchers interested in youth-led cases, constitutional environmental rights, and the use of scientific and personal testimony at trial. It offers a trial lawyer’s account of how the Held case was prepared and presented.