Typically, courts provide clarity. They do not exist to make or enforce law but rather interpret what the law says. Nothing more, nothing less.
But a week of tumultuous rulings in Montana has, in many ways, upended the state’s legislative authority and made an overall mess of the policy-making process. It’s an unwanted Christmas gift that’ll just keep giving – and taking – for years to come.
The Montana Supreme Court’s questionable decision in Held v. Montana reads more like a policy argument than a finding of law.
The case was brought by a group of young people seeking to put the state on trial for its climate regulations. The young people claimed the state policy on climate change threatened their “physical and mental health.”
Recent legislative actions have barred state bureaucrats from considering world climate impact in analysis of large energy projects in Montana. The state law says it “may not include a review of actual or potential impacts beyond Montana’s borders. It may not include actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature.” In other words, consider the impact on Montana – period.
Greenhouse gases are, of course, not confined by state lines. It is difficult, if not impossible, to know the exact worldwide impact of any one project in any one state. And even if you could, the impact of any Montana project is likely dwarfed by massive greenhouse gas emissions coming from other parts of the world.
Still, the majority of the court ruled with the teenagers, reading a new right into the Montana Constitution of a “stable climate system,” and ordering legislative action.
It should be noted that the words “clean and healthful environment” appear in the state constitution, but “climate” is not found in the document. The justices claimed that didn’t matter, because the constitution was “a living thing designed to meet the needs of a progressive society” – a contention that is often used by courts that feel the need to legislate.
The court’s ruling will undoubtedly have an impact on Montana’s economy and its future energy needs, opening the door for projects to be stymied.
While the court may feel strongly about the role of climate change in the environment, it has no constitutional authority to decide what the state should do about it. That is supposed to be left to the policymakers in the legislative branch, and to the executive branch charged with enforcing the law.
This is not the first time the Montana Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and likely won’t be the last. Judicial reform was already likely to be a high priority in the upcoming legislative session, but with this ruling, it likely goes into overdrive.
The tug of war between our branches of government continues.
Chris Cargill is the President of Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free market think tank based in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Eastern Washington. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.
