Held v. Montana

In 2020, sixteen youth plaintiffs represented by Our Children’s Trust sued the State of Montana for not protecting their right under the state constitution to a clean and healthful environment. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Montana Constitution protects the right to a stable climate system and that a state law restricting consideration of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews violated that right.

On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, the ACLU’s SSCI and the ACLU of Montana filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. The brief urged the Court not to apply the federal “political questions doctrine” as a basis to avoid addressing valid constitutional challenges. As the brief argued, because of Montana precedent and the text and history of the Montana Constitution, the political doctrine question only applies to federal courts. In 2024, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, recognizing the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.

In 2025, however, the Legislature enacted new laws restricting the government’s ability to consider the harms of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. So, in January 2026, Our Children’s Trust filed another case to enforce their prior victory and ensure the State complies with its constitutional obligations.

The State quickly moved to dismiss parts of the case and requested a transfer to a different court under SB 97, a new Montana law that requires challenges to recent legislation to be litigated in the district of the legislation’s primary sponsor. If such a challenge is not filed in the sponsor’s district, SB 97 gives state and legislative defendants the right to transfer the case there. In passing SB 97, legislators made no secret that they intended to give themselves an advantage in defeating legal challenges to the laws they enact. They designed SB 97 as a tool for avoiding certain courts that they complained were striking down legislation as unconstitutional too frequently. In this case, for example, the State’s motion seeks to transfer the case 450 miles away from the court where the plaintiffs filed it.

The SSCI and ACLU of Montana, along with an array of other public interest organizations, filed an amicus brief explaining that SB 97 violates the Montana Constitution. The brief advances three main points. First, we argue that SB 97 violates separation of powers by giving the State the right to select its preferred forum and remove judges without cause—in other words, allowing the Legislature to interfere with judicial functions. Second, we argue that SB 97 discriminates based on viewpoint and violates the right to free speech and expression by imposing litigation burdens only on plaintiffs who assert that recent statutes are unconstitutional. We explain that the text, history, and structure of the Montana Constitution reflect that its free speech protections should be interpreted more broadly than the First Amendment. Finally, we argue that SB 97 violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause and the clause prohibiting special legislation by granting advantages to the State while disadvantaging Montanans seeking to challenge state action. As we point out, the sole conceivable reason for the Legislature to disfavor only litigants challenging new legislation is to put a thumb on the scale for sitting legislators seeking to prevent courts from striking down their bills.