A landmark environmental court ruling in Montana on Aug. 14 has striking implications for Alaska, particularly with a vow by the organization behind it to bring a similar case here. It won’t be the first time they’ve done it, but this time there’s a lot more science — and precedent.
The Montana case is being heralded as a groundbreaking victory because it is the first time a judge has found a governmental duty to protect citizens from climate change. The case, brought by 16 youths ranging in age from 5 to 22, found state agencies in Montana violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by permitting fossil fuel development without considering climate impacts.
“The most important thing about the Montana ruling for Alaska is that it shows a path forward for the state’s youth to secure their right to a safe climate system,” said Andrew Welle, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case in Montana, as it has all 50 states, including in Alaska in 2017.
Welle was lead counsel for the Sagoonick case in Alaska, which also involved 16 youths, including lead plaintiff Summer Sagoonick, an Inupiaq resident of Unalakleet who emphasized how Alaska Natives count on wildlife and the land for survival. In Alaska the lawsuit targeted the governor, the state and various agencies over greenhouse gas emissions.
The court dismissed the case in 2018, saying it more properly belonged before the state legislature. The case lost on appeal in the Alaska Supreme Court in January 2022.
Welle confirmed Our Children’s Trust is actively working on a new case to be brought in Alaska, but declined to provide specifics, including timing.
The ruling this week in Montana was welcomed by Alaska environmental activists.
“We’re thrilled with the Montana decision,” said Elaine Schroeder, co-chair of Juneau350. The environmental group has been working to stop two oil and gas on the North Slope: ConocoPhillips’ Willow project and the state-led proposed Alaska natural gas venture.
“You have to look at the different constitutional provisions — and each court weighs how each case is presented,” said Carole Holley, managing attorney in the Alaska regional office of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group that was not involved in the Montana lawsuit. “What Our Children’s Trust was able to do was to present an impressive amount of climate science and information that was quite persuasive to the district court judge,” Holley said.
“Alaska’s constitution includes strong protections of access — and equal access — to natural resources,” Welle said. He referenced Article 8 in the state constitution, which governs natural resources. Known as the public trust doctrine, it contains language about development of its resources consistent with the public interest.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruling on the Sagoonick case in early 2022 was a split decision. Justices Peter J. Maassen and Justice Susan M. Carney dissented, writing that “a balanced consideration of prudential doctrines requires that we explicitly recognize a constitutional right to a livable climate.” Both remain on the court.
“When you read the dissenting opinion it’s very clear that the justices have said that Alaska’s youth are not without recourse to secure their right to a livable climate under Alaska’s constitution,” Welle said. “And that they can bring future cases to do that.”
The Montana ruling opens a new door. “It’s indicative of a shift in the tide of constitutional climate litigation,” Welle said.
Reader Comments(0)