July, 10 2024, 05:03pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Helen Britto, Our Children’s Trust, helen@ourchildrenstrust.org
Nate Bellinger, Our Children’s Trust, lead counsel, nate@ourchildrenstrust.org
Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, hornbein@westernlaw.org
Montana Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Landmark Youth-Led Constitutional Climate Case Held v. State of Montana
HELENA, Montana
Today, counsel for the 16 plaintiffs in the historic youth-led constitutional climate case, Held v. State of Montana, presented oral arguments before the Montana Supreme Court. In a packed courtroom, counsel for the plaintiffs argued to affirm the August 2023 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs from District Court Judge Kathy Seeley declaring that the State of Montana’s laws that require the State to turn a blind eye to young people’s climate injuries while promoting fossil fuel activities violate their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, including a livable climate, their dignity, safety and equal protection of the law.
After Judge Seeley’s historic ruling, the state appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. The court also filed for a stay in District Court asking the court to delay its decision on Held pending appeal. Judge Seeley denied the request for stay and the state Supreme Court denied a similar request to stay the District Court’s order.
Attorney for the plaintiffs Roger Sullivan of McGarvey Law today argued that the 16 young Montanans have personally suffered direct and severe impacts from climate change, supported by the unchallenged scientific expert testimony presented at trial. He asserted that the youth proved that they have suffered constitutional injuries to their unalienable rights including their physical health and safety, which is more than enough to establish that the Court has jurisdiction to review the statute at the heart of their climate injuries–a law that requires the State agencies to ignore those injuries entirely in regulating fossil fuel activities in Montana. In his arguments, Sullivan stated:
“This case is about Montana’s climate, Montana’s constitution, and Montana’s children. These courageous young Montanans who are present in the courtroom today testified about the impacts of extreme summer heat while working on the family ranch, about their inability to breathe clean air as a result of the new ‘smoke season,’ about maintaining ancient Tribal traditions tied to the seasons and the absence of winter snow, and about impacts to their cherished landscapes all across our state, from the grandeur of our mountains to the vastness of our rolling plains. Now before you is an unparalleled trial record with findings of fact based on testimony of the youth plaintiffs and Montana’s renowned climate scientists and medical professionals which established that the reason there is a constitutional injury is because the legislature told the state agencies that they could not look at the impacts on Montana’s climate of the fossil fuel activities they permit, and so the agencies haven’t, which is why the record shows they have never denied a fossil fuel permit. This record also shows we are in a climate emergency and additional greenhouse gas emissions will cause additional heating and additional injuries to plaintiffs.”
“With this case we are working to protect our state of Montana, our people, and our land because this is our home. It is our responsibility and moral obligation, along with that of the courts, to hold our government systems accountable in ensuring our most fundamental rights are protected,” said named plaintiff Rikki Held. “Our case, ruled on by Judge Seeley last year, has laid out the best available science on climate change and related health impacts especially to young people, has shown long-standing state action against the well-being of our state and our future, and has raised the voices of us young Montanans who have already experienced the results of our state government's actions contributing to the global climate crisis. I hope the Montana Supreme Court affirms Judge Seely's August order to ensure our constitutional rights, including the fundamental right to a livable climate, are protected and adhered to as we lay our path for the future.”
“The scale at which the State is suggesting State agencies operate, on a permit by permit basis, is not appropriate to the scale of the climate emergency. A decision in favor of Held plaintiffs would allow agencies the framework within which to make constitutionally compliant decisions, and position Montana to alter the systems that injure the youth plaintiffs. A safe, and livable climate is in all of our interests,” said Our Children’s Trust attorney Nate Bellinger. “The State should stop fighting Montana’s youth, stop prioritizing fossil fuel development over the best interests of its own residents, and get to work complying with the Held order. We thank the Court for hearing us today, and look forward to its ruling.”
The 16 youth plaintiffs in this case are represented by attorneys with Our Children’s Trust, the Western Environmental Law Center, and McGarvey Law.
About Held v. State of Montana:
In March of 2020, 16 youth from across Montana filed a constitutional climate suit against their state government. They asserted Montana’s support for the extraction, burning, and transport of fossil fuels ignored the facts of the climate crisis and violated their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, dignity, safety, and equal protection of the law.
In a seven-day trial in June 2023, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley heard from 12 youth plaintiffs and 10 expert witnesses about how youth are harmed by their government’s laws that require agencies to ignore climate change while approving the use of fossil fuels, and what science requires to protect their fundamental rights. In August 2023, Judge Seeley ruled wholly in favor of the youth plaintiffs making Held v. State of Montana the nation’s first, winning, youth-led constitutional climate lawsuit and enshrining into law science-based protections for children’s fundamental rights. The State filed its appeal in September 2023 to the Montana Supreme Court.
At oral argument the Montana Supreme Court has the opportunity to listen to attorneys from both sides and review the trial court record.
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
LATEST NEWS
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


