2023—Montana district-court judge Kathy Seeley rules (in Held v. Montana) that sixteen Montana children have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Montana’s state energy system, and, further, that a state law that bars agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts for any project violates the children’s right to a clean and healthful environment under the state constitution.
In determining that the children have standing to sue, Seeley makes a very feeble case that she is able to redress plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. By her account, Montana accounts for less than ½ of one percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions. It’s utter speculation whether requiring Montana agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions in issuing permits and approvals would result in any reduction in associated annual emissions, much less in the cumulative emissions over recent decades that Seeley says matter far more.
In December 2024, the Montana supreme court will bolster its very strong case for being the worst state supreme court, as it affirms Seeley’s ruling in a poorly reasoned opinion.
2024—Compounding its unsound precedent on abortion, the Montana supreme court rules (in Planned Parenthood v. Montana) that a state law that generally requires parental consent for a minor’s abortion violates the state constitution. The court objects that the parental-consent law “singles out only minors seeking an abortion, and not those who choose to carry their pregnancies to term.” It thinks it “illogical” that the legislature could conclude that “minors who choose to carry their pregnancies are not at risk of making an immature decision, while those choosing abortion must be protected against their immaturity.” But a minor who chooses to continue her pregnancy can surely be expected to receive advice from her parents. More broadly, why may not the legislature believe that a minor’s decision to kill her child is inherently much less mature than a decision to give birth?