A landmark judgement in the US state of Montana has seen its Environmental Policy Act ruled unconstitutional because it does not consider the climate impacts of fossil fuel projects, setting an important precedent for similar cases nationwide. After three years in the courts, the case brought by 16 youth, each of whom described the impacts of climate change on their lives, said the law violated their state constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment. “This court ruling is a step toward climate justice,” said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement on Monday. “I’m greatly encouraged to see a judge uphold people’s constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

“Whether it’s governments, fossil fuel companies or industry trade groups — holding polluters and their enablers accountable is a critical piece of meaningful climate action. The case in Montana is a clear sign that seeking climate justice through the courts is a viable and powerful strategy,” she added. The judgement echoes a successful 2021 case brought by young people against the German government over a climate law which, they argued, is so inadequate it violates their fundamental right to a humane future. The German Constitutional Court ruled that the federal government had to update its 2030 emission reduction targets.

Two years later, the German government is again being dragged into court for failure to meet its climate goals. While the Montana case is the latest climate litigation directed at governments, oil giant Shell lost a 2021 watershed lawsuit and was ordered to drastically cut its emissions by 2030 due to a “duty of care” to protect future generations.

It was the first time a private company had been held liable for human rights violations on climate grounds, Paul Benson, a lawyer at environment NGO ClientEarth, told DW at the time. “With every positive precedent set, we expand our legal toolkit to bring systemic change,” he said.

But in the US — the world’s highest historic greenhouse gas emitter — weak human rights laws mean the Montana case is the first of its kind to be tried, said Merner ahead of the ruling. US courts routinely defer to legislatures on climate and energy policy matters, she added.

With another long-awaited children’s climate case, Juliana v. United States, recently given the green light to go to trial, the Montana decision has paved the way for young climate activists to overturn energy policy that explicitly supports fossil fuels. The lead plaintiff in the Montana case, Rikki Held, now 22, was raised on a family ranch in the northwestern state, in a region that also has massive coal reserves mined for high-carbon power generation. Held testified about wildfires flaring up amid temperatures of up to 43.3 degrees Celsius (110 degrees Fahrenheit) that burned power lines and left her ranch powerless for a month, meaning water couldn’t be pumped for the cattle.

“That’s my life,” she said with tears in her eyes. “My home is there and it impacts the well-being of myself, my family, my community.” Eleven plaintiffs referenced melting glaciers and wildfire smoke as they spoke about the mental and physical impacts of the climate crisis.

Steve Running, part of a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning climate science research team, told the court that there was “no doubt” climate change is increasing wildfires and reducing snowfall in Montana.