Climate change, fossil fuels, Montana's Constitution, and the Courts

Zak said:
A Montana court issued its decision today in the matter of Held, et al., v. State of Montana, et al. (one of the Our Children's Trust youth plaintiff climate cases).

This decision will have huge ramifications for fossil fuel permitting in Montana. It also sets out the current science pretty clearly.

Link to decision:

Click to expand...
Zak said:
Hitting the news now:

www.seattletimes.com

Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana

A Montana judge has sided with young activists who took issue with a state policy. Now it's up to lawmakers to fix the policy, which seems unlikely to happen.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com
Click to expand...

Saw this, thought of posting, then thought of how this will disintegrate into the inevitable s'show (hope it doesn't). Interesting decision, could have major ramifications but I suspect it could go down on appeal. We'll see.
 
Yea, I just got a page that a thread needs derailed? I'm here.

1692049852064.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting and important decision issued today by the Montana Supreme Court affirming the district court's Held decison re climate change and the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” Lots of 800 pound gorillas weighed in with amicus briefs, see the list of amici at the start of the decision.

 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I liked the part where the State wanted psychological evaluations and sexual/drug history interviews of all the plantiffs...
😅
 
On July 19, 2022, the State moved for a psychiatric examination of eight of the youth plaintiffs under M. R. Civ. P. 35. It sought to thoroughly interview eight of the plaintiffs about their “psychological and behavioral history, alcohol and drug use, school performance, and exposure to trauma.” The District Court denied the motion because Plaintiffs’ mental health was not genuinely in controversy, nor had the State established good cause for the examinations as required under Rule 35.


From the opinion...
 
Mossback said:
On July 19, 2022, the State moved for a psychiatric examination of eight of the youth plaintiffs under M. R. Civ. P. 35. It sought to thoroughly interview eight of the plaintiffs about their “psychological and behavioral history, alcohol and drug use, school performance, and exposure to trauma.” The District Court denied the motion because Plaintiffs’ mental health was not genuinely in controversy, nor had the State established good cause for the examinations as required under Rule 35.


From the opinion...
Click to expand...
And from the concurrence:

"I finally wholeheartedly concur with the Majority holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s patently ridiculous and overly-intrusive request for court-ordered psychological evaluations of a selected eight Plaintiffs in this case."
 
The state took the position that the plantiffs 'opened the door' as they say in TV court dramas.

The State sought an order in the District Court allowing it to conduct a psychological evaluation of eight plaintiffs, including interviews focused on their “psychological and behavioral history, alcohol and drug use, school performance, and exposure to trauma.” The State argues that these eight plaintiffs put their mental health “in controversy” as required under Rule 35 because of its “concern that the issue of standing may turn on the question of psychological harm.” We need not resolve this issue, as our standing analysis focused on Plaintiffs’ injury to a constitutional right rather than to any mental, emotional, physical, aesthetic, or property interests harmed by the State’s actions. The District Court also concluded Plaintiffs had standing even without considering their psychological harms. Additionally, we note that the State only wanted to examine eight of the plaintiffs. Even absent those eight plaintiffs, the District Court concluded other plaintiffs had standing t
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top