Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in Landmark Climate Case

Important information that for some reason is buried in the ninth paragraph of the article: the court was interpreting express language in the state constitution, not the federal constitution.

> The Montana case revolved around language in the state Constitution that guarantees residents “the right to a clean and healthful environment,” and stipulates that the state and individuals are responsible for maintaining and improving the environment “for present and future generations.”

So the ruling is not as wacky as it seems at first blush. That said, state constitutions can have all sorts of aspirational statements that, under that state’s principles of constitutional interpretation, don’t necessarily generate actionable constraints on the operation of the government. Will be interesting to see what the appellate courts say.

Gift Article link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-...

> The court found that young people have a constitutional right to a healthful environment and that the state must consider potential climate damage when approving projects.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37123755 (111 comments)