Are Youth Plaintiffs Winning the Court Battle but Losing the Climate War? Lessons from Montana and Hawai’i Youth Plaintiff Climate Cases

By Swithin Shearer

            Young people occupy a unique space in the fight against climate change. Today’s youth are projected to see some of the most drastic climate change impacts unless countries take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[1] However, the voting age is 18 or older in the vast majority of countries.[2] Without a political voice, youth can be forgotten or excluded from the climate change conversation. Youth have raised their voices and responded by filing climate lawsuits against the government to effectuate positive change.[3] But does litigation, or a court victory, necessarily result in climate or environmental benefits? The classic legal answer is: it depends.

Two recent cases in the United States, brought on behalf of young people in Montana[4] and Hawai’i[5], are illustrative. In Held v. Montana and Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation, the plaintiffs demanded that their voices be heard as part of the climate conversation. In both cases, youth plaintiffs sued their State to demand changes to policies that adversely affected the environment.[6] The plaintiffs in each case alleged the State violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment”[7] when the State endorsed the use of fossil fuels.[8] The plaintiffs in both cases leveraged environmental protections embedded in their state constitutions to challenge the government. And, in both cases, they won their legal battles. For the Navahine F. plaintiffs, the on-the-ground outcome was a happy ending; the Held plaintiffs were not so lucky.

Montana Litigation: Empty Victory

Montana youth are arguably worse off than before the Held decision. In Held, the plaintiffs’ argument centered around the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s analysis (or lack thereof) of GHG emissions during environmental review pursuant to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”).[9] The district court determined the statutory scheme for environmental review was not compatible with the constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment.[10] Rather than accepting the district court’s decision, the State elected to appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.[11] Two of the issues on appeal were whether the Montana Constitution required a “stable climate system” and whether the challenged portions of MEPA were unconstitutional.[12]

By challenging the substantive core of the district court’s decision, Montana showed it was not willing to improve its environmental policy voluntarily. After the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision,[13] the legislature passed two bills in response.[14] The bills amended MEPA by making evaluation of GHG emissions optional and eliminating the unconstitutional portions that prohibited evaluation of GHG emissions.[15]

Combined, the changes to MEPA weaken environmental protections for actions requiring environmental review. GHG emission data, if evaluated, may only be “given appropriate consideration and assessment.”[16] Previously, GHG emissions could be considered in decision-making.[17] Legislators had the opportunity to bolster environmental protections by requiring, rather than prohibiting, GHG emission assessment. Instead, they downgraded the value of emissions data by choosing to make evaluation optional and limiting the use of that information. This may ultimately leave Montanans, and the youth plaintiffs who brought the suit, in a more vulnerable position than they previously occupied.

Hawai’i Litigation: Ideal Outcome

In Navahine F., the youth plaintiffs argued their constitutional rights had been violated because Hawai’i’s carbon emissions had no reasonable prospect of decreasing enough to meet the State’s “Zero Emissions Clean Economy Target” by 2045.[18] In contrast with Held, the Navahine F. litigation in Hawai’i resulted in a favorable settlement agreement that required the State to, among other terms, “develop and implement a concrete and comprehensive statewide plan . . . to reduce GHG emissions . . . .”[19] The Hawai’i Department of Transportation (HDOT) has since set a goal to achieve “zero emissions in the transportation sector.”[20] HDOT has also drafted a plan for GHG reduction across the State in order to achieve that goal;[21] a final plan is scheduled to be completed by October 2025.[22] The State must set five-year “GHG emissions reduction targets” and perform a periodic “comprehensive review and update.”[23] Unlike Montana’s response to the Held decision, Hawai’i has shown its willingness to embrace its responsibility to protect the environment for its citizens in the aftermath of litigation.

Reflecting on Held and Navahine F.: Was Litigation Successful?

Two key questions arise when comparing the outcomes of the Held and Navahine F. cases. First, why were the outcomes so starkly different? And second, does a court win really mean the plaintiffs will be better off? The answer to both questions seems to hinge on whether the government’s actions are voluntary or forced. The aftermath of Held shows the risks of climate litigation when a state’s elected officials do not wish to grapple with climate issues. Where a state takes a hostile view toward climate-conscious policies, a victory in court does not necessarily translate to a successful shift in a government’s climate policies. Yet, it is those circumstances where climate litigation is the most enticing to try to force the government to shift its policies. This is particularly important for youth plaintiffs, who are unable to vote to influence policy. Litigation therefore provides a much-needed forum for youth to seek justice on climate-related issues, especially those that violate explicit state constitutional protections.

Youth plaintiff lawsuits that challenge a state’s climate policies based on state constitutional protections are fairly novel.[24] Such litigation is unlikely to be widespread; only a handful of state constitutions have sufficiently specific provisions protecting a citizen’s right to a clean and healthful environment to support legal claims such as those raised in Held and Navahine F.[25] Yet, the possibility of success has prompted similar lawsuits in other states.[26] However, youth plaintiffs would be wise to pause before jumping into litigation. They will need to consider the possibility that their government may choose to further retreat from environmental policies when faced with climate litigation, as the Held plaintiffs are now witnessing in Montana. Because in Montana’s case, the youth plaintiffs won the court battle, but they may have lost the climate war.

[1] See Overarching Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 3: How will climate change affect the lives of today’s children tomorrow, if no immediate action is taken?, IPCC (June 16, 2023), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-questions/keyfaq3.

[2] Voting Age by Country 2025, World Population Rev., https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-country (last visited Sept. 5, 2025).

[3] See, e.g., Complaint at 1, Dunn v. Wis. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, No. 2025CV002797 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 22, 2025); Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020); Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–4, Lighthiser v. Trump, No. CV-25-54-BU-DLC (D. Mont. May 29, 2025).

[4] Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. 1st Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023).

[5] Complaint, Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Dep’t of Transp., No. 1CCV-22-0000631 (1st Cir. Jun. 1, 2022).

[6] Complaint at 1–3, Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. 1st Dist. Ct. Mar. 13, 2020); Complaint at 1–4, Navahine F. No. 1CCV-22-0000631.

[7] Mont. Const. art. II, § 3; id. art. IX, § 1; Haw. Const. art. XI, § 9.

[8] Complaint at 2, 35, Held No. CDV-2020-307; Complaint at 4, Navahine F. No. 1CCV-22-0000631.

[9] Complaint at 2, 35–36, Held No. CDV-2020-307.

[10] Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307, 2023 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 2, at *129.

[11] Notice of Appeal of Governor Greg Gianforte, Mont. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, Mont. Dep’t of Nat. Res. and Conservation, and Mont. Dep’t of Transp., 2024 MT 312 (No. DA 23-0575).

[12] Held v. Montana, 2024 MT 312, ¶ 1.

[13] Id.

[14] A third bill, H.B. 229, was introduced. H.B 229, 69th Leg., 2025 Sess. (Mont. 2025). Based on the initial amendments it made to MEPA, it could have expanded, or at least not scaled back, environmental protections. However, H.B. 229 died in process. Id.

[15] H.B. 285, § 12 (amending § 75-1-201, MCA), 69th Leg., 2025 Session. (Mont. 2025).

[16] H.B. 285, § 12, 69th Leg., 2025 Sess. (Mont. 2025) (amending Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(b)(ii)) (emphasis added).

[17] Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(b)(ii) (emphasis added).

[18] Complaint at 3–4, Navahine F. v. Hawai‘i Dep’t of Transp., No. 1CCV-22-0000631 (1st Cir. June 1, 2022).

[19] Joint Stipulation and Order re: Settlement Ex. A: Settlement Agreement and Release 5, Navahine F. v. Hawai’i Dep’t of Transp., No. 1CCV-22-0000631 (June 20, 2024).

[20] Hawai’i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan, State of Hawai’i Dep’t of Transp., https://highways.hidot.hawaii.gov/stories/s/h9gp-xxmt (last visited Sept. 19, 2025).

[21] Hawai’i Dep’t of Transp., Hawai’i Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan DRAFT (June 27, 2025).

[22] Hawai’i Department of Transportation (HDOT) Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan, supra note 20.

[23] Joint Stipulation and Order re: Settlement Ex. A: Settlement Agreement and Release 5, Navahine F., No. 1CCV-22-0000631.

[24] See Dana Drugmand, Advocates Nationwide Push for State-Level Green Constitutional Amendments (Mar. 28, 2024), https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/advocates-nationwide-push-state-level-green-constitutional-amendments.

[25] Id.

[26] See, e.g., Complaint at 1, Dunn v. Wis. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, No. 2025CV002797 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 22, 2025); Complaint at 1–4; see also Natalie R. v. Utah, 2025 UT 5, 567 P.3d 550.