1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’…

U.S. Supreme Court

Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’ ends with Supreme Court’s cert denial

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 2:01 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a climate change lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 youths who contended that the government is a trustee of the environment and has a duty to preserve it.

The Supreme Court denied cert in Juliana v. United States, report Law360, Reuters, the New York Times, the Oregon Capital Chronicle and E&E News by Politico.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco had tossed the case in a 2020 opinion that said the issue should be taken to the political branches of government, rather than the courts. In May, the appeals court said a revised suit had not cured standing issues that prevented courts from deciding the case.

The name plaintiff in the suit, filed in 2015, is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, who is now 29 years old and a teacher in Oregon, according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a March 24 press release it has defended the case across three presidential administrations.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s cert denial brings this long saga to a conclusion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, in the press release.

The case was filed on behalf of the children by the nonprofit group Our Children’s Trust. Julia Olson, the group’s chief legal counsel, said in a March 24 statement the suit’s impact “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana has ignited a movement and created a powerful legal framework for future generations to assert their constitutional rights in the face of the climate crisis,” she said.

In one success for the group in late 2024, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a state law banning consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil-fuel-permitting decisions. The state supreme court cited a state constitutional provision that guarantees a “clean and healthful environment.” The case was Held v. Montana.

In a second case in 2024, Hawaii agreed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide in its transportation system in a settlement with Our Children’s Trust.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. In ‘monumental moment,’ Montana Supreme Court…

Environmental Law

In ‘monumental moment,’ Montana Supreme Court rules for youths claiming right to clean environment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 19, 2024, 9:01 am CST

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a state law banning consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil-fuel-permitting decisions, citing a state constitutional provision that guarantees a “clean and healthful environment.”

The Montana Supreme Court sided with 16 youths who alleged environmental harm. The decision is the first of its kind by a state supreme court, according to a press release by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit public interest law firm, and the Western Environmental Law Center, which represented the plaintiffs.

The lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Nate Bellinger, called the opinion “a monumental moment for Montana, our youth and the future of our planet” in the press release.

The state constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” includes a stable climate system, the Montana Supreme Court said in the majority opinion by Chief Justice Mike McGrath. The alleged violation of that right gave the youth plaintiffs standing to sue, the state supreme court said in the Dec. 18 opinion.

Law360, the Hill and the Daily Montanan are among the publications with coverage.

The state had argued that delegates at the 1972 state constitutional convention didn’t intend to address climate change because it wasn’t discussed. Montana also argued that state efforts to address climate change wouldn’t have an impact without global action.

But the majority said constitutional delegates didn’t have to contemplate every constitutional harm that would be protected. Nor would they “grant the state a free pass to pollute the Montana environment just because the rest of the world insisted on doing so,” McGrath wrote.

A concurring judge agreed on the constitutional issue.

But the concurrence said solutions to global warming are in federal and international public policy choices, “rather than in a flashy headline-grabbing rights-based legal case in Montana.”

A dissenting judge argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

Chase Scheuer, the press secretary for the Montana Department of Justice, said the ruling was “disappointing but not surprising,” according to coverage by the Hill.

“The majority of the state supreme court justices yet again ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate,” Scheuer said.

The case is Held v. Montana.

See also:

Montana’s disregard of climate change violates right to clean environment, judge rules

Nation’s first youth climate lawsuits to go to trial

A Montana man will spend the rest of his life in prison for killing his wife and a bartender who he suspected were having an affair.

Kraig Walter Benson was sentenced to 140 years in prison on Friday for the deaths of his wife, Jenny Benson, 49, and bartender Logan Gardner, 43. He was found guilty in October 2024 of two counts of deliberate homicide.

Jenny Benson’s father told the killer directly that he hoped he leads a miserable life in prison, while the defendant’s daughter said she didn’t feel safe with her father in the world.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Top Montana court allows gender-affirming…

Privacy Law

Top Montana court allows gender-affirming care for trans minors during litigation, citing privacy protections

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 11:52 am CST

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The state supreme court upheld a state judge’s determination that a privacy challenge to the 2023 law blocking the care was likely to succeed on the merits, and that challengers were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.

The Montana Supreme Court’s Dec. 11 decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction that blocks the ban on gender-affirming care pending a trial in the case.

The state supreme court cited the Montana Constitution, which provides: “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

The law should be evaluated using strict scrutiny, the state supreme court said.

“The statute at issue here prevents a wide range of treatment even when such treatment is determined, in the judgment of a medical professional working with their patients, to be in the patients’ best interest and given with informed consent,” the Montana Supreme Court said. “The district court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits.”

Two concurring justices said the state supreme court also should have addressed the plaintiffs’ claim that the law violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

“Gender-affirming care is currently being litigated on equal protection grounds around the country, and the United States Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue this term,” the concurrence said. “These cases are instructive in certain ways, but they cannot answer what this court is being asked: how sex/gender discrimination and suspect class discrimination should be handled under the unique equal protection provision of the Montana Constitution.”

A partial dissenter would have allowed the law’s ban on Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care to take effect.

Hat tip to the American Civil Liberties Union, which issued a Dec. 11 press release.

How Appealing linked to coverage by the Flathead Beacon and Courthouse News Service.

The man accused in the slaying of a fellow camper after a chance encounter out in the Montana wilderness claims he killed the victim in self-defense.

Fox News and Bozeman CBS affiliate KBZK obtained arrest documents that detailed more of the slaying of 35-year-old Dustin Kjersem. Daren Abbey, 41, is facing a deliberate homicide charge along with two counts of tampering with evidence in the case. Kjersem had set up camp in the Big Sky area on Oct. 10 with the intention of picking up his girlfriend the next day for a weekend together. That evening, according to police, Abbey had shown up in the same area with the intention of camping.

Abbey would later tell homicide detectives that Kjersem invited him into his tent where they had a couple of beers. Charging documents reportedly said that Abbey claimed things turned south when Abbey’s dog jumped on Kjersem’s air mattress, leaving behind paw prints. Abbey reportedly said he took a T-shirt to a nearby stream and got it wet to clean the air mattress.

When he returned, he reportedly claimed that Kjersem threatened to shoot him and his dog. A physical fight ensued and Abbey then “hit the victim on the head with a piece of firewood, stabbed the victim in the neck with a screwdriver, and hit the victim on the face with the blunt side of the axe,” the documents reportedly said. Cops said they didn’t buy his self-defense claims because the victim didn’t have any defensive wounds.

The suspect fled the scene but returned the next day to retrieve his hat. Kjersem’s girlfriend and another friend found the victim’s body in the tent on Oct. 12 after he failed to pick her up the previous night. Investigators collected several items from the tent as evidence, including beer cans. According to the affidavit, DNA matched two people: Daren Abbey and his twin, Dustin Abbey. Since Dustin Abbey has been in the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections since September, investigators had their suspect in Daren Abbey. They arrested him on Oct. 26.

Detectives also highlighted a report taken a couple days before Daren Abbey’s arrest from employees at Big Sky Resort and The Rocks Tasting Room. The employees described Abbey as a “skinhead dude” who had made them uncomfortable by spewing white supremacist comments. His profile on the Montana Department of Corrections page shows that he has swastika tattoos.

Authorities in Montana have a person in custody they believe murdered a man found dead with “chop wounds” inside a tent in a killing initially reported as a bear attack.

The Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office said Wednesday in a Facebook post that a suspect in the slaying of 35-year-old Dustin Kjersem is in jail on unrelated charges. Deputies did not name the suspect and said charges related to the murder are forthcoming.

More from Law&Crime: Man slit girlfriend’s wrists, left her body ‘on the couch while he watched television before going to bed’: DA

Kjersem was last seen alive the afternoon of Oct. 10. He was camping in the Moose Creek canyon area and slated to meet up with friends on Oct. 11, said Sheriff Dan Springer. When he didn’t show up, his friends went looking for him. They found his tent shortly after 10 a.m. on Oct. 12 about 2.5 miles up Moose Creek Road. They looked inside, and found his mutilated body, Springer said. The caller indicated that Kjersem may have been the victim of a bear attack.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. In ethics hearing, Montana attorney general…

Ethics

In ethics hearing, Montana attorney general defends ‘sharp’ words, refusal to obey court order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 10, 2024, 11:12 am CDT

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen denied that his office was disrespectful, intemperate and contemptuous in questioning during an ethics hearing Wednesday.

Knudsen defended his actions in a 2021 subpoena battle in a hearing before the Montana Supreme Court’s Commission on Practice, report Montana Public Radio, the Associated Press and the Montana Free Press.

Knudsen is facing ethics charges for making “undignified” comments, for accusing state supreme court justices of impropriety, and for refusing to obey court orders.

The charges stem from the attorney general’s representation of the state legislature as it sought emails from a court administrator. The emails concerned the administrator’s polling of members of the Montana Judges Association about a bill changing how judges are chosen.

Knudsen’s office had declared that it did not recognize a court order staying enforcement of a legislative subpoena as binding, and it would not abide by it.

The office also described a court order on legislative subpoenas as “ludicrous” and “outside the bounds of rational thought.” The office later filed a motion alleging that the state supreme court should recuse itself because of an “obvious conflict of interest” and “actual impropriety.”

In the October hearing, Knudsen said he was zealously representing his client, the legislature, in an unprecedented case, according to Montana Public Radio.

“At the time, my client had a bona fide, genuine belief that that order was not valid. And that was what we were instructed, that’s what my office was instructed, to press that position,” Knudsen said.

Knudsen did say, however, his office could have dialed back the rhetoric, according to the AP.

“If I’m being really honest, in hindsight, I think a lot of things could have been done differently and probably should have been done different here,” Knudsen said. “If I had this to do over, I probably would not have allowed language like this—so sharp—to be used. But we and our client truly felt that we were in an absolutely novel situation of constitutional emergency and this is the language that went out.”