On July 10, the Montana Supreme Court heard why state leaders think a climate change legal victory by a group of young people should be overturned.

Held vs. Montana found that the legislature violated the state constitution when it blocked environmental agencies from analyzing greenhouse gas emissions in fossil fuel projects. 

In their appeal, state attorneys argued the case should be thrown out because the youths weren’t pointing to any specific project that was hurting them. The state also claimed Montana didn’t produce enough greenhouse gas to have an impact on global warming, so a court victory wouldn’t fix anything the youths were asking for.

The youths drew on a long list of scientists to show how state policies encouraged fossil fuel development, which was ruining the climate they depend for health, business and recreation. A district court judge ruled that violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment” as specifically listed in the Constitution. That meant the state greenhouse gas limitation was unconstitutional.

But this case is about a lot more than legality of one environmental law. Let’s check out what the rest of this iceberg of a lawsuit looks like.