吃瓜大本营

Federal courts have relied on the prudential 鈥減olitical questions doctrine鈥� to avoid addressing questions that are textually committed to other branches of the government and lack judicially discoverable and manageable standards. In recent years, some state courts have adopted this doctrine to dismiss otherwise valid constitutional challenges, even those involving egregious harms. This case questions whether a state鈥檚 affirmative protection of young people from climate change, as set forth in Montana's constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment", could fall under the political doctrine question, and thus, is nonjusticiable.

In 2020, 16 youth plaintiffs represented by Our Children鈥檚 Trust sued the state of Montana for not protecting their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. In the district court proceeding, they argued that the State of Montana鈥檚 energy policy perpetuates a fossil-fuel based system that contributes to climate change and violates the youth plaintiffs鈥� constitutional right to clean and healthful environment, as well as their right to seek safety, health, and happiness, and to individual dignity. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ruled that the Montana Environmental Policy Act鈥攚hich prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions as a factor when pursuing energy projects鈥攚as unconstitutional.
The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Montana, wrote an amicus brief arguing that the reach of the political question doctrine should be limited under the Montana Constitution.

The brief relies on Montana caselaw to argue that the political doctrine question only applies to federal courts and should remain that way according to the text and history of the Montana Constitution. Other state courts have declined to expand the political doctrine question and even if the doctrine were expanded, it would not support nonjusticiability in this case