A historic legal victory for the planet is facing a bureaucratic stranglehold, forcing young activists back into the trenches to defend a ruling the government seems determined to ignore.

Two years after the landmark Held v. Montana decision affirmed their constitutional right to a clean environment—a concept mirrored in Kenya’s own Constitution—plaintiffs allege state lawmakers are actively rewriting the rules to bypass the judiciary. On Wednesday, 13 of the original 16 youth plaintiffs filed a petition accusing Montana officials of enacting new laws that flagrantly violate the court's 2023 order.

A Victory on Paper, A Defeat in Practice

The saga began in August 2023, when a Montana judge ruled that state officials had violated the constitutional rights of young residents by aggressively promoting fossil fuels without considering climate impacts. That decision was affirmed by the state’s Supreme Court in late 2024.

However, the plaintiffs argue that victory is being dismantled piece by piece. Rikki Held, the 24-year-old lead petitioner, warned that the state is not merely dragging its feet but actively reversing course.

“These new policies mean the state is going to just continue to act in a way that will increase greenhouse gases which... were shown to be disproportionately harming youth,” Held noted. “It means we’ll continue down a path we already know and have proven is detrimental.”

Rewriting the Rules

The core of the new legal challenge focuses on legislative maneuvers enacted during the 2025 session. According to the petition, lawmakers have passed measures that effectively nullify the court's requirement for environmental due diligence. Key contentions include:

• Capping Standards: A new law prohibits the state from adopting air quality standards stricter than federal ones, which attorneys argue turns minimum safety floors into maximum ceilings.
• Selective Inventory: The state’s Environmental Policy Act was amended to list only six specific warming gases for review, ignoring a broader spectrum of pollutants.
• Ignoring the Chain: Agencies are now barred from considering "upstream and downstream" emissions—pollution caused by transporting fuels or burning Montana coal in other states.

Nate Bellinger, supervising staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust, described the move as a “complete inversion” of the law. “The decision confirmed that laws which put blinders on agencies during environmental reviews are unconstitutional,” Bellinger emphasized. “But now the state is essentially re-blindering agencies.”

The Kenyan Connection

While this legal tussle is unfolding in the American West, the implications resonate in Nairobi. Kenya is a global pioneer in environmental law, with Article 42 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Montana case is frequently cited by legal scholars in East Africa as proof that courts can hold governments accountable for intergenerational climate justice.

However, the current developments serve as a cautionary tale: a court judgment is only as strong as the political will to enforce it. Just as Kenyan activists have had to fight repeatedly to enforce bans on logging or protection of riparian land, the Montana youth are discovering that winning the verdict is only the first battle.

If the petition fails, it could set a dangerous precedent where legislative bodies can simply legislate their way out of constitutional obligations regarding climate change.