ENVIRONMENT: Original jurisdiction of 2025 clean air bills denied… Order.

13 youths who were Plaintiffs in Held (Mont. 2024) seek to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to MRAP 14(4) to consider their request for declaratory judgment on constitutionality of HB 285, SB 221, and HB 291 relating to MEPA and the CAA which became effective in 5/25. They argue that the petition raises pure issues of law that have the requisite urgency because — quoting Judge Seeley in Held — “‘every additional ton of GHG emissions exacerbates Plaintiff’s injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,’ making litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate.”

Although Petitioners argue that development of a factual record is unnecessary given the factual record in Held, they do not address why a district court would not be equipped to consider the legal issues in a timely fashion and permit them to present an appeal in the ordinary course. District courts entertain constitutional challenges routinely and have the tools to address allegations of irreparable harm or similar questions of urgency. The petition is denied without a response from Defendants. MRAP 14(7)(a).

Swanson, Baker, Shea, Bidegaray, Gustafson.

Held et al v. State, Gianforte, and DEQ, OP 25-853, 12/23/25.

Roger Sullivan (McGarvey Law Firm), Kalispell, and Nathan Bellinger & David Schwartz (Our Children’s Trust), Eugene, Oregon, for Petitioners.