in favor of several young climate activists in a landmark decision holding that a state prohibition on considering greenhouse gas emissions in environmental review violates the Montana Constitution. The case is one of few victories won in worldwide “environmental trust” litigation.
But in one way at least, in decisions regarding leasing state land for oil and gas production, Pennsylvania courts might even go further. But well-established Pennsylvania precedent relaxes standing requirements when, otherwise, unconstitutional action by state and local government would go unchallenged. That would be the case in a climate change case brought in Pennsylvania.
In 2013, in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, a plurality opinion by Chief Justice Ronald Castille found the state regulatory regime for oil and gas drilling—Act 13—unconstitutional under Section 27 both because it insufficiently protected the “public environment” and because it prohibited local governments from acting to protect the environment. In 2017, in Pa. Environmental Defense Foundation v.
Similarly, even if a Pennsylvania court held that the government must take climate change into account in its decisions, there might be no effect on development in the state.in which, after eight years of litigation, the school funding formula was found unconstitutional, but no specific remedies were imposed. There is no guarantee that anything will change.
Under this reasoning, if a court were to find that all oil and gas production harms the environment due to its impact on climate change, a court might well order an immediate cessation of all such production on public land.