Court Won’t Move Climate Lawsuit To Sidney

A district court judge ruled against an attempt by the state and Montana Speaker of the House Brandon Ler to move a climate-based lawsuit to a different venue hours away, citing a recently passed law.

The controversial youthled climate lawsuit, Held v. Montana II, was filed in Broadwater County, which along with Lewis and Clark County, comprises the First Judicial District, where the initial Held v. Montana trial took place. The new suit challenges three laws passed last year — House Bills 285 and 291, as well as Senate Bill 221.

But Ler sought to move the case to the Seventh Judicial District in Sidney — more than seven hours away by interstate travel — using a law passed in 2025 allowing a bill sponsor to intervene in any lawsuit brought against their bills and have the case moved to a court within their legislative district.

Ler’s argument, which the state of Montana joined in, cited the new statutory right to transfer venue — from Senate Bill 97 — recognizing location as “a personal privilege belonging to the defendant,” according to his motion.

District Court Judge Mike Menehan, however, denied the motion, saying that because the lawsuit challenges multiple laws, as well as the state of Montana, Gov. Greg Gianforte, and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the current court is the proper venue.

“Our case belongs in the place where these laws were written and near where my fellow plaintiffs and I actually live,” plaintiff Grace Gibson- Snyder said in a statement. “This ruling is a win for me, my fellow plaintiffs, and all Montanans.”

Senate Bill 221 was sponsored by Sen. Wylie Galt, whose district includes part of Broadwater County, which is why the plaintiffs filed the suit there.

Menahan wrote that court precedent holds when multiple counties could be considered the proper for a legal proceeding and it is filed in one of them, “‘‘no motion may be granted to change the place of trial upon the ground that the action is not brought in a proper county.’” In a statement to the Daily Montanan, Ler said that he is disappointed in Menahan’s order.

“For too long, politically charged lawsuits have been funneled into the same courts before the same judges,” Ler said. “SB 97 was designed to restore balance by ensuring that cases with statewide consequences can be heard outside Helena and Missoula. Montana is a big state, and justice should not be concentrated in a few zip codes. We remain confident in the merits of these laws and will continue fighting to ensure every Montanan has an equal stake in our judicial system.”

In two additional orders Menahan handed down in the last week, the court denied multiple motions from groups seeking to participate as amici curiae — friends of the court — to file their own arguments.

Thirty-eight Republican legislators sought to intervene to argue why SB 97 should allow for the venue change.

On the other side, six traditionally left-leaning organizations including the ACLU of Montana and Montana Public Interest Research Group asked to intervene to challenge Ler’s request to move.

The court’s decision to keep the current venue made both requests moot and Menahn denied their participation.

In response to the original Held decision, the 2025 Legislature passed a suite of laws that altered the Montana Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act, three of which are challenged in the new suit.

“In the Held v. Montana court case, they tried to twist MEPA into something it was never meant to be — a tool to deny permits and block development,” said Ler, R-Savage, said during a signing ceremony for five climate-related bills.

Ler’s House Bill 285, and Galt’s Senate Bill 221, made changes to MEPA by narrowing the scope of environmental reviews, and emphasizing that MEPA is a tool for assessing impacts to the environment, not a regulatory mechanism to “withhold, deny, or impose conditions on any permit.”

The plaintiffs argue that these laws restrict agencies from being able to act in circumstances where the environment could come to harm, requiring them to “turn a blind eye.”

The third challenged law, HB 291, brought by Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Billings, prohibits the state from adopting more stringent standards for air pollutants than the federal government.