Montana’s three climate lawsuits
Our Children’s Trust of Oregon has filed three climate lawsuits in Montana:
- Barhaugh v Montana 2011
- Held v Montana 2022-2023
- Lighthiser v Trump 2025
All three are the same lawsuit, with almost identical wording. All claim the government is damaging the children’s physical and mental health by allowing CO2 emissions to continue.
All ignore that their schools and parents are damaging the children’s physical and mental health by brainwashing them to FEAR human carbon emissions.
The fundamental scientific issue in all three climate lawsuits is whether the assumptions are true or false, but none of the lawsuits list them.
Barhaugh v. Montana, 2011 – that Berry defeated
Barhaugh v. Montana: Petition for Original Jurisdiction, Montana Supreme Court, 2011, was the first climate lawsuit in Montana. Berry led the intervention that stopped the Montana Supreme Court from accepting this Petition.
To justify its petition to the Montana Supreme Court, BvM says on page 5:
“Through the normal litigation and appeals process, this issue would likely take a minimum of two to three years just to reach this Court, in contrast to the average 60 days needed to resolve original proceedings.
“… there is not enough time to effectively arrest the effect of human-caused climate change unless immediate action is taken.”
“Climatological tipping points” lie directly ahead and drive the urgency of taking action.”
“The further we look into the future, the worse the costs of inaction will become. The longer we do nothing, the greater the risks of an irreversible climate catastrophe, such as a massive rise in sea levels, which could make the world unable to support anything like the current levels of population and economic activity.”
Barhaugh v. Montana justified its direct petition to the Montana Supreme Court by claiming that a climate emergency was imminent.
Democrat AG Bullock, who was then running for Governor, wrote, based on the evidence my team presented:
This disputed record is just one example of the factual determinations this Court would need to make to rule for Petitioners.
It would need to address … the current state of climate change science; the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change; how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate; whether the benefits of energy production must be balanced against the potential harm of climate change; and the concrete limits, if any, of the alleged “affirmative duty.”
The Montana Supreme Court therefore ruled:
The State (e.g., Montana AG Bullock) posits that the relief requested by Petitioners would require numerous other factual determinations, such as the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change and how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate.
This Court is ill-equipped to resolve the factual assertions.
We further conclude that Petitioners have not established urgency or emergency factors that would preclude litigation in a trial court followed by the normal appeal process.
Consensus has no bearing on scientific truth.
Held v Montana 2023 – the conspiracy
The Our Children’s Trust Held v Montana climate lawsuit assumed Assumptions (1) and (2) were true and based its whole argument on (3).
HvM is a copy of BvM. It still has AG Bullock’s name in it, even though Montana elected Bullock Governor in 2011 and Republican Austin Knudsen was Attorney General.
AG Knudsen could have argued to dismiss HvM based on the failure of the BvM climate prediction that claimed,
“…there is not enough time to effectively arrest the effect of human-caused climate change unless immediate action is taken,”
He did not do this.
AG Knudsen could have argued to dismiss HvM on the basis of the Montana Supreme Court’s 2011 decision to dismiss Held v Montana. He did not do this.
AG Knudsen could have objected to the plaintiff’s argument that, because Assumption (3) is true, therefore (1) and (2) are true, which argues that effects prove their cause. He did not do this.
AG Knudsen could have easily defeated HvM, as Berry explained to an Assistant AG. He did not do this. Knudsen censored Berry.
Montana AG Knudsen PURPOSELY LOST Held v Montana.
On June 12, 2023, just before the trial began, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell stipulated,
“for the purposes of trial, there is a scientific consensus that earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”
AG Knudsen stipulated that Assumptions (1) and (2) are true and that consensus, even without proof, prevails in science.
AG Knudsen’s stance put him to the left of former Democratic AG Bullock.
The HvM plaintiffs used the invalid argument of Affirming the Consequent.
The plaintiffs argued, in essence,
“If our CO2 changes the climate, then bad stuff happens.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, our CO2 changes the climate.”
AG Knudsen did not object to this logical error. He produced NO relevant expert witness and did NOT challenge any of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.
AG Knudsen – whose job was to defeat HvM – did not legally, ethically, or morally defend Montana against the Plaintiffs’ climate science claims.
In the famed witch trials, plaintiffs claimed that innocent women caused harmful weather events. But they did not, and could not, show any connection between the women and the weather events. Nevertheless, they burned the innocent women anyway.
In Held v Montana, plaintiffs claimed human CO2 caused harmful “climate events.” But they did not, and could not, show any connection between human CO2 and their climate events. AG Knudsen let the court convict human CO2anyway.
Judge Seeley correctly ruled for the plaintiffs based upon the evidence presented because Montana AG Knudsen presented NO evidence and NO rebuttal.
US Senator Steve Daines quickly announced that Montana lost because Judge Seeley was a “liberal” judge. Copycat US Senator Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL like Zinke, issued the same news release as Daines.
Congressman Ryan Zinke, a former commander of SEAL Team Six and my friend since 2008, told me in 2021 that he would invite me to speak to Congress about climate. After his 2023 re-election, at a Kalispell Pachyderm meeting, Zinke told me he couldn’t talk to me anymore as he walked to sit with the Montana WEF man.
AG Austin Knudsen betrayed Montana
Knudsen’s purposeful loss of HvM is a serious betrayal by an elected official of the voters who re-elected him in 2024. Now, Austin Knudsen may run for governor.
AG Knudsen allowed the plaintiffs’ claims of personal injury from human CO2 to become established as fact under Montana law, opening the door to HvM II.
AG Knudsen’s conspiracy sentenced thousands more kids to climate brainwashing, which infects them with a climate anxiety that turns them into climate zombies.
Held v Montana II
AG Knudsen allowed the plaintiffs’ claims of personal injury from human CO2 to become established as fact under Montana law, opening the door to HvM II.
Held Plaintiffs are pushing to overturn three Montana laws passed in the 2025 Legislature. Their case is assigned to Judge Kathy Seeley, the judge of the first Held v. Montana ruling.
Lighthiser v Trump – a federal lawsuit in Montana
Lighthiser v. Trump is a copy of Barhaugh v. Montana and Held v Montana, but applied to federal law rather than Montana law.
The AP report listed these assumptions as facts:
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate.
Katie Fairbanks, Montana Free Press, described the testimony of retired Professor Steve Running of the University of Montana, as saying scientists
“have tracked increasing carbon emissions and said every ton of carbon dioxide emissions adds to climate change.”
On September 17, 2025, I drove to Missoula to hear Trump’s defense of Lighthiser v Trump. Steve Running, the key scientist for the plaintiffs, attended wearing sweatpants.
Trump’s attorney made excellent legal arguments to dismiss LvT, causing the judge to later dismiss LvT. AG Knudsen could have done that with Held v Montana.
The key point is that Montana’s AG purposely lost Held v Montana at the orders of WEF, and Montana paid the plaintiffs’ attorneys $3 million.