Montana Case Highlights Clinic’s Environmental Work

In December, the Montana Supreme Court did something that no other high court had ever done, ruling in favor of a group of young people who argued that state policies violated their right to “a clean and healthful environment” enshrined in the Montana Constitution.

Among the numerous amici curiae briefs filed in Held v. Montana was one prepared by the University of Virginia School of Law’s Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic that focused on public health issues. That brief was the only one of 20 submitted that was cited by the Montana court in its landmark decision, which upheld a lower court ruling that the state must account for the impact of climate change when approving fossil fuel projects.

The case and other recent legal projects illustrate how clinic students are partnering with communities and benefiting from the practical legal opportunities they are receiving.

“What makes this job so rewarding is the chance to work with students as part of their legal training and giving them experiences that they wouldn’t get, sometimes, until well after graduation,” said Professor Cale Jaffe ’01, director of the clinic.

Supported by 113 public health experts and physicians, as well as 17 accredited organizations, the brief prepared by the clinic lays out the medical case for why a Montana District Court was correct in its finding that the health effects of climate change, including the respiratory problems that it can create, are legally cognizable harms that support the plaintiffs’ right to sue.

Jaffe said this type of collaboration with experts is emblematic of the “humility” he urges students to bring to their work.

“It’s never our clever argument in the brief. It is always the client’s case, the client’s brief,” Jaffe said. For this project, he explained, “We had to humbly ask a group of top-notch medical professionals to trust us to tell their story and to relay their medical expertise in a way that supported a legal argument we needed to make.”

Shevani Mehta, a third-year UVA Law student, worked on the brief with Hana Verwilt ’24 during their time in the clinic.

Mehta said they began their research by looking at what publicly available data said about the impact of climate change on children, then, in consultation with a core group of four doctors from Harvard University’s School of Medicine, worked to craft the arguments, distilling vast amounts of medical literature into a digestible document for the court.

“What I love about law school is how interdisciplinary it is,” Mehta said. “Doing this project, you really got to see multiple angles of an issue.”

The brief helped establish that young people had standing to bring the case by outlining how they were affected differently than the population writ large, said Nate Bellinger, supervising senior staff attorney with Our Children’s Trust and lead counsel for the group who brought the case.

“Children are harmed in ways that are different than adults by virtue of their bodies and minds and organs that are still developing. And the health literature is really helpful to demonstrate how youth are uniquely impacted, and that’s really important for both establishing standing [to sue] and the constitutional violation,” he said.

Learning more about the physical and mental impact climate change had on the plaintiffs left a deep impression, Mehta said.

There were “pages and pages of respiratory issues, mental health issues, kids no longer able to go camping or just spend time outside, which is so important to me,” she said.

Mehta described the ruling as a “feel-good moment” and thinking when it was announced that “something I did actually helped make a difference.”

Other recent student experiences highlight additional ways the clinic is empowering students to learn the skills and strategies that will help them later in their careers.

Megan Lemon, a second-year student, spent years working in a village in Fiji, including with the Peace Corps, before starting law school. She said the environmental law clinic, particularly its emphasis on community engagement, was a significant factor for her in deciding to attend UVA Law.

“There are these really great national environmental agencies that want to put the same Band-Aid on every problem. And so, I really liked that the clinic identified the importance of the community aspect of it, because I had seen the importance of that during my time in Fiji,” Lemon said.

During her time with the clinic, Lemon worked with the Southern Environmental Law Center to research how different state transportation departments addressed the issue of resiliency.

The experience, she said, “really helped me hone my research skills outside of Westlaw, which was fun.”

She also assisted Our Children’s Trust in preparing its oral argument for their appeal in Layla H. v. Commonwealth, an ongoing case similar to the Montana matter that involves whether the rights of a group of Virginia young people were infringed by government actions relating to fossil fuel permitting and its effect on climate change.

“I’ve been a big fan of Our Children’s Trust for a while. I followed their Montana case pretty closely, and so I was really excited to work with them on this case,” Lemon said.

Second-year student Caroline Daniel’s experience is illustrative of the blend of high-stakes litigation and community work that is at the heart of the clinic’s mission.

Last year, she teamed up with Liz Gaccione ’26, also of the environmental clinic, and UVA Law’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic in preparing an amicus brief that was filed in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. The case, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in December, concerns the reach of the National Environmental Policy Act and the environmental review requirements it imposes on federal agencies.

“That’s a pretty incredible opportunity for a second-year law student, getting to be a part of an actively ongoing Supreme Court case, and we were writing this brief on behalf of members of Congress,” Daniel said. In total, 30 members of the House and Senate would sign on to the brief.

Gaccione said she felt the gravity of the assignment from the outset.

“I remember being in the first meeting and being so excited about the case but also nervous,” she said.

“You’re under supervision, but it’s still really a vote of confidence in the work that you can put into the world,” she added.

In addition to the Supreme Court brief, Daniel and Gaccione cited their participation in a walk-a-thon where they learned more about the AMMD Pine Grove Project as a highlight of their clinic experience. For several years the clinic has worked with community members to preserve the Pine Grove School, a historic Black schoolhouse in Cumberland, Virginia, that has been threatened by a proposed landfill.

“It really reinforced why this work is important,” Gaccione said. “I think sometimes when you’re just looking at statutes, it can feel a little big picture. But then you meet the individual people that this matters to, and I think that’s what kind of reaffirms the work we do — not just as lawyers or students but as advocates. And I felt like it’s really important to the ethos of the clinic.”

Jaffe said that attending events such as these is an essential part of being an effective community lawyer.

“We’re doing broader legal work with this client, and this is a community event that they care deeply about. And if you don’t show up for your client, why will they show up for you? They notice,” he said.

Whether contributing to high-profile litigation, helping with community projects or, in Mehta’s case, being a part of a historic decision like the Montana ruling, the clinic is offering students a unique glimpse at what the practice of environmental law can look like.

“I think it’s an unmatched experience to be able to have,” Mehta said.