A group of young climate activists who argued that a provision in the Montana constitution guarantees them a right to a clean and healthful environment on Monday prevailed in a landmark lawsuit against their state.

But could this happen in Colorado? Some legal experts doubt this tactic would work in Colorado.

Environmental attorney Paul Seby said that, unlike Montana’s constitution, Colorado’s constitution explicitly recognizes activities that may be environmentally harmful.

“I’m not aware of any similar provision in the Colorado constitution, but I do know that there are provisions in the Colorado constitution that authorize mining and the appropriation of water, both of which are activities, which by definition, have impacts on the environment,” Seby in an interview with The Denver Gazette.

The Montana ruling is “inconsistent with the way in which the Colorado Constitution authorizes activities which impact the natural environment for the beneficial use of the citizens of Colorado,” Seby said.

Why Montana is different: Montana is one of only three states that specifically have the affirmative right to a healthful environment in their constitutions. That legal language was a cornerstone of the Held v. Montana youth case.

Driving the news: In her ruling, district court Judge Kathy Seeley found the policy Montana uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional. Seeley wrote in the ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth.

Only nine states have a similar language in their constitutions, according to Robert Natelson, who was a law professor at the University of Montana for 24 years and taught, among other things, constitutional law. He has authored several articles on the Montana constitution.

Montana revised its state constitution in 1972.

A dissenting opinion: In an interview with the Denver Gazette, Natelson, who disagreed with Seeley’s ruling, said the history of the state’s constitutional convention made it clear to him that the language the plaintiffs relied upon as a self-actuating right is simply a directive to the legislature to consider issues, not a power given to the court to tell the legislature what to do.

“The legislature determines the content of the environmental laws,” said Natelson. “This is different from the concept of rights that we use in the federal bill of rights, but it actually is fairly common in state constitutions for a constitution to simply give a directive to the legislature to consider something.

And that’s what the Montana legislature did, he said.

This is something of an arcane matter of constitutional law, but in essence, he said, the plaintiffs never had legal standing to sue. Natelson added the decision itself is symptomatic of a very deep problem with the Montana court system.

“I think it very unlikely any other court system in the country would rule this way,” he said. “For many years, the Montana Court system has been ultra-activist and has acted like an oligarchy, taking away decisions from the democratic branches of government. This is a good example.”

Seeley dismissed a number of the plaintiffs’ requests as exceeding the court’s authority under the political question doctrine. These included compelling the state to develop a remedial plan, having the court retain jurisdiction over the matter until the state complied with the plan, and a request that the court appoint a special master to assist the court.

Seeley declared the law that blocked state regulators from considering climate effects outside of the state unconstitutional.

“Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment is complemented by an affirmative duty upon their government to take active steps to realize this right,” said Seeley.

What to watch: In a statement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency District 8 Regional Administrator KC Becker said young people are no longer watching from the sidelines.

“No longer are young people demanding action on the climate crisis from the sidelines – they are successfully advocating for it themselves,” Becker, a former Colorado Speaker of the House, said. “This decision today sets a precedent for intergenerational accountability and environmental justice, ensuring that the decisions made today positively impact the well-being of tomorrow’s generations.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.