PTC v. MT DEQ, 2024 MT 181

In 2021, Montana amended its Opencut Mining Act to establish "dryland" permits for mining projects that allegedly do not impact water resources and have fewer than ten nearby occupied dwellings.
LHC, Inc. applied for a dryland opencut mining permit west of Highway 83, which DEQ approved after reviewing and revising the application.
Protect the Clearwater administratively appealed the permit through the Board of Environmental Review (BER) and filed a separate court complaint challenging the environmental review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
LHC began mining while litigation was pending, prompting Protect the Clearwater to seek (and obtain) a court-ordered preliminary injunction halting all mining activities.
The district court granted the injunction using Montana’s general preliminary injunction statute, not MEPA’s specific provision, citing independent statutory grounds for the challenge.
DEQ and LHC appealed, arguing the wrong legal standard was applied and the injunction should be governed solely by MEPA’s exclusive remedy provision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute governs injunctions here?	General preliminary injunction statute applies since claims are independent of MEPA.	MEPA’s specific exclusive remedy provision applies due to the permit’s nexus with environmental review.	MEPA’s exclusive injunctive relief provisions control for permit challenges under Title 75 and Title 82.
Can a preliminary injunction be filed independently of an existing MEPA action?	Yes, following City of Great Falls v. Forbes.	No, an injunction must be sought within the MEPA action if it challenges permitting or environmental review.	No, the applicant must seek preliminary relief under MEPA in the pending lawsuit, not as a standalone action.
Did the district court apply the correct standard for a preliminary injunction?	Yes, as the complaint included non-MEPA statutory claims.	No, Title 75’s exclusive relief/statutory standards must be followed.	No, the court misapplied the general standard instead of MEPA’s more stringent requirements.
Was the injunction justified by law and fact?	Yes, irreparable harm likely; agency process was flawed.	No, agency review & statutory procedures were ongoing and not properly exhausted.	No, district court failed to satisfy all MEPA-specific findings.

Driscoll v. Stapleton, 401 Mont. 405 (Mont. 2020) (preliminary injunction standard of review clarified)
City of Great Falls v. Forbes, 359 Mont. 140 (Mont. 2011) (when injunctions may be issued without a formal complaint)
Water for Flathead’s Future, Inc. v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 412 Mont. 258 (Mont. 2023) (MEPA’s exclusive remedy provision constrains the jurisdiction and relief courts may grant)
Park County Environmental Council v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 402 Mont. 168 (Mont. 2020) (agency’s environmental review challenges)