Twenty young Americans are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of their constitutional climate case against President Donald Trump’s energy policies. The plaintiffs assert that federal courts can block these executive orders, which they claim exacerbate a “children’s health emergency.” They believe judicial intervention is crucial as governmental checks and balances have failed them.
Eva Lighthiser, the lead plaintiff and a 19-year-old resident from Livingston, emphasized the urgency in a press release, stating the executive orders harm her and fellow plaintiffs by increasing the risks of wildfires, smoky days, and floods. Lighthiser hopes the court will fulfill its constitutional duty to protect young people.
Judge Dismisses Climate Lawsuit
A federal judge in Montana dismissed the lawsuit, where young activists argued Trump’s orders promoting fossil fuels violated their constitutional rights. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice and several states urged dismissal, noting these orders counteract the Biden administration’s policies. The previous landmark Montana climate case, Held v. Montana, succeeded due to the state constitution’s environmental protection clause, absent at the federal level.
The lawsuit asserts the federal court can reverse three of Trump’s executive orders issued early in his second term. It argues these orders harm constitutional rights by promoting policies that increase greenhouse gas emissions, exposing young people to disproportionate economic and health risks. The appeal follows a two-day hearing in September where plaintiffs highlighted climate change’s direct impact on their health.
Government attorneys contended the plaintiffs lack standing and seek unprecedented relief: reversing a previous administration’s policy reversal. Montana’s Department of Justice, alongside other states, argued a ruling for plaintiffs could impede energy projects and financially burden the state through further litigation.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen acknowledged the plaintiff’s evidence of climate impact but ruled the remedy lies with policymakers, echoing a similar outcome in the Juliana v. United States case.
Related Legal Actions
Ten plaintiffs in Lighthiser v. Trump were also involved in the Held v. Montana case, where the Montana Supreme Court ruled in their favor, affirming a right to a stable climate system. However, recent legislative responses have been challenged for not aligning with the court’s decision, prompting further litigation.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers stated that Trump’s policies are aimed at bolstering economic and national security by ending “Joe Biden’s war on American energy.” It’s uncertain if Montana will participate in the appeal.
—
Read More Montana News
