Young plaintiffs challenging President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive orders to boost fossil-fuel output are seeking an appellate court’s reconsideration. Our Children’s Trust, representing Eva Lighthiser and 21 others in this constitutional climate lawsuit, has requested an “en banc” rehearing. This would involve a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges reviewing the appellate-level case.
The case contests three executive orders from Trump aiming to increase fossil-fuel production by reducing permitting barriers. Lead plaintiff Lighthiser claims these orders exacerbate climate-related harms, highlighting wildfire, flooding, and drought as threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Last month, a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel rejected the appeal, stating the relief sought was beyond the court’s authority. The court cited separation-of-power concerns, much like in Juliana v. United States, arguing the judiciary cannot enforce the policy changes requested.
Our Children’s Trust’s press release argued that the three-judge decision is unprecedented, denying judicial power to review unconstitutional executive orders. They referenced Supreme Court rulings on Trump’s authority over tariffs and birthright citizenship, emphasizing the decision’s significance.
Lighthiser urged for the Ninth Circuit’s intervention, mentioning America’s 250th anniversary. She stressed the constitutional tools provided to ensure government accountability, aligning with America’s foundational promises.
The Held v. Montana case bolstered plaintiff claims for a “clean and healthful environment.” An en banc review, though rare, could lead the Ninth Circuit, known for its progressive environmental stance, to reassess the case. Law professor Carl Tobias noted such reviews are seldom approved, with only about 20% of petitions granted.
—
Read More Montana News
