Youth Climate Change Lawsuit Dismissed Due to Jurisdiction Limitations
A federal judge in Missoula has dismissed a climate change lawsuit initiated by young activists, which sought to challenge presidential executive orders related to fossil fuel policies. The dismissal was based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction to grant the extensive relief requested.
Judge Dana Christensen expressed reluctance in dismissing Lighthiser v. Trump, stating that the demands made by 22 young plaintiffs for relief from climate change driven by fossil fuels were beyond the court’s capacity to address effectively.
“While this Court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the Challenged EOs’ effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act,” Christensen wrote.
The plaintiffs sought to reverse executive orders and related agency actions, which would require the court to oversee numerous federal agency activities to ensure compliance with an injunction. Christensen noted this as “an unworkable request.”
Lighthiser v. Trump is part of a series of legal actions led by Our Children’s Trust, an advocacy group from Oregon. The organization has faced similar obstacles in federal courts, as demonstrated in cases like Juliana v. United States, which Christensen referenced extensively.
However, youth-led lawsuits have seen success at the state level. For instance, in 2023, a judge in Montana ruled in favor of plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, affirming a constitutional right to a clean environment. A similar victory occurred in Hawaii against the state’s Department of Transportation.
Youth from multiple states, including Florida, California, Hawaii, and Oregon, joined forces in Lighthiser to sue the Trump administration. They contested executive orders that they claim support fossil fuels, limit renewable energy, and suppress climate science.
In a two-day hearing in September, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued for an injunction against these executive orders and requested that federal agencies halt related policy implementations.
The Justice Department, backed by several states including Montana, advocated for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and requested the court to redefine federal environmental policy. Federal attorney Michael Sawyer remarked, “It’s unprecedented. There is no basis in law for stepping in and going back,” referring to reverting to previous administration policies.
Testimonies by youth plaintiffs highlighted personal experiences with environmental challenges, such as increased natural disasters and health issues associated with climate change. Expert witnesses, including climate scientist Steven Running, testified about the acceleration of climate change with each additional ton of greenhouse gas emissions.
Judge Christensen acknowledged the compelling evidence of rapid climate change linked to fossil fuel emissions. He recognized the substantial impact of these changes on children’s health and noted that the executive orders in question would exacerbate these harms by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Despite identifying clear injuries tied to increased fossil fuel production, Christensen ruled that the court lacked the authority to grant the requested relief, a concern previously raised during the hearing.
“Plaintiffs effectively seek to enjoin not just three executive orders, but also tens — if not hundreds — of policy decisions, regulations and projects promulgated by 12 Federal agencies,” he wrote.
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, announced plans to appeal the decision. “Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future,” Olson stated. “We will appeal—because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights.”
The lawsuit named Trump and numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, as defendants. The executive orders under scrutiny include Trump’s orders on “Unleashing American Energy,” “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” and “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.”
Original Story at dailymontanan.com