Youth Plaintiffs Seek Full Court Review in Climate Change Lawsuit

A legal struggle continues as a group of young plaintiffs challenges the U.S. government’s climate policies, arguing that certain executive orders infringe on their constitutional right to life by worsening climate change. Despite setbacks, their determination remains strong as they push for a rehearing in the court of appeals.

Previously, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, citing a lack of direct correlation between the alleged injuries and federal actions. However, the plaintiffs, represented by Our Children’s Trust, have now requested the full Circuit Court of Appeals to review their case, claiming that the panel neglected its judicial responsibilities.

Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel and Co-Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust, voiced her concerns, stating, “The panel’s decision is the first in American history to deny courts the power to review an unconstitutional executive order. That is not a small mistake. That is constitutional corruption. No president should be able to direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda that endangers children’s lives and face zero judicial review. The full Ninth Circuit has the opportunity and the obligation to correct that.”

The case, Lighthiser v. Trump, is part of a broader initiative led by the Oregon-based advocacy law firm, known for its successful litigation in Held v. Montana in 2023. The plaintiffs, young individuals from states including Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, California, and Florida, contend that three executive orders issued by Trump during his second term will exacerbate climate change and have long-term detrimental effects on their lives.

The executive orders in question are Trump Executive Orders 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” and 14261, “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.” Initially presented before a federal judge in Missoula, the case was dismissed by Federal District Court Judge Dana Christensen, who considered the plaintiffs’ request as “an unworkable request.”

The appeals court echoed this sentiment, suggesting that rescinding the orders would demand “extensive judicial supervision of executive branch actions related to energy policy.” In their recent petition, the plaintiffs assert that the panel overlooked the district court’s findings of “overwhelming evidence” of the harm caused by climate change and the exacerbation of these harms by the executive orders. They argue that the panel focused not on the harms themselves, but on the issue of challenging sweeping executive orders and their implementation in a single lawsuit.

According to the circuit court’s memorandum, “Plaintiffs explicitly seek to undo everything from staffing reductions, to the revocation of research grants, to anticipated rule changes, to the type of language the current administration has used on government websites.” It further noted that resolving these disputes would lead to prolonged judicial involvement.

The petition for a full court review highlights potential errors in the panel’s decision, pointing out that it disregarded the district court’s factual findings about greenhouse gas emissions, misapplied U.S. Supreme Court precedents on broad executive orders, and ignored other circuit courts’ recognition of the right to contest executive orders on constitutional grounds.

Eva Lighthiser, one of the lead plaintiffs, expressed her resolve by stating, “The Constitution gave us the tools to hold our government to its promise. We are 22 young people using exactly those tools, and we are asking the full Ninth Circuit to do its part. Two hundred and fifty years later, the promise still has to mean something.”