Federal Appeals Court Rejects Youth Climate Lawsuit Against Trump Orders
Appeals court upholds dismissal of youth lawsuit challenging Trump’s fossil fuel executive orders, calling the requested injunction “unprecedented.”
MISSOULA, MONTANA — The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a youth-led constitutional climate lawsuit on June 2, upholding a lower court’s dismissal of the case that sought to overturn three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump supporting fossil fuel development.
The three-judge panel agreed with Federal District Court Judge Dana Christensen’s earlier ruling that dismissed the lawsuit last fall. The appeals court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible connection between their alleged injuries and the three executive orders in question.
“By effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions,” the court wrote in an unpublished memorandum. “Such a sweeping injunction against hundreds of agency actions in one lawsuit is unprecedented.”
Executive Orders Under Challenge
The lawsuit, known as Lighthiser v. Trump, challenged three specific executive orders signed by Trump early in his second term. The orders included Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” and Executive Order 14261, “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.”
Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser and other young plaintiffs argued that these orders would accelerate human-caused climate change and cause further harm throughout their lives. The case was first argued before the federal judge in Missoula.
Part of Broader Legal Strategy
The case is one of several youth-led climate change lawsuits brought by Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based advocacy law firm. The organization previously achieved success in Montana with the Held v. Montana case in 2023, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.
The appeals court ruled that the requested injunction was overly broad, complicated, and unlikely to address the plaintiffs’ concerns. The judges determined that the scope of the lawsuit was too sweeping in its attempt to challenge numerous agency actions simultaneously.
The ruling is a setback for youth climate activists who have pursued legal challenges to Trump administration policies they claim will worsen climate change impacts. The case had sought to use constitutional arguments to block implementation of the president’s energy-focused executive orders.
