In a powerful legal challenge this week, a group of young climate activists brought the Trump administration’s aggressive energy policies under scrutiny in a Montana courtroom.
Over two days of intense hearings in a packed federal courtroom in Missoula, the plaintiffs and a series of expert witnesses argued vehemently that three executive orders by former President Trump, aimed at “unleashing” American energy, directly infringed upon their fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.
These orders, they contended, actively suppressed clean energy alternatives like wind and solar while championing fossil fuels. This approach, the activists testified, would worsen the ongoing climate crisis, leading to increased air pollution in their communities and a surge in planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
Five of the young plaintiffs, aged between 11 and 20, including two with severe lung conditions, shared compelling personal testimonies about the devastating impacts of wildfires, extreme heat, and coal dust on their lives. They urged Judge Dana L. Christensen to issue a preliminary injunction, effectively pausing federal agencies from executing these orders until their full case could be heard.
Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the young plaintiffs, framed the case around a pivotal and far-reaching question: “Does the United States Constitution guard against executive abuses of power by executive orders that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights?”
However, government lawyers argued that the lawsuit, titled Lighthiser v. Trump, was not a genuine legal challenge but rather a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. They requested that Judge Christensen dismiss the case outright.
Michael Sawyer, the lead attorney for the Justice Department, asserted that the plaintiffs were inappropriately introducing a political debate over energy policy into the judicial system. He maintained that decisions regarding the nation’s energy stance should be made by elected officials, not by judges. He further argued that the broad relief sought by the plaintiffs — a judicial order blocking a wide array of government actions — would severely restrict the powers of both the executive and legislative branches.
Mr. Sawyer concluded that, at its heart, the lawsuit was “anti-democratic,” as it essentially asked a single judge to oversee national energy policy.
Ms. Olson is the founder of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based legal nonprofit that has initiated numerous other cases on behalf of youth plaintiffs. The group’s most notable prior case, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 in federal court in Eugene, Oregon. After years of litigation, it was ultimately dismissed by an appeals-court ruling that determined the plaintiffs lacked “standing,” meaning the legal right to bring the case.
In March, the Supreme Court declined to vacate that decision, delivering a final blow to the Juliana case. This week in Montana, much of the legal discourse centered on whether the current case, Lighthiser, was merely a rehash of the Juliana arguments.
Ms. Olson, however, maintained that the Montana case is considerably more focused. While the Juliana case sought to compel the government to overhaul decades of energy policy and devise a comprehensive climate change plan, the Montana case zeroes in on three specific presidential executive orders that, she argued, would directly cause harm.
“This case is not about mere policy preferences,” she stated. “Our Constitution places limits on presidential power and those limits are being tested here.”
An interesting aspect of the Juliana case was that it faced opposition from both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
John Podesta, a veteran Democratic adviser on climate issues who served in senior roles during the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations, testified this week. He distinguished between the two cases, explaining that Juliana sought a “sweeping” systemic change. In contrast, the Montana lawsuit “is a classic injunction-type case,” where three specific executive orders by the president “violated the life and liberties and well-being of these plaintiffs,” thus warranting their blockage.
Several plaintiffs from the Juliana case are also involved in the Lighthiser lawsuit, including Avery McRae, 20. She testified in Missoula on Tuesday, recounting her experiences caring for a beloved horse amidst wildfires in her native Oregon and later fleeing hurricanes in Florida, where she attends college.
Witnessing such frequent disasters, she expressed hesitation about having her own children. “I don’t even know what my future looks like,” she shared emotionally.
During his cross-examination of Ms. McRae, Erik Van de Stouwe of the Justice Department inquired about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising horses. Later, Mr. Podesta humorously interjected, suggesting the government had confused horses with cows (whose digestive processes release significant amounts of methane), drawing laughter from the gallery.
In his closing argument, Mr. Sawyer revisited the topic of livestock. He posited that if the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction were granted, future litigants could seek similar injunctions for any activity generating greenhouse gas emissions — including cattle farming.
He then challenged Ms. McRae’s choice to attend college across the country, which necessitates air travel and its associated fossil fuel combustion and carbon dioxide emissions. He questioned why emissions from her personal travel were acceptable, “but the emissions that put dinner on the table of a coal miner’s family not allowed to proceed?”
The three executive orders under scrutiny famously declared a “national energy emergency,” directed federal agencies to “unleash” American energy, and aimed to revive the “beautiful clean coal industry.” These orders have underpinned numerous government actions and proposals since President Trump took office, including the cancellation of wind project permits, revisions to vehicle and appliance emissions standards, and the opening of public lands for oil and gas drilling.
The plaintiffs also presented testimony from several expert witnesses, including Mark Z. Jacobson, an energy-systems engineer from Stanford University, and Geoffrey Heal, an economist and professor emeritus at Columbia University. They detailed the predicted detrimental impacts of Mr. Trump’s energy and environmental policies.
Ms. Olson further highlighted what she described as the administration’s efforts to undermine climate science. This included attempts to revisit a crucial scientific conclusion by the Environmental Protection Agency, known as the endangerment finding, which established that planet-warming emissions pose a threat to human health and thus warrant government regulation.
She asserted that the Trump administration had engaged in “a deliberate effort” to obscure the consequences of its policies, citing examples such as cutting funding and staff for the National Climate Assessment, the federal government’s primary report on global warming.
Judge Christensen did not indicate when he would deliver his rulings on either motion. He openly expressed his difficulty with the requested injunction, questioning how he could effectively halt the three executive orders when the government had already implemented widespread changes based on them for months.
“I’m troubled by the practical effects of what you’re asking me to do,” the judge conveyed to Ms. Olson. He asked her whether he would be required to continuously monitor the administration’s activities and meticulously distinguish actions based on the executive orders from those that were not. How, he probed, would he even begin to enforce such an injunction?
“I’m focusing on the remedy,” Judge Christensen emphasized as the hearing concluded. “What is it that you want me to do?”