This week, a determined group of young climate activists brought the Trump administration’s energy agenda to trial in a Montana courtroom.
During two days of intense hearings in a crowded Missoula federal courtroom, these young plaintiffs, supported by numerous expert witnesses, argued that three of President Trump’s executive orders — policies designed to aggressively “unleash” American energy — directly infringe upon their constitutional rights to life and liberty.
They contend that the administration’s push to suppress clean energy, such as wind and solar, while simultaneously promoting fossil fuels, will worsen the climate crisis. This, they argue, will lead to increased air pollution in their communities and further accelerate global warming through rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Five of the plaintiffs, aged 11 to 20, including two with severe lung conditions, shared poignant testimonies about how wildfires, extreme heat, and coal dust have impacted their lives. They are urging Judge Dana L. Christensen to issue a preliminary injunction, effectively halting federal agencies from executing these orders until their full case can be adjudicated.
Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the young activists, encapsulated the core of their lawsuit with a powerful question: “Does the United States Constitution protect against executive overreach when presidential orders strip children and youth of their fundamental rights?”
However, government lawyers vehemently argued that the case, Lighthiser v. Trump, is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. They have formally requested Judge Christensen to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.
Michael Sawyer, the lead lawyer for the Justice Department, said the plaintiffs had improperly brought a political dispute over energy policy into the courts. He emphasized that the government’s stance on energy should be debated by elected officials, not judges. He further argued that the sweeping remedy sought by the plaintiffs—a judicial order blocking a broad range of actions—would severely hobble the executive and legislative branches.
Mr. Sawyer asserted that, in essence, the plaintiffs were asking a single judge to supervise national energy policy. “This is, at its core, an anti-democratic lawsuit,” he said.
Ms. Olson is the founder of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based legal nonprofit that has brought numerous other cases on behalf of youth plaintiffs. The group’s most prominent case, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 in federal court in Eugene, Ore., and wound its way through the courts for years before being dismissed in an appeals-court ruling that found the defendants lacked “standing,” or the legal right to bring the case.
In March, the Supreme Court declined to vacate that decision, dealing the Juliana case its final blow. And this week in Montana, much of the debate revolved around whether the current case, Lighthiser, was essentially a reprise of the Juliana case.
Ms. Olson contended that the Montana case is far narrower. The Juliana case asked the government to review decades of energy policy and come up with a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. In contrast, the Montana case focuses specifically on three presidential executive orders that, she said, would inflict direct harm.
“This case is not about mere policy preferences,” she declared. “Our Constitution places limits on presidential power and those limits are being tested here.”
One interesting wrinkle was that the Juliana case had been opposed by both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
John Podesta, a longtime Democratic adviser on climate issues who held senior positions in the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations, testified this week that he believed the two cases were very different. Juliana, he explained, sought a “sweeping” change. However, the Montana lawsuit “is a classic injunction-type case,” where three specific actions—the three presidential executive orders— “violated the life and liberties and well-being of these plaintiffs,” thus justifying the request for them to be blocked.
Julia Olson of Our Children’s Trust; Olivia Vesovich, second from right, one of the plaintiffs.
Some of the plaintiffs from Juliana are suing again in Lighthiser, including Avery McRae, 20, who testified in Missoula on Tuesday. She recounted caring for a beloved horse during wildfires in her native Oregon and then escaping hurricanes in Florida, where she attends college.
Seeing so many disasters, she said, has made her hesitant to think about having children of her own. “I don’t even know what my future looks like,” she shared.
Erik Van de Stouwe of the Justice Department, in his cross-examination of Ms. McRae, questioned the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising horses. Later, Mr. Podesta suggested that the government had confused horses with cows (which, because of their digestive processes, belch large amounts of methane), prompting laughter from the gallery.
During his final argument, Mr. Sawyer returned to the question of livestock. If the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction were granted, he said, future plaintiffs could seek injunctions for any activity that caused greenhouse gas emissions—even raising cows.
He then questioned why Ms. McRae chose to attend college on the opposite coast, necessitating air travel, which burns fossil fuels and emits planet-warming greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. “If she’s injured by every additional ton of emissions” of greenhouse gases, he posed, why are emissions from her air travel acceptable, “but the emissions that put dinner on the table of a coal miner’s family not allowed to proceed?”
The three presidential executive orders in question declared a “national energy emergency,” directed federal government agencies to “unleash” American energy, and aimed to reinvigorate the “beautiful clean coal industry.” These orders have formed the basis for myriad government actions or proposals since President Trump took office, such as pulling permits for wind projects, changing vehicle and appliance emissions standards, and opening up public lands to oil and gas drilling.
The plaintiffs called a number of other expert witnesses, including Mark Z. Jacobson, an energy-systems engineer at Stanford University, and Geoffrey Heal, an economist and professor emeritus at Columbia University. Both testified about what they predicted would be the detrimental effects of Mr. Trump’s positions on energy and the environment.
Ms. Olson also discussed what she called the administration’s efforts to dismantle climate science and reconsider one of the federal government’s strongest tools for regulating greenhouse gases: a scientific conclusion at the Environmental Protection Agency known as the endangerment finding, which determined that planet-warming emissions endanger human health and therefore must be regulated by the government.
She argued that the Trump administration had undertaken “a deliberate effort to blind the nation to the consequences” of its policies, for example, by cutting funds and staff for the National Climate Assessment, the flagship federal report on global warming.
Judge Christensen did not indicate when he would issue his rulings on either motion. He was clearly grappling with the question of how he could issue an injunction to stop the three executive orders, given that the government has already been implementing broad changes based on those orders for months.
“I’m troubled by the practical effects of what you’re asking me to do,” the judge remarked to Ms. Olson. He pressed her on whether he would have to monitor the administration’s activities and meticulously untangle which actions were based on the executive orders, and which were not. How, he asked, would he even enforce such an injunction?
“I’m focusing on the remedy,” Judge Christensen concluded as the hearing drew to a close. “What is it that you want me to do?”
