This week, a group of dedicated young climate activists brought the Trump administration’s energy agenda under intense scrutiny in a Montana courtroom.
During two days of powerful hearings in a packed federal courtroom in Missoula, the plaintiffs, supported by a lineup of expert witnesses, passionately argued that three of President Trump’s executive orders — all designed to ‘unleash’ American energy — infringe upon their fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.
These presidential actions, they contend, aim to suppress clean energy alternatives like wind and solar while aggressively boosting fossil fuels. The activists assert that this strategy will worsen the climate crisis, leading to increased air pollution in their communities and a greater accumulation of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
Five young plaintiffs, aged 11 to 20, including two with severe lung conditions, shared compelling testimonies about how they’ve been personally affected by devastating wildfires, extreme heat, and pervasive coal dust. They urged Judge Dana L. Christensen to issue a preliminary injunction, effectively pausing federal agencies from carrying out these orders until their case can be fully heard.
Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the young plaintiffs, framed the case around a profound question: ‘Does the United States Constitution protect against executive overreach when executive orders strip children and youth of their fundamental rights?’
However, government lawyers, representing the Justice Department in the case known as Lighthiser v. Trump, countered that the lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. They have formally requested Judge Christensen dismiss the case.
Michael Sawyer, the lead lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that the plaintiffs are inappropriately bringing a political disagreement over energy policy into the judicial system. He asserted that decisions regarding the nation’s energy policy should be made by elected officials, not judges. Sawyer contended that the plaintiffs’ requested remedy — a broad judicial order to block various government actions — would severely impede both the executive and legislative branches.
Sawyer suggested that, at its core, the plaintiffs are asking a single judge to oversee national energy policy. ‘This is, at its core, an anti-democratic lawsuit,’ he stated.
Ms. Olson is the founder of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based legal nonprofit that has initiated numerous other cases on behalf of young plaintiffs. The organization’s most high-profile case, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 in federal court in Eugene, Ore., and navigated the legal system for years before being dismissed by an appeals court, which ruled that the defendants lacked ‘standing’ or the legal right to pursue the case.
In March, the Supreme Court declined to overturn that decision, delivering a final blow to the Juliana case. This week in Montana, much of the legal debate centered on whether the current Lighthiser case was essentially a rehash of Juliana.
Ms. Olson maintained that the Montana case is significantly more focused. While Juliana sought a ‘sweeping’ government review of decades of energy policy and a comprehensive plan to combat climate change, the Montana case targets three specific presidential executive orders, which she argues directly cause harm.
‘This case is not about mere policy preferences,’ she declared. ‘Our Constitution imposes 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 that he believes the two cases are fundamentally different. Juliana, he explained, aimed for a ‘sweeping’ overhaul. In contrast, the Montana lawsuit ‘is a classic injunction-type case,’ where three specific presidential executive orders are alleged to have ‘violated the life and liberties and well-being of these plaintiffs,’ prompting their plea for these orders to be blocked.
Some of the plaintiffs from Juliana have joined the Lighthiser case, including Avery McRae, 20, who testified in Missoula on Tuesday. She vividly described her experience caring for a beloved horse during wildfires in her home state of Oregon, and later her escape from hurricanes in Florida, where she attends college.
Witnessing so many disasters, she expressed hesitation about having her own children. ‘I don’t even know what my future looks like,’ she confessed.
During his cross-examination of Ms. McRae, Erik Van de Stouwe of the Justice Department questioned the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising horses. Later, Mr. Podesta humorously suggested that the government might have confused horses with cows (whose digestive processes release significant amounts of methane), eliciting laughter from the courtroom gallery.
In his closing argument, Mr. Sawyer revisited the topic of livestock. He asserted that if the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction were granted, future plaintiffs could seek similar injunctions for any activity that generates greenhouse gas emissions — even raising cows.
He then challenged Ms. McRae’s choice to attend college on the opposite coast, which requires air travel and thus contributes to fossil fuel combustion and carbon dioxide emissions. ‘If she’s injured by every additional ton of emissions’ of greenhouse gases, he asked, 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 at the heart of the case include a declaration of a ‘national energy emergency,’ a directive for federal agencies to ‘unleash’ American energy, and an initiative to revitalize the ‘beautiful clean coal industry.’ Since President Trump took office, these orders have underpinned numerous government actions and proposals, such as revoking permits for wind projects, altering vehicle and appliance emissions standards, and opening up public lands for oil and gas drilling.
The plaintiffs also presented testimony from several 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. They detailed their projections of the damaging consequences of Mr. Trump’s policies on energy and the environment.
Ms. Olson further highlighted what she described as the administration’s systematic efforts to undermine climate science. This included attempts to reconsider a key federal tool for regulating greenhouse gases: a scientific conclusion from the Environmental Protection Agency known as the endangerment finding, which established that planet-warming emissions pose a threat to human health and therefore require government regulation.
She argued that the Trump administration had made ‘a deliberate effort to blind the nation to the consequences’ of its policies. Examples she cited included cutting funds and staff for the National Climate Assessment, the authoritative federal report on global warming.
Judge Christensen did not indicate when he would deliver his rulings on either motion. He expressed clear concern regarding the practical implications of issuing an injunction to halt the three executive orders, especially since the government had already implemented extensive changes based on these orders over several months.
‘I’m troubled by the practical effects of what you’re asking me to do,’ the judge conveyed to Ms. Olson. He pressed her on whether he would be required to monitor the administration’s activities and meticulously distinguish which actions stemmed from the executive orders and which did not. How, he inquired, would he effectively 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?’