This week, a dedicated group of young climate activists launched a bold legal challenge against the Trump administration’s energy policies in a Montana federal courtroom.
Over two days of intense hearings in a crowded Missoula federal courtroom, the young plaintiffs, supported by a panel of expert witnesses, argued passionately. They claimed that three of President Trump’s executive orders, designed to “unleash” American energy production, directly infringed upon their constitutional rights to life and liberty.
They contended that the administration’s aggressive push for fossil fuels, while simultaneously suppressing clean energy alternatives like wind and solar, would severely worsen the climate crisis. This, they argued, would lead to increased air pollution in their communities and accelerate the production of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
Five plaintiffs, aged 11 to 20, including two with serious lung conditions, shared compelling testimonies. They described the devastating impacts of wildfires, extreme heat, and coal dust on their lives. Their plea to Judge Dana L. Christensen was clear: issue a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of these executive orders by federal agencies until their case can be fully adjudicated.
Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the activists, framed the core of the case around a profound constitutional question: “Does the United States Constitution protect against executive abuses of power when executive orders strip children and young people of their fundamental rights?”
However, government lawyers argued that the lawsuit, titled Lighthiser v. Trump, was a blatant attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. They petitioned Judge Christensen to dismiss the case entirely.
[Content about subscription/login removed as per instructions to avoid links and references to URLs.]
Michael Sawyer, the Justice Department’s lead lawyer, countered that the activists were inappropriately steering a political dispute over energy policy into the judiciary. He maintained that decisions regarding the nation’s energy stance should be made by elected officials, not judges. Sawyer argued that the sweeping judicial order requested by the plaintiffs would effectively cripple both the executive and legislative branches of government.
In essence, Mr. Sawyer asserted that the plaintiffs were seeking to empower a single judge to oversee national energy policy. He declared, “This is, at its core, an anti-democratic lawsuit.”
Ms. Olson founded Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based legal nonprofit that has championed numerous cases on behalf of young plaintiffs. Their most well-known prior case, Juliana v. United States, was initiated in 2015 in an Oregon federal court. It navigated the legal system for years before an appeals court ultimately dismissed it, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary “standing” to bring the case.
The Supreme Court declined to overturn that decision in March, effectively ending the Juliana case. Consequently, a significant portion of this week’s proceedings in Montana centered on whether the current case, Lighthiser, was merely a re-litigation of the previous legal battle.
Ms. Olson, however, argued that the Montana case holds a much narrower scope. While Juliana sought a comprehensive review of decades of energy policy and a national climate action plan, the Lighthiser case specifically targets three executive orders that, she asserted, would directly cause harm.
“This case isn’t about simple policy disagreements,” she stated. “Our Constitution sets clear boundaries on presidential power, and those boundaries are now being rigorously examined.”
An interesting point of context was that the Juliana case had faced opposition from both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
John Podesta, a veteran Democratic climate adviser who served in the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations, testified this week that he viewed the two cases as distinctly different. He described Juliana as seeking “sweeping” systemic change, whereas the Montana lawsuit is “a classic injunction-type case.” Here, the plaintiffs are seeking to block three specific presidential executive orders that, he argued, directly “violated the life and liberties and well-being” of the young activists.
Featured above are Julia Olson of Our Children’s Trust and Olivia Vesovich, one of the plaintiffs.
Among those refiling their case in Lighthiser were plaintiffs from Juliana, including 20-year-old Avery McRae, who offered her testimony in Missoula. She recounted her experiences caring for a cherished horse amidst wildfires in her home state of Oregon, followed by escaping hurricanes while attending college in Florida.
Witnessing such a relentless succession of natural disasters, she admitted, has made her reluctant to consider having children. “I don’t even know what my future looks like,” she expressed.
During cross-examination, Erik Van de Stouwe of the Justice Department questioned Ms. McRae about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising horses. This line of questioning later prompted Mr. Podesta to humorously suggest the government might be confusing horses with cows, known for their methane emissions due to their digestive processes, which elicited laughter from the courtroom gallery.
In his closing arguments, Mr. Sawyer revisited the topic of livestock. He warned that if the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction were granted, it could open the door for future lawsuits seeking to block any activity that produces greenhouse gas emissions — even the raising of cattle.
He further challenged Ms. McRae’s decision to attend college on the opposite coast, highlighting that air travel contributes significantly to fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. “If she’s harmed by every additional ton of emissions” of greenhouse gases, he posed, “why are her travel-related emissions acceptable, while emissions that provide for a coal miner’s family are not allowed?”
The three executive orders at the heart of this case dramatically declared a “national energy emergency,” instructed federal agencies to “unleash” American energy production, and sought to revive the “beautiful clean coal industry.” These directives have underpinned numerous government actions and proposals since President Trump took office, including the revocation of permits for wind projects, alterations to vehicle and appliance emissions standards, and the opening of public lands for oil and gas drilling.
The plaintiffs also presented other expert witnesses, including Mark Z. Jacobson, an energy-systems engineer from Stanford University, and Geoffrey Heal, an economist and professor emeritus at Columbia University. Both testified to the severe and detrimental consequences they foresee from Mr. Trump’s current energy and environmental policies.
Ms. Olson further highlighted what she described as the administration’s systematic attempts to undermine climate science. This included efforts to reconsider a crucial Environmental Protection Agency scientific conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, which established that planet-warming emissions pose a threat to human health and thus require government regulation.
She asserted that the Trump administration had engaged in “a deliberate effort to blind the nation to the consequences” of its policies. Examples cited included drastic cuts to funding and staff for the National Climate Assessment, the federal government’s leading report on global warming.
Judge Christensen did not specify when he would deliver his rulings on either motion. He openly grappled with the complex challenge of issuing an injunction against three executive orders that the government has already been implementing through extensive changes over several months.
Addressing Ms. Olson, the judge voiced his concern: “I’m troubled by the practical effects of what you’re asking me to do.” He questioned the feasibility of his role: would he be tasked with monitoring the administration’s every move, meticulously distinguishing between actions derived from the executive orders and those that were not? How, he pressed, could such an injunction be effectively enforced?
As the hearing concluded, Judge Christensen reiterated his central concern, stating, “I’m focusing on the remedy.” His final, probing question to the plaintiffs was, “What is it that you want me to do?”
