Young climate activists suing President Trump have a big ask for a federal judge in Montana this week: Immediately block three of the president’s executive orders aimed at “unleashing” American energy.
The 22 young people filed a federal lawsuit against the president, 13 agencies and numerous officials in May, arguing that Mr. Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional. Their lawyers, led by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, have asked Judge Dana L. Christensen to block the Trump orders until there is a final judgment in their case.
The three executive orders include sweeping directives to federal agencies to restore the “beautiful clean coal industry” and take action to address an energy “emergency.”
“The true emergency is that our fossil-fuel-based energy system is polluting the air, water, lands, and climate on which plaintiffs’ lives, liberties, and personal security depend,” the group said in a June legal brief.
The lawsuit takes aim squarely at the question of presidential authority. It argues that the broad executive orders are beyond the powers of the presidency as defined by the Constitution or federal statutes.
But the Justice Department is urging the judge to toss the case, arguing that it is similar to a different lawsuit that our Children’s Trust filed in 2015 that was ultimately dismissed. In March the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in that case, Juliana v. United States.
The Montana lawsuit “suffers from the same jurisdictional defects” as the earlier case, the Justice Department’s lawyers told the court recently. “A self-designated group of children and young plaintiffs claim they are better positioned to set national energy policy than the president of the United States. Those grievances are for the political branches, not the courts.”
Essentially, the Justice Department is arguing that the young plaintiffs don’t have the right to bring a lawsuit, something Julia Olson, founder of Our Children’s Trust, disputes. “If young people don’t have standing here to challenge presidential orders that threaten their lives, then the Bill of Rights becomes optional, and children’s lives are expendable,” she said in an interview.
Daniel J. Metzger, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said that lawsuits over executive authority have increased significantly as President Trump has sought to expand its scope. There is limited case law on the matter, so the prospects in the courts are unclear. “ I think these cases will have a serious impact on the conversation around presidential authority,” he said.
Judge Christensen will hear from both sides in the case, Lighthiser v. Trump, during a two-day hearing on Sept. 16 and 17.
Our Children’s Trust has brought numerous cases on behalf of youth around the country, but only one has gone to trial. That case, Held v. Montana, played out in state court. It asserted that the state was violating the environmental protections enshrined in its own constitution.
In 2023 that case ended in victory for the plaintiffs when the court found that lawmakers could not bar state agencies from considering the climate effects of fossil fuel projects, like oil wells or coal mines. The state Supreme Court affirmed the decision last year.
Constance Van Kley, a law professor at the University of Montana, said that Held was largely irrelevant to the new case because it was brought under state law, whereas the current one was brought under federal law. She said the fundamental question at this week’s hearings would likely be whether the claims differ from those in Juliana.
But the youths’ win in the Held case prompted a backlash.
Lawmakers passed new measures intended to limit its effects. Montana’s attorney general, Austin Knudsen, called the case a “publicity stunt” and accused Our Children’s Trust of exploiting the plaintiffs. Mr. Knudsen is leading a group of attorneys general from 18 other states and the U.S. territory of Guam who are supporting the administration in the new case.
In a brief filed in July, they argued that the three executive orders in question had already provided “tremendous benefits” to their states and said the litigation could threaten “countless jobs,” increase energy costs and reduce tax revenues.
The suit seeks to block the government from implementing the orders, although they’re already being implemented. The executive orders have led to federal agencies freezing funding, dismantling regulations and expediting fossil fuel projects while blocking wind and solar projects and removing climate data from government websites.
The plaintiffs range in age from 7 to 25 years old, and most hail from Montana, which generates much of its electricity from coal-burning power plants. In the complaint, they argued that they were already enduring effects of the climate crisis, like asthma worsened by wildfire smoke and dust from coal operations.
The plaintiffs planned to call witnesses including John Podesta, a longtime Democratic adviser focused on clean energy. But in papers filed last Wednesday, the Justice Department objected to Mr. Podesta testifying, saying that he was being used by the plaintiffs to try “to patch legal holes in their case.” The judge has yet to rule on the matter.
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
The post Young People Suing Trump Over Climate Have Their Day in Federal Court appeared first on New York Times.
