A federal judge in Montana on Wednesday dismissed a novel lawsuit filed by 22 young people alleging that three of President Trump’s executive orders on energy and the environment violated their constitutional rights.
Judge Dana L. Christensen wrote that he had “reluctantly” made the decision, despite convincing evidence presented by the plaintiffs during a two-day hearing last month showing that the executive orders would hasten climate change and exacerbate risks to the plaintiffs’ health and safety.
In the 31-page decision, Judge Christensen wrote that the plaintiffs in the case, Lighthiser v. Trump, lacked a legal basis to bring the suit, largely because the harms they described could not be ameliorated by a judicial decision. The suit was simply too broad in scope and too amorphous to be actionable, he said.
“Plaintiffs are effectively asking that this court order the United States to return to the environmental policy of the previous administration,” Judge Christensen wrote.
The request for an injunction to block the three executive orders, he said, would require the court to monitor “an untold number” of federal agencies and determine whether their actions went against the court’s ruling. “This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent,” the judge wrote.
It was beyond the court’s remit, he concluded, to create environmental policy. He wrote that the case was similar to Juliana v. United States, a landmark case filed by some of the same plaintiffs in 2015. That case ultimately was dismissed after years of legal wrangling.
The new lawsuit was filed in May by Our Children’s Trust and Public Justice, two public-interest law firms. They said on Wednesday that they would appeal Judge Christensen’s decision.
“The judge recognized that the government’s fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth but said his hands were tied by precedent,” said Julia Olson, the founder of Our Children’s Trust and the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. She said the courts “cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights.”
Judge Christensen dedicated long portions of the decision to recounting what expert witnesses and plaintiffs had testified about, including evidence that the climate is “changing at a staggering pace” because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels.
The Justice Department, which represented the president as well as the 12 federal agencies and their leaders named in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children’s health emergency,” the judge wrote. But in another passage, he said that while the court was troubled by specter of climate change, “this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”
Daniel J. Metzger, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said that the case was still a useful exercise despite its swift dismissal. “Briefing and arguing the case gave these plaintiffs the opportunity to explain the importance of these issues in a way captured public attention and blazed paths for future litigation,” he said.
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
The post Judge Throws Out Children’s Lawsuit Against Trump’s Energy Policies appeared first on New York Times.
