Particle.news
Download on the App Store
14 ARTICLES
·
last wk.

Judge Dismisses Youth Climate Suit Over Trump Energy Orders Citing Lack of Jurisdiction

The opinion says remedies for climate harms rest with the political branches.

University of Montana student Maddie Grebb leads a chant across the street from the Russell Smith federal courthouse, where young climate activists were in court challenging President Donald Trump's orders promoting fossil fuels, Sept. 17, 2025, in Missoula, Montana. (Ben Allan Smith/The Missoulian via AP)
Eva Lighthiser poses for a portrait at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on July 16, 2025. Lighthiser, 19, of Montana, is the lead plaintiff in Lighthiser v. Trump, a climate lawsuit. Some of the younger plaintiffs aren’t even allowed to vote, and thus have no other recourse than the courts.
A court ruled that while youth plaintiffs had presented 'overwhelming' evidence the administration's actions would further destabilize the climate, their case 'must be made to the political branches or to the electorate'
Image

Overview

  • U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen ruled the court cannot grant the relief sought in Lighthiser v. Trump, pointing to limits recognized in the Juliana precedent.
  • Christensen wrote that plaintiffs offered overwhelming evidence that the challenged executive orders would increase atmospheric CO2 and worsen harms to the youths.
  • The judge said an injunction would be unworkable because it would require monitoring an untold number of federal agency actions tied to national energy policy.
  • The 22 plaintiffs, ages 7 to 25 from five states, sought to block three orders described as Unleashing American Energy, declaring a National Energy Emergency, and Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.
  • Our Children’s Trust said it will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the executive orders remain in effect as DOJ and intervening states praised the dismissal.