MISSOULA — Following the second day of a two-day hearing before a federal judge, 19-year-old Eva Lighthiser said she felt optimistic about a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s climate and energy policies, a court case that bears her name.
“It’s really affirming to have our voices heard in court,” Lighthiser told Montana Free Press in an interview Wednesday. “Obviously climate change is the largest crisis we face during this time. It is unprecedented what we’re going to be facing in the near future. And I think it’s absolutely essential that we take every possible action we can to mitigate the harms climate change is currently causing and will cause in the future.”
The Livingston resident is the lead plaintiff in the Lighthiser v. Trump case, which challenges three executive orders on energy issues that a group of youth plaintiffs argue violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty.
It’s unclear whether the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen, will concede to the plaintiffs’ request that he block the three energy-related executive orders while litigation continues. During Thursday’s proceedings, Christensen said he is “troubled by the practical effects” of the request, and wondered if he would have to monitor federal actions related to the case.
Five of Lighthiser’s fellow plaintiffs took the stand on Tuesday and Wednesday along with six expert witnesses who sought to offer testimony buttressing their case. Federal attorneys told the judge he should dismiss the case because it is “fundamentally a policy request” with no basis in the law for court action.
The three executive orders at issue in the case, issued by President Donald Trump earlier this year, direct federal agencies to reverse actions that place an “undue burden” on the development of domestic energy sources, facilitate energy companies’ access to federally owned energy sources and to prioritize coal-fired electricity. The Trump administration has said the changes are necessary to address what it calls the nation’s inadequate generation capacity and Biden policies that increased energy prices.
RELATED
Youth plaintiffs, experts ask court to halt Trump executive orders to ‘unleash’ American energy
Four of the youth plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration’s climate policies had their day in court, telling a judge that climate change-fueled wildfires and extreme weather prevent them from living their lives the way they want
Julia Olson, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the plaintiffs, argued an injunction blocking the orders would be workable because federal agencies would be able to revert for previous project review policies established under the administration of former President Joe Biden. Olson acknowledged an injunction could lead to further litigation but said she hoped the federal government would “respect and abide by the court’s order.”
The judge also questioned if halting the executive orders will accomplish the relief sought by the plaintiffs.
Olson argued that, if an injunction can stop one ton of greenhouse gas emissions and block the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle climate science, it would make a difference. She referenced testimony from Lori Byron, a former pediatric hospitalist, who told the court on Wednesday that increased burning of fossil fuels pose a grave risk to the plaintiffs and other youth.
Byron said that children are “uniquely and disproportionately” affected by climate change because of their increased exposure to toxins and heightened vulnerability to illness, injury or death from extreme weather.
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that leads to climate change as well as other toxic emissions, Byron said. For example, she said that extending operations at the Colstrip coal power plant would increase climate-related health risks and that closing it could produce immediate health benefits. Byron referenced a study which found a 41% decrease in pediatric asthma emergency department visits following the 2016 closure of the Shenango Coke Works coal processing plant in Pennsylvania.
Olson also argued that the challenged executive orders fail to fulfill a government interest because they block the cheapest renewable energy sources of wind and solar.
In his testimony Wednesday, Geoffrey Heal, a professor emeritus at Columbia University and economist specializing in energy and the environment, said the use of renewable energy sources doesn’t lead to higher energy prices and disagreed that the executive orders are necessary to create a reliable, diversified and affordable energy supply.
Nicole Hughes, executive director of Renewable Northwest, a nonprofit that advocates for renewable energy in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana, told the court the executive orders and subsequent federal government actions have halted wind projects and increased hurdles for wind and solar projects, which she said are often multi-million dollar projects that take years to complete.
Hughes said near-term energy projects in the northwest are wind, solar and storage, and if they are put on hold, no new energy is coming to customers, affecting grid reliability.
Representing the federal government, attorney Michael Sawyer argued there is no precedent for a court to step in and ask federal agencies to stop an initiative that reconsiders policies made by a former administration.
Sawyer also noted prior climate lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of standing and argued the plaintiffs do not have a due process right to a climate-friendly energy policy.
“It can’t be the case that all you have to do is articulate some risk to life and then you are able to seek strict scrutiny of a challenged government policy,” he said.
RELATED
Plaintiffs from landmark Held case file constitutional climate case against Trump, federal agencies
The federal lawsuit Eva Lighthiser and her co-plaintiffs filed on May 29 challenges three executive orders that Trump issued during the first three months of his second term in the White House. The plaintiffs argue that the orders have suppressed climate science and slowed the transition to renewable energy sources in favor of fossil fuels, “thereby worsening the air pollution and climate conditions that immediately harm and endanger Plaintiffs’ lives and personal security.”
Justin Smith, representing Montana’s state government, said the injunction could impact energy projects and cost the state money if it has to participate in further litigation. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, along with 18 other states and Guam, in July filed a motion supporting the federal government’s request to dismiss the case.
Following the hearing, Andrea Rodgers with Our Children’s Trust said the plaintiff’s legal team feels optimistic given Christensen’s engagement in the case.
“He paid very close attention to the live testimony in front of him,” she said, “He engaged some of our witnesses with questions of his own, which is really all you can ask for in an evidentiary hearing. It’s clear he’s grappling with the very challenging legal issues that are at play in this case.”
Christensen did not provide a timeline on when he might rule.
LATEST STORIES
Gov. Greg Gianforte taps Larry Flynn to head Montana Department of Transportation
Gov. Greg Gianforte has tapped Larry Flynn to take over as director of the Montana Department of Transportation, replacing Chris Dorrington, who left the top spot at the agency on Oct. 1.
How to Montana: Driving sheep through downtown Reed Point
The first sheep drive in Reed Point was a “spoof” of The Great Montana Centennial Cattle Drive, a six-day celebration of the state’s 100th anniversary in 1989. Now, 38 years later, the Labor Day tradition still draws a crowd and helps fund the town’s community club.
Tweak to Endangered Species Act could allow widespread development
Trump officials tout ‘harm’ change to unleash energy agenda, as critics warn it could unravel 50 years of ecological recovery