This story is published by agreement with the Associated Press. It may not be republished without the express permission of the Associated Press.
BILLINGS — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit from young climate activists seeking to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders promoting fossil fuels and discouraging renewable energy.
The activists said the orders would worsen global warming, threatening their lives and violating their constitutional rights.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice and more than a dozen states, including Montana, had urged Judge Dana Christensen to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs included youths who were victorious in a landmark climate trial against the state of Montana. Christensen said in a 31-page order that the plaintiffs had shown “overwhelming evidence” that climate change was affecting them and will worsen as a result of Trump’s orders.
But the judge said their request to block Trump’s orders was an “unworkable request” that would have required scrutiny of every climate related action taken since the Republican came into office. Christensen said that instead of the courts, the plaintiffs must make their case “to the political branches or the electorate.”
The youth plaintiffs in the lawsuit, known as the Lighthiser case for lead plaintiff and Livingston resident Eva Lighthiser, said in an email sent Wednesday afternoon that they plan to appeal the decision.
The plaintiffs sought to block the federal government’s implementation of three executive orders Trump issued earlier this year. The plaintiffs argued 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.”
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
The plaintiffs, who were represented by Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, had asked the court to invalidate the executive orders and direct Trump and the 11 federal agencies listed as defendants not to implement or enforce them.
Our Children’s Trust Chief Legal Counsel Julia Olson wrote in an emailed statement Wednesday that her clients “suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety and future” every day that the executive orders remain in place.”
“The judge recognized that the government’s fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent. We will appeal — because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights,” Olson said.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers in an emailed statement celebrated the ruling and its implications for the current administration’s agenda.
“This is another victory, not just for the Trump Administration, but for the American people who voted for President Trump to unleash America’s energy dominance, lower prices and protect our national security. President Trump saved our country from Joe Biden’s wildly unpopular Green Energy Scam and he will continue to ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”
Legal experts had said the young activists and their lawyers from the environmental group Our Children’s Trust faced long odds. The Montana state constitution declares that people have a “right to a clean and healthful environment.” That language is absent from the U.S. Constitution.
RELATED
Youth plaintiffs challenging Trump energy orders ‘optimistic’ after days in court
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…
A previous federal climate lawsuit in Oregon from Our Children’s Trust went on for a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider their final appeal this year.
Christensen cited that case in concluding that the plaintiffs in Montana lacked standing to sue the government. That is because they failed to demonstrate their request for judicial intervention was likely to fix their injuries through actions that are within the court’s power, the judge wrote.
Only a few other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate. In Montana, climate change impacts highlighted in both the state-level Held and federal Lighthiser lawsuits include drought, a longer and more destructive wildfire season, shrinking snowpacks that diminish summertime streamflows and extreme weather events.
During a two-day evidentiary hearing on the case in September, several of the Lighthiser plaintiffs described how those changes have threatened their physical and mental health. The plaintiffs also introduced testimony from climate, energy and public health experts to support their case.
In his order, Christensen didn’t quibble with the plaintiffs’ climate science. He wrote that they “presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace” due to the burning of fossil fuels, but concluded that the court “cannot grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek.”
Attorneys for the federal government did not call any expert witnesses during the hearing. They argued that 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.
RELATED
Montana Supreme Court sides with youth plaintiffs in landmark climate lawsuit
The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling in a precedent-setting constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 16 young Montanans.
The Montana Department of Justice argued the relief the plaintiffs sought could impact energy projects in Montana and cost the state money defending further litigation.
In an emailed statement, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen accused the plaintiffs of introducing “just another show trial contrived by climate activists.”
“We’re pleased the rule of law prevailed today and that the judge agreed with our conclusion that he did not have jurisdiction over this case,” he said. “Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ request to force the Trump Administration to revert to Biden’s nonsensical and unpopular policies.”
Montana’s Supreme Court upheld the Held v. Montana 2023 trial outcome last year, requiring officials to more closely analyze climate-warming emissions. To date, that has yielded few meaningful changes in a state dominated by Republicans.
Reporter Amanda Eggert contributed to this story.
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