Environmental Law | North America | Politics

Introduction: Blocking the Fossil Fuel Expansion

In a new federal lawsuit filed in Montana, a group of 22 young plaintiffs ranging in age from 7 to 25 are asking a U.S. District Court to block three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders, which they allege substantially expand fossil fuel production, suppress climate science, and obstruct clean energy efforts. Supported by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, the plaintiffs argue that these orders violate their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The case — Lighthiser v. Trump — marks a further front in young people’s climate litigation in the U.S., following their success in Held v. Montana, where Montana courts found that the state constitution guarantees a right to a clean and healthful environment. (AP News)

Factual & Legal Background

• Plaintiffs: 22 youths, many of whom were part of the Held v. Montana litigation. They are joined by other young people from states including California, Florida, Hawaii, and Oregon. Lead plaintiff is Eva Lighthiser, 19, of Livingston, Montana. (Montana Free Press)
• Defendants: President Donald Trump and federal executive branch agencies and officials responsible for issuing/executing the challenged orders. (Wikipedia)
• Challenged Executive Orders: Plaintiffs seek revocation or blocking of three Trump orders:
  1. “Unleashing American Energy”
  2. “Declaring a National Energy Emergency”
  3. “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful, Clean Coal Industry” (San Francisco Chronicle)
• Claims:
  • Violation of the Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, and due process — plaintiffs assert that the orders will lead to increased harm from climate change (air pollution, wildfires, flooding, etc.) and suppression of climate science. (Montana Free Press)
  • Ultra vires / executive overreach: The plaintiffs contend that Trump exceeded his authority under the Constitution by undermining or dismantling climate and environmental protections, including reducing the role of regulated agencies and science standards. (Wikipedia)
• Previous Montana Litigation (Held v. Montana): In August 2023, in a state constitutional case, young plaintiffs prevailed in Held v. Montana, where Judge Kathy Seeley found that a Montana law preventing regulators from considering climate impacts of energy projects violated the state constitutional provision guaranteeing a “clean and healthful environment” for present and future generations. The ruling was upheld by Montana’s Supreme Court in December 2024. (Wikipedia)

Legal Issues Likely to Be Central

1. Standing
   As in past youth climate cases (e.g. Juliana v. United States), one of the major hurdles is whether plaintiffs can show that they have suffered or will suffer concrete, particularized harm that is traceable to the defendants’ actions and that a favorable court decision could redress. (AP News)
2. Constitutional Claims (Fifth Amendment)
   The plaintiffs assert that the executive orders infringe their rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment. Courts tend to be cautious in recognizing broad rights in environmental/climate contexts where the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to a clean environment. Thus, it’s uncertain whether the Fifth Amendment provides a basis for such claims. (AP News)
3. Ultra Vires / Separation of Powers
   Plaintiffs allege that the executive orders improperly exceed executive branch authority. A court will examine whether the orders are consistent with enabling statutes, congressional mandates (or absence thereof), and constitutional constraints.
4. Causation and Remedy
   Proving that the executive orders directly cause specific harms (e.g. worsened wildfire smoke, flooding) and that blocking the orders would meaningfully reduce those harms will be challenging. The remedy sought appears declaratory/injunctive — to halt the orders. (Montana Free Press)

Opposing Arguments / Defendants’ Likely Defenses

• Lack of a Constitutional Right to Environmental Protection: Defendants may argue that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to a clean environment in the way Montana’s state constitution does; thus the Fifth Amendment does not extend to the kinds of claims being advanced. (AP News)
• Standing: Doubt whether plaintiffs can show that the orders will cause them specific, individualized harm, rather than generalized grievances.
• Political Question Doctrine: Some courts view climate policy decisions as committed to the political branches (Congress, executive), not fit for judicial resolution.
• Executive Authority: The administration may argue that the orders are within the President’s statutory and constitutional powers, especially around energy policy, national security, and management of federal lands/resources.
• Causality & Scientific Evidence: Defendants may challenge whether the plaintiffs’ alleged harms are traceable to the defendant orders, or whether intervening factors (global emissions, climate system inertia, actions by states or others) override the effect of federal executive orders.

Current Procedural Status & Hearing

• A hearing on motions to dismiss is scheduled before U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, where plaintiffs also seek a stay of implementation of the executive orders while the case proceeds. (Montana Free Press)
• Federal and state attorneys (including from 19 states plus Guam) have filed in support of dismissal of the case. They argue standing is lacking, constitutional rights do not encompass the claims made, and that energy policy is beyond judicial review in this context. (Montana Free Press)

Implications & Significance

• Precedent for Federal Climate Litigation by Youth: A successful federal ruling could open the door to similar constitutional claims premised on Fifth Amendment protections, replicating or expanding on state-based success like Held v. Montana.
• Scope of Executive Power Over Environmental Policy: The case may require courts to delineate the boundaries of executive authority, particularly regarding climate, agency regulation, and science.
• Public Health and Scientific Evidence: The plaintiffs’ use of scientific testimony—linking orders to likely injuries (respiratory, wildfire smoke, flooding)—may influence how courts weigh evidence in climate harm cases.
• Political and symbolic import: Even if ultimate legal success is uncertain, such litigation draws public attention, potentially influencing policy, public opinion, and executive/legislative behavior.
• Challenges Ahead: Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s past reluctance to recognize free‑standing constitutional climate rights, and prior dismissals of similar federal suits, the plaintiffs face steep legal obstacles.

Conclusion: Youth protecting the Future

Lighthiser v. Trump is one of the most consequential climate change cases currently before U.S. federal courts. It directly tests whether young people can invoke the Fifth Amendment (life, liberty) to hold the executive branch accountable for climate harms, and whether executive orders that favor fossil fuel production at the expense of renewable energy and climate science are legally sustainable. While past case law indicates the odds are long, the plaintiffs’ recent successes at the state level, vivid personal narratives of harm, and mounting scientific consensus may give them a meaningful chance of making an impact—not only in the courtroom, but on the broader trajectory of environmental policy and constitutional law.