Youth Plaintiffs Begin Historic Live Testimony in Federal Constitutional Climate Case, Lighthiser v. Trump

On Tuesday morning, September 16, 22 young Americans began presenting live testimony in Lighthiser v. Trump, a landmark lawsuit challenging federal actions that threaten their fundamental rights to life. The hearing — taking place Sept. 16 and 17 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana — is the first time in U.S. history that a federal court is hearing in-person testimony in a constitutional climate case led by young people.

Lead attorney Julia Olson framed the case’s fundamental question: “Does the United States Constitution guard against executive abuses of power that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights to life and liberty?” Olson explained that the challenged executive orders promote pollution by advancing fossil fuels at the expense of clean, renewable energy and scientific integrity.

“These orders not only compel the federal government to block the renewable energy revolution underway worldwide, but they also target climate scientists and health experts as enemies because scientific data and warnings burden the fossil fuel agenda,” Olson told the court. She emphasized that the evidence will show “more immediate harm to these young plaintiffs’ physical and mental health, increased risk of life-threatening injuries, and more carbon pollution that will outlive them.”

Day One Witnesses: Youth and Experts Speak Out

The court heard powerful testimony from youth plaintiffs and expert witnesses, illustrating how the executive orders have already intensified the harms they face.

Plaintiff Joseph Lee, 19, Fullerton, California, spoke about how his lifelong asthma is worsened by air pollution and wildfire smoke. He described how smoke and heat force him indoors, limiting outdoor activities that support his mental health. Joseph recounted a severe heat-related incident that led to his hospitalization and said, “I’m now terrified to go outdoors on hot days.” He also explained how cuts to climate research programs forced him to change his major from Environmental Policy to Economics to protect his future career opportunities.

Plaintiff Jorja .M., 17, Livingston, Montana, testified about worsening wildfires forcing her family to prepare for evacuation and harming her health and animals through smoke and heat exposure. When asked about what it will be like for the high frequency of wildfires to continue she stated, “I’d have to watch my Montana burn.” She shared how flooding damaged her family’s veterinary clinic, causing financial hardship. Jorja helped secure funding for electric school buses to reduce pollution near her school but the funding has never been delivered due to federal policy changes.

Plaintiff Avery McRae, 20, Eugene, Oregon, described how worsening wildfires in Oregon and multiple hurricane evacuations while attending college in Florida have deeply affected her physical safety and mental health. She spoke openly about the anxiety these climate disasters have caused her. When asked whether she envisions being a parent in the future, Avery expressed a profound sense of uncertainty: “I don’t even know what my life will look like, so I don’t see myself bringing more life into this world that’s so uncertain.” As an Environmental Studies major, Avery emphasized the critical importance of government climate data to her education and future career, saying, “I have a hard time picturing what my career looks like if I don’t have access to government documents related to the climate.”

Plaintiff Jeff K., 11, Upland, California / Helena, Montana, shared how his family moved to California to escape Montana’s smoky summers and be closer to relatives. An active kid who loves soccer, football, hockey, hiking, and fishing, Jeff told the court about his lung condition called pulmonary sequestration, which makes him vulnerable to infections. He has to avoid outdoor activities when air quality is poor due to wildfire smoke, which causes symptoms like stuffy and bloody noses and sore throat. Jeff described the hospitalization of his younger brother Nate K., who has weak lungs and is vulnerable to poor air quality.

Dr. Steven Running, Nobel Peace Prize-winning climate scientist and distinguished earth systems expert, testified about how the plaintiffs’ injuries are consistent with climate change. He explained the critical role of climate data and the dangers of dismantling scientific research. He explained how tools like the Keeling Curve and satellites tracking CO2 emissions are essential for understanding and addressing climate change. Dr. Running warned that closing key observatories and cutting funding for climate satellites will severely limit this vital information and directly harm the Plaintiffs. He emphasized the overwhelming scientific consensus that fossil fuel emissions drive climate change and that every additional ton of CO₂ worsens the crisis and harms the plaintiffs and criticized recent federal reports dismissing this science as “not serious” and condemned efforts to suppress peer-reviewed climate data. He concluded, “Every additional ton of CO₂ matters to the whole world and definitely matters to these plaintiffs.”

John Podesta, former Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy (2024) and Clean Energy Innovation, testified on the executive order process and the unprecedented scale of the challenged orders. Drawing on decades of experience across three administrations, Mr. Podesta explained how the direct and predictable effects of these orders are the dismantling of federal climate research and regulatory efforts, leading to the unleashing of fossil fuels. He criticized how the Administration is replacing the commitment to constitutional principles with allegiance to the president, stating bluntly, “This is a loyalty oath to the president, not a loyalty oath to the Constitution.” Podesta highlighted the direct and predictable harms these actions impose on plaintiffs. Although Podesta was a defendant in Juliana v. United States—a case brought by the same attorneys and some of the same plaintiffs—he explained his current testimony supports this case because it focuses on specific executive actions that directly threaten the plaintiffs’ health and future. He concluded, “These kids are being harmed by [these executive actions]. This court can do something about that.”

Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, testified about the health and climate harms caused by fossil fuel pollution and the reliability of renewable energy. He explained that renewable energy can meet all U.S. energy needs without relying on fossil fuels or China for production. Dr. Jacobson emphasized that the challenged executive orders undermine the nation’s energy security. Promoting fossil fuels will also increase air pollution-related illnesses and deaths, directly harming the plaintiffs. In response to defendants’ claims that the resulting increases in emissions would be “globally insignificant,” Dr. Jacobson firmly stated, “It doesn’t matter if it’s small globally because local CO₂ emissions kill people locally.” He also disputed assertions that renewables are unreliable, calling such arguments scientifically unfounded.

Support Outside the Courthouse

Supporters of the plaintiffs gathered outside the courthouse this morning for a peaceful rally, cheering on the youth plaintiffs as they walked into court. Rallies will continue tomorrow, Sept. 17, from 7:15–8:15 a.m., with the hearing resuming at 8:30 a.m.