SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
montana
'We Will Appeal': Judge Dismisses Youth Suit Against Trump Attacks on Climate
"Courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney.
Oct 16, 2025
American children and young adults suing over President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders plan to keep fighting after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their case, citing a previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held—of the historic Held v. State of Montana case—and 20 other young people filed a federal suit in Montana in May, taking aim at Trump's executive orders (EOs) declaring a "national energy emergency," directing federal agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and boosting the coal industry.
"The founders of this country believed our rights to life and liberty were the fundamental tenets of a reasoned and just society, among the most sacred of rights to protect from government intrusion and overreach," said Daniel C. Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project at Public Justice, one of the groups representing the young plaintiffs.
"Not only should Americans be outraged by unlawful executive actions that trample upon those rights, but also because the harm these executive orders have inflicted was acknowledged by the court—showing the serious nature of plaintiffs' case," Snyder continued. "Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
"Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
US District Judge Dana Christensen "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump on Wednesday, pointing to the 9th Circuit's 2020 opinion in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate case that the US Supreme Court effectively ended in March.
"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," wrote Christensen. "The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children's health emergency."
The appointee of former President Barack Obama also said that he was "troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions." Specifically, he noted, "plaintiffs have shown the challenged EOs will generate an additional 205 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2027, an increase which plaintiffs convincingly allege will expose them to imminent, increased harm from a warming climate."
While Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US Department of Justice, cheered the dismissal of what he called "a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump's energy agenda," the judge wrote that "if the 9th Circuit disagrees" with his decision, he "welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits."
Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs have already set their sights on the higher court. Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust stressed that "Judge Christensen said he reached his decision reluctantly and invited the 9th Circuit to correct him so these young Americans can have their case heard—and the 9th Circuit should do just that."
"Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future," she noted. "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 added. "This violates not only the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, but the most basic principles of justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Rules Rocky Mountain Wolves Wrongly Denied Endangered Species Protections
One advocate said the ruling "offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act."
Aug 05, 2025
Conservationists cautiously celebrated a U.S. judge's Tuesday ruling that the federal government must reconsider its refusal to grant protections for gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, as killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put the species at risk.
Former President Joe Biden's administration determined last year that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the region's wolves were "not warranted," sparking multiple lawsuits from coalitions of conservation groups. The cases were consolidated and considered by Montana-based District Judge Donald Molloy, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.
As the judge detailed in his 105-page decision, the advocacy groups argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to consider a "significant portion" of the gray wolf's range, the "best available science" on their populations and the impact of humans killing them, and the true threat to the species. He also wrote that "for the most part, the plaintiffs are correct."
Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), which represented one of the coalitions, said in a statement that "the Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case."
"Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law," Bishop continued. "We hope this decision will encourage the service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West."
Coalition members similarly welcomed Molloy's decision as "an important step toward finally ending the horrific and brutal war on wolves that the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have waged in recent years," in the words of George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch.
Predator Defense executive director Brooks Fahy said that "today's ruling is an incredible victory for wolves. At a time where their numbers are being driven down to near extinction levels, this decision is a vital lifeline."
Patrick Kelly, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project, pointed out that "with Montana set to approve a 500 wolf kill quota at the end of August, this decision could not have come at a better time. Wolves may now have a real shot at meaningful recovery."
Breaking news! A federal judge in Missoula ruled USFWS broke the law when it denied protections for gray wolves in the western U.S. The agency must now reconsider using the best available science. A major step forward for wolf recovery.Read more: 🔗 wildearthguardians.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Wolf Conservation Center 🐺 (@nywolforg.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist Nick Gevock said that "wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have shown that they're grossly unsuited to manage the species."
Gevock's group is part of a coalition represented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States. Kitty Block, president and CEO of the latter, said Tuesday that "wolves are deeply intelligent, social animals who play an irreplaceable role in the ecosystems they call home."
"Today's ruling offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act," Block stressed. "These animals deserve protection, not abandonment, as they fight to return to the landscapes they once roamed freely.
While "Judge Molloy's ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem," as Gevock put it, the agency may also appeal his decision.
The original rejection came under Biden, but the reconsideration will occur under President Donald Trump, whose first administration was hostile to the ESA in general and wolves in particular. The current administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have signaled in recent months that they intend to maintain that posture.
WELC highlighted Tuesday that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) "introduced H.R. 845 to strip ESA protections from gray wolves across the Lower 48. If passed, this bill would congressionally delist all gray wolves in the Lower 48 the same way wolves in the northern Rockies were congressionally delisted in 2011, handing management authority over to states."
Emphasizing what that would mean for the species, WELC added that "regulations in Montana, for example, allow hunters and trappers to kill several hundred wolves per year—with another 500-wolf quota proposed this year—with bait, traps, snares, night hunting, infrared and thermal imagery scopes, and artificial light."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Youth Sue Over Trump Executive Orders That 'Escalate' Climate Crisis
"He's waging war on us with fossil fuels as his weapon, and we're fighting back with the Constitution," said one of the 22 plaintiffs.
May 29, 2025
Nearly two dozen American children and young adults sued U.S. President Donald Trump, leaders in his administration, and various agencies in federal court on Thursday over a trio of executive orders they argue "escalate" the climate emergency that imperils their futures.
Lighthiser v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, challenges executive orders (EOs) 14156, 14154, and 14261—which, respectively, declared a "national energy emergency," directed agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and called for boosting the country's coal industry.
"Trump's fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation," said named plaintiff Eva Lighthiser in a statement. "I'm not suing because I want to—I'm suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line. He's waging war on us with fossil fuels as his weapon, and we're fighting back with the Constitution."
Specifically, the complaint argues that "the EOs violate the Fifth Amendment substantive due process clause on their face by depriving plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life and liberty." The filing also states that the orders are ultra vires—meaning they go beyond Trump's presidential authority "in assuming powers reserved to and exercised by Congress through Article I" of the U.S. Constitution.
"From day one of the current administration, President Trump has issued directives to increase fossil fuel use and production, and block an energy transition to wind, solar, battery storage, energy efficiency, and electric vehicles," the complaint reads. "President Trump's EOs falsely claim an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that fossil fuel pollution is destroying the foundation of plaintiffs' lives."
"These unconstitutional directives have the immediate effect of (a) slowing the buildout of U.S. energy infrastructure that eliminates planet-heating fossil fuel greenhouse gas pollution... and (b) increasing the use of fossil fuels that pollute the air, water, lands, and climate on which plaintiffs' lives depend," the filing stresses.
🚨 Youth from Montana and four other states are suing the Trump administration for violating their constitutional rights with executive orders that fast-track fossil fuel projects, worsen the climate crisis, and suppress climate science. PR: bit.ly/youthsuetrump-pr #YouthvGov
[image or embed]
— Our Children’s Trust (@youthvgov.bsky.social) May 29, 2025 at 10:11 AM
The youth are asking the district court to declare Trump's EOs and related executive actions "unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and invalid," and to issue a permanent injunction blocking the long list of defendants from implementing or enforcing them.
Lighthiser is a 19-year-old from Livingston, Montana. She and 24-year-old Rikki Held are among 10 of 22 plaintiffs in this case who were also part of Held v. State of Montana, in which a judge in 2023 agreed with young residents who argued that Montana violated their state constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuel extraction. The Montana Supreme Court upheld that decision last December.
Both groups of young plaintiffs are represented by Our Children's Trust, known for several youth climate lawsuits, including Juliana v. United States, the landmark constitutional case that the U.S. Supreme Court ended in March.
Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust said Thursday that "these executive orders are an overt abuse of power. The president is knowingly putting young people's lives in danger to serve fossil fuel interests, while silencing scientists and defying laws passed by Congress."
"These young plaintiffs refuse to be collateral damage in a fossil fuel war on their future," Olson continued. "They are demanding accountability where it still matters—in a court of law. The executive branch is not above the Constitution, and these young people are here to prove it."
For Lighthiser v. Trump, Our Children's Trust has partnered with Gregory Law Group, McGarvey Law, and Public Justice.
"The government's actions irreparably harm our nation's most important asset: our children," said Dan Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project for Public Justice. "The science is irrefutable that humans and their pollution are causing climate change, and that a changing climate will result in a growing list of injuries that are uniquely felt by America's youngest population."
"Our children enjoy the same constitutional rights to life and liberty as adults, yet have been tasked with shouldering the impact of a destabilized climate system without ever having a say in the matter," he added. "President Trump's executive orders are unlawful and intolerable, and these youth plaintiffs shall put an end to it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular