In a significant setback for youth climate activists, a Montana federal judge has dismissed their lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel policies, ruling that such broad policy changes fall outside judicial scope and must be addressed through political channels, despite acknowledging extensive evidence of climate harm.
A federal judge in Montana on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, 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 argued that these orders would exacerbate global warming, threatening their lives and violating their constitutional rights, a claim supported by The Associated Press.
Judge Christensen’s Ruling: Overwhelming Evidence, Unworkable Request
The case, known as Lighthiser v. Trump, involved 22 plaintiffs, including youths and young adults from Montana and several other states, represented by the environmental group Our Children’s Trust. U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen acknowledged in his 31-page order that the plaintiffs had presented “overwhelming evidence” that climate change was indeed affecting them and would worsen as a result of Trump’s directives.
Despite this scientific and experiential validation, Judge Christensen ultimately sided with the U.S. Department of Justice and attorneys from more than a dozen states who had urged for the case’s dismissal. His core reasoning hinged on the plaintiffs’ request being an “unworkable request.” He stated that blocking Trump’s orders would necessitate an unprecedented level of judicial scrutiny over every climate-related action taken by the administration since the Republican came into office.
Instead, Christensen concluded that the plaintiffs must present their case “to the political branches or the electorate,” effectively stating that the courts were not the appropriate forum for such broad policy interventions. He also cited a lack of standing, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how judicial intervention could realistically fix their injuries through actions within the court’s power. “This Court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change,” Christensen wrote. “This concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”
A Decade of Advocacy: The Juliana Precedent
Judge Christensen’s decision was heavily influenced by a preceding federal climate lawsuit from Our Children’s Trust, Juliana v. United States. This landmark case in Oregon pursued similar constitutional arguments against the federal government’s fossil fuel policies for nearly a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court declined its final appeal this year. The *Juliana* case sought to hold the federal government accountable for knowingly endorsing an energy system that would destabilize the climate, infringing on the young plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property.
Legal experts had anticipated long odds for the *Lighthiser v. Trump* plaintiffs, especially given the outcome of the *Juliana* case. The federal courts have historically been reluctant to intervene in matters deemed to be within the legislative or executive domains, particularly when it involves setting national energy or environmental policy.
The Montana Anomaly: A Different Legal Landscape
The plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit included youths who had previously achieved a landmark victory against the state of Montana. This success in the state court highlights a crucial distinction: the Montana state constitution explicitly declares that people have a “right to a clean and healthful environment.” This language is conspicuously absent from the U.S. Constitution, making federal environmental rights claims significantly more challenging. Only a few other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, have similar environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions.
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the 2023 state trial outcome last year, which required officials to more closely analyze climate-warming emissions. However, even with this constitutional backing, that victory has yielded few meaningful changes to date in a state largely dominated by Republicans.
Voices from the Frontlines: Activist and Administration Reactions
The dismissal was met with strong reactions from both sides. Julia Olson, chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, swiftly vowed to appeal the ruling, stating, “Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future.” She criticized the decision as “completely wrong” and “anathema to the entire US Constitution,” arguing it prioritizes fossil fuel interests over the health and safety of children.
Conversely, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers lauded the ruling as a 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.” Rogers affirmed, “President Trump saved our country from Joe Biden’s wildly unpopular Green Energy Scam and he will continue to ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL’.”
During the two-day hearing in Missoula, plaintiffs offered emotional testimonies about how global warming had reshaped their lives. These included Joseph Lee, an undergraduate from California who suffered life-threatening heat stroke, and Jorja McCormick of Livingston, Montana, traumatized by wildfires that forced her family to flee their home. Experts like climatologist and Nobel Peace Prize co-winner Steve Running also testified on behalf of the youth.
The Broader Battle: Youth Climate Activism on the Global Stage
The legal challenges brought by groups like Our Children’s Trust, particularly the *Juliana* case, have inspired more than 60 youth-led lawsuits worldwide. Andrea Rodgers, senior litigation attorney at Our Children’s Trust, emphasized that these cases have reframed climate change from merely a pollution problem to a fundamental human rights issue. She highlighted the critical role of young people in civil rights movements throughout history, especially for those under 18 who lack voting rights or lobbying power.
Despite the current setback in the federal courts, the movement continues to evolve. Our Children’s Trust celebrated a groundbreaking victory in Hawaii, reaching a settlement that included a plan to decarbonize the state’s transportation system, further demonstrating the potential for state-level constitutional climate litigation.
Looking Ahead: The Path Forward for Climate Action
The dismissal of Lighthiser v. Trump underscores the immense legal hurdles young activists face when challenging federal policy on constitutional grounds, especially in the absence of explicit federal environmental rights. However, the movement’s leaders remain undeterred, vowing to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit. Their strategies will likely continue to involve:
- Appeals Process: Pursuing higher court review of Judge Christensen’s ruling.
- State-Level Litigation: Focusing on states with constitutional environmental protections, leveraging successes like the Montana and Hawaii cases.
- Political Engagement: Shifting emphasis to electoral and political processes, as suggested by the judge, to advocate for policy change directly.
- Public Awareness: Continuing to raise public awareness about the impacts of climate change and the urgency of action, fueled by personal testimonies and scientific evidence.
The battle over fossil fuels and renewable energy policies, and the fundamental constitutional rights of future generations, remains a defining challenge of our time, with activists determined to ensure their voices are heard, whether in the courts or at the ballot box.
