In a significant development for climate litigation, a federal judge in Montana has dismissed a lawsuit brought by youth activists challenging former President Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel energy policies. The ruling highlights ongoing legal battles over judicial jurisdiction in climate cases, even as the youth climate movement continues to gain momentum and achieve victories in other courts across the nation.
A federal judge in Montana on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, threw out a significant lawsuit filed by youth activists seeking to block U.S. President Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel energy policies. The case, known as Lighthiser v. Trump, represented another chapter in the growing movement of young people using legal avenues to address climate change. U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen made the decision, citing a lack of judicial power and jurisdiction over such a broad request.
The lawsuit, filed in May 2025 by a group of young people represented by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, argued that Trump’s executive orders aimed at “unleashing” American energy were unconstitutional. These orders included Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy”; Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; and Executive Order 14261, “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.”
The Judicial Reasoning: Overstepping Powers and Unworkable Demands
Judge Christensen’s dismissal was not a rejection of the scientific evidence or the potential harm to the plaintiffs. In fact, some reports indicated that he was “troubled by the harms of climate change” and that the youth plaintiffs had presented “overwhelming” evidence showing the administration’s actions would further destabilize the climate and harm them. However, his decision hinged on the perceived limits of judicial authority.
According to the judge’s order, the activists asked the court to assume a “sweeping role in climate regulation” that would fundamentally overstep his powers. Christensen stated, “This court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction. This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent.” This highlights the legal principle of separation of powers and the judiciary’s reluctance to intrude on what it views as legislative or executive domains.
The complaint asserted various claims, including substantive due process violations of the right to life and liberty, as well as claims that the executive orders were ultra vires—beyond the scope of the President’s legal power. It alleged that the orders illegally amended or circumvented federal statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the implementation of these policies and roll back any changes stemming from them. The Trump administration argued that the activists had no right to dictate climate policy through litigation and should instead seek change through the political process.
A Broader Context: Youth Climate Litigation Across the Nation
The Lighthiser v. Trump case is part of a larger, ongoing legal movement spearheaded by young activists. While this federal case faced dismissal, the impact of such lawsuits continues to resonate. Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit representing the plaintiffs, has been at the forefront of this movement, drawing global attention to the constitutional rights implications of climate change.
The Legacy of Juliana v. United States
Perhaps the most well-known predecessor to Lighthiser v. Trump is Juliana v. United States. This lawsuit, brought by 21 young people, sought to hold the federal government accountable for its fossil fuel policies, arguing they infringed on their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. After a decade-long legal effort, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2025, effectively ending this specific federal challenge. Andrea Rodgers, a senior litigation attorney at Our Children’s Trust, emphasized how Juliana “reframed the issue from one of a pollution problem to one of a human rights problem,” according to Reuters.
Despite the ultimate dismissal of Juliana at the Supreme Court level, its influence is undeniable. Rodgers noted that the legal framework established by Juliana has inspired more than 60 youth-led lawsuits worldwide, demonstrating the global reach and conceptual shift in how climate change is viewed legally.
State-Level Victories and Continued Hope
While federal challenges like Lighthiser v. Trump and Juliana v. United States have faced significant hurdles regarding jurisdiction and judicial scope, youth activists have found success at the state level.
- In 2023, Our Children’s Trust celebrated a groundbreaking victory in Montana. This case marked the first time a court in the U.S. declared that a government had a constitutional responsibility to protect people from the effects of climate change.
- The following year, the group reached a settlement in Hawaii, which included a plan to decarbonize the state’s transportation system. These state-level successes offer a blueprint for future climate litigation and highlight the potential for legal precedent to be set at different governmental tiers.
These victories underscore the persistence and evolving strategy of youth climate activists. As Andrea Rodgers aptly put it, “Young people have been at the forefront of the civil rights movement throughout history… young people are standing up and seeking justice and displaying incredible leadership.”
The Path Forward for Youth Climate Advocacy
The dismissal of Lighthiser v. Trump is undoubtedly a setback for the youth plaintiffs in this specific federal action. However, the broader movement they represent is far from over. The legal team at Our Children’s Trust is known for its resilience and adaptability, constantly exploring new legal strategies and forums to press their claims.
As plaintiff Miko Vergun, a participant in the Juliana case, articulated, despite disappointing rulings, “so many good things have come about because of this lawsuit, despite it not going to court.” She expressed hope “for the next generation of youth to speak out,” reflecting a broader sentiment that the fight for climate justice is a long-term endeavor. The scientific consensus, as reinforced by the United Nations, clearly links greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels to rising temperatures and destructive climate changes, providing a strong factual basis for continued advocacy.
The ongoing legal battles, despite their varied outcomes, ensure that the conversation around governmental responsibility for climate change remains prominent. These cases compel courts to engage with complex scientific and constitutional questions, pushing the boundaries of environmental law and public accountability. The youth climate movement continues to demonstrate that their voices, whether through litigation or direct action, are vital in shaping the future of environmental policy.
