Eva Lighthizer was at a dorm party on a Colorado college campus last month when she had to stop early.
“I said, ‘I need to get some sleep, I’m going to Portland tomorrow,’ and of course that leads to more questions,” she said. “I’m like, ‘Well, I have a lot of explaining to do.'”
When the 20-year-old climate activist isn’t deciding on her major, she’s leaning toward environmental studies, but she’s preparing testimony for the lawsuit against Lighthizer vs. U.S. President Trump. She and 22 other young Americans are accusing the federal government of violating their constitutional rights by passing executive orders that promote the use of fossil fuels that increase global warming.
The court dismissed the Lighthizer v. Trump case in the fall, but Lighthizer and her fellow plaintiffs traveled to Portland, Oregon, in April to push for the case to be reinstated.
“We are challenging this administration that has expanded fossil fuels for power at the cost of my own life and that of my fellow plaintiffs,” he said in a speech before the court.
Lighthizer said it was a “nerve-wracking but exhilarating” experience. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Montana, will decide in the coming months whether to reinstate the youths’ lawsuits.
Lighthizer’s affinity for the natural world was instilled in him even before he was born. My parents met as hiking friends and grew up camping and climbing in Livingston, Montana. During my first year of high school, I studied math and history at home while visiting national parks.
View of the Yellowstone River in Livingston, Montana.
But she never imagined that her love of the outdoors would lead her to sue one of the most powerful people in the world. She has been cautious since she was a child, and even as an adult she does not naturally seek attention.
“It’s not the first thing that comes to mind that she would do against Trump,” said her father, Mark, wearing a well-worn Carhartt hoodie. “I think Eva needed to push herself.”
“My name is against his name.”
Lighthizer now has six years to push himself. She started hearing about youth-led climate change litigation in early 2020. A family friend told her about Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit law firm that has been involved in dozens of lawsuits against governments across the country. They wanted to file a lawsuit in Montana, the friend said.
“Wow, it felt like a young man filing a lawsuit,” Lighthizer said. “I felt it was a novel idea.”
She started attending group Zoom calls and soon decided to become a plaintiff in Held v. Montana. The challenge, filed on her 14th birthday, argued that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies violate the state Constitution’s guarantees, including the right to a “clean and healthy environment for present and future generations.” The case was the first of its kind to go to trial in 2023. Lighthizer took to the stage to talk about his love for Montana and the climate threats facing the state. “My future feels uncertain,” she said.
In a landmark victory, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. They are now putting pressure on the state to force that victory. They argue that the state Legislature enacted a new law that contradicts the judge’s ruling and should be overturned.
It didn’t take long for Lighthizer to start thinking about his next challenge. In early 2025, she spoke at an event with Julia Olson, founder of Our Children’s Trust.
“Early on in the second Trump administration, it became clear that we should pursue a federal lawsuit,” Olson said. “Eva was actually one of the first young people we had a conversation with and wanted to get involved.”
Eva Lighthizer and her parents, Mark and Erica Lighthizer, at their home in Livingston.
In May of that year, Lighthizer stood in her parents’ driveway, preparing to head out on an overnight bike trip to nearby Paradise Valley. “One of the lawyers called me and was like, ‘Hey Eva, what’s going on? We’re talking about this federal lawsuit. How do you feel about being lead plaintiff?’
The attorney explained the responsibilities of the role, including the expectation of mentoring the young challengers. The case will also be called Lighthizer v. Trump, he said.
“That was a really nail-biting moment,” she said. “My name against his name.”
Montana’s climate crisis
It’s hard to imagine Lighthizer growing up anywhere else but in Montana. It is a purple state with a long history of both conservation and environmental exploitation, and is sometimes referred to as a “resource colony” because its economy is driven by the extraction of raw materials that benefits the wealthy millionaires. The practice dates back to the mining boom of the 19th century, but critics say it continues today, including plans to extract more coal to send to East Asia.
But it’s also a place where people of all parties care about local ecosystems, Lighthizer explained. In an April poll, 90% of Montanans, including 82% of Republicans, said conservation issues were important to them in deciding whether to support their elected officials.
Eva Lighthizer goes hiking near her childhood off-grid home.
“There may be a lot of people who don’t believe in climate change or who are resistant to switching to renewable energy,” she said as we drove down Livingston’s main street. “But there’s also a sense that everyone knows how special this place is and can see the beauty all around them.”
That beauty can be seen everywhere in Livingston, whose “tight-knit, quirky small-town community” attracts ranchers and artists as well as celebrities such as Jeff Bridges, Michael Keaton, and John Mayer. From the towering Gallatin and Absaroka Mountains to the Yellowstone River and its winding, babbling tributaries, Livingston is picturesque.
But environmental threats exist everywhere. A few blocks from Lighthizer’s family home, a mile-long coal train spews coal dust every day. In 2016, a climate-related parasite killed tens of thousands of fish and closed part of the Yellowstone River. Most worryingly, extreme flooding, which was rare during Mr. Lighthizer’s childhood, is now becoming more frequent. These deluges changed her life forever, she said.
The Lighthizer family once lived about 15 minutes outside of town on the Shields River, which was the subject of Captain William Clark’s diary during the Lewis and Clark expedition. A flood in 2018 washed away the bridge her family used to enter town. This forced the family to make a 30-minute detour every day, and they eventually decided to move.
Coal and oil trains run through Livingstone.
They had just settled into their new home in 2022 when the Yellowstone River, just a three-minute walk away, flooded. The water flooded homes, turned roads into streams, and caused $128 million in damage. But the community’s response surprised Lighthizer.
“I remember that in the weeks that followed, a lot of effort was put into cleaning up the house and helping each other,” she recalled. “I thought that was really special.”
Youth-led climate litigation provides Lighthizer with a similar sense of unity, a sense of coming together in the face of disaster. As a plaintiff in Held v. Montana, she came to see her fellow challengers as “family,” in part because of the rapport she developed with lead plaintiff Ricky Held, who she said gave her the confidence to speak publicly and to regularly check in on her challengers during the “emotional roller coaster” of the court process. Now, as a named plaintiff, Mr. Lighthizer hopes to do the same for his co-challengers.
Jorja McCormick, a 17-year-old plaintiff in the Lighthizer case and also based in Livingston, said she is achieving that goal. McCormick first learned about Lighthizer when he spoke at an influential local climate change club, the Green Initiative. She initially found the idea of participating in a lawsuit daunting, but after hearing Mr. Lighthizer’s speech, the process seemed more approachable. “I definitely respect older plaintiffs like Eva,” she said.
Jorja McCormick, 17, is the plaintiff in Lighthizer v. Trump.
Mr. Lighthizer’s mother, Erica, is proud of her daughter for uniting young environmentalists, but she fears the scrutiny a lawsuit could bring, especially from a president who seems to prioritize retaliation against political critics.
“Look, that’s our last name next to the president’s last name,” she said. “But I know there is a sense of duty and responsibility to future generations. I see that in her.”
The future of youth-led climate litigation
Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law School, said she admires the courage shown by Lighthizer and his fellow young plaintiffs. But he was concerned about what such cases would mean for environmental law as a whole. He has donated to Our Children’s Trust and provided their “very good lawyers” with helpful legal advice, but he fears their case will be seen as going too far.
Lighthizer v. Trump uses a broad set of arguments to block several pro-fossil fuel executive orders. That goes beyond what courts tend to see as their role, Parenteau said.
A replacement bridge now stands where the previous bridge collapsed.
“The court cannot reform the U.S. energy system and will not respond to such requests,” he said.
In dismissing the Lighthizer v. Trump case last fall, Montana District Judge Dana Christensen said she did so “reluctantly” but said the scope of the plaintiffs’ demands was “impossible” and outside the court’s jurisdiction. Mr. Parenteau does not expect the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the young men’s case, as Mr. Lighthizer and his fellow plaintiffs sought in Portland last month. If Our Children’s Trust then takes its case to the Supreme Court, it risks an unsympathetic judgment, which could be used to “shut the door” on other types of environmental litigation, Parenteau said.
Parenteau said courts are more likely to rule on cases that prove the injury was caused by a specific government action. The Lighthizer case instead broadly alleges that a particular executive order, and the various policy decisions it provokes, violate the Constitution. That’s a legally sound argument, he said, but “there’s no chance” a Supreme Court justice would support it.
Eva Lighthizer and McCormick take a walk in Livingston. Photo: Will Walashira/Guardian
“It’s like playing with fire in court these days,” he said. “I believe in their case, because what they say is what the law should be, and that’s not what the law is.”
Olson declined to comment on whether he would take the case to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds unfavorable. She said she has “great respect” for Parenteau, but that concerns about the court’s negative reaction to “bold constitutional arguments” have been “raised about every major civil rights advance in history, including cases that ultimately changed American law.”
“Stepping back from the courthouse door was never the answer,” she says. “Right now, children are being harmed.”
While Eva Lighthizer hasn’t decided on a major, she’s preparing testimony for a lawsuit against Donald Trump.
She is optimistic that the case could receive a favorable ruling. But even if they don’t, filing a lawsuit is still important because it educates judges about the climate damage young people are facing, she said.
“If we don’t use our Constitution, we’re going to lose it,” she said.
Lighthizer agrees that bold climate litigation is needed to move the courts forward. If her case is successful, she said, it would create an “incredible legal precedent” and force the government to “admit that it is actively harming young people in this country.”
Lighthizer said he believes the youth’s climate lawsuits will ultimately be successful, saying, “There are risks, but if you don’t take the risks, nothing good will happen.”
