Lawyers for a youth coalition that challenged a series of President Donald Trump’s executive orders related to energy and climate change last year argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the case to move forward.
The federal district court in Montana that dismissed the case in Lighthizer v. Trump erred by ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to grant blanket relief when reviewing the legality of the executive order, argued Julia Olsen, an attorney with the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which represents young people.
“Without question, the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” Olsen said, citing a recent decision. Circuit Court Judgment. “Accordingly, we believe there is clear Article III authority here to provide relief and remand the case on its merits.”
Lawyers for the federal government and the state of Montana disputed Olsen’s claims at an April 13 hearing, arguing that rescinding the three executive orders would not provide any relief to the plaintiffs and that the court correctly ruled it lacked authority to take up the issue.
“This court cannot restrain the executive branch from exercising the express powers of Congress,” said U.S. Attorney John Adams. “The relief plaintiffs seek here requires balancing competing economic, social, and political forces against elected officials within the legislative and executive branches.”
Lighthizer v. Trump is one of a series of youth-led climate change lawsuits brought by the Oregon-based advocacy law firm Our Children’s Trust. The case involves a group of young plaintiffs from other climate change lawsuits, including Juliana v. United States and the landmark Montana case. Held vs. Montanayouth from Florida, California, Hawaii, and Oregon also participated.
Supporters of the young plaintiffs gather outside the federal courthouse in Missoula before the Lighthizer v. Trump hearing on September 16, 2025. (Micah Drew/Daily Montanan)
youth sued the Trump administration At least three executive orders issued last year aimed to support the fossil fuel industry, curb renewable energy, and suppress climate science.
inside Two days of public hearings in September Before a federal judge in Missoula, the plaintiffs’ lawyers asked for an injunction against three orders and an order restraining about a dozen federal agencies from implementing policies related to the orders.
But the Justice Department, backed by several states that joined the lawsuit, including Montana, argued that the district court should dismiss the lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs lack standing and are asking the court to set federal environmental policy.
Judge Dana Christensen ‘reluctantly’ dismissed the lawsuitsaid the scope of the demands made by the 22 young plaintiffs were “impossible demands” and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs appealed Christensen’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, asking to reverse the lower court’s decision and allow them to proceed on the merits of the argument.
Olsen compared the case to similar climate change-related lawsuits, including the federal case Juliana v. United States, which has been repeatedly dismissed by federal and circuit courts, but distinguished Lighthizer’s case in that it is narrower in scope and focus.
“Plaintiffs bring suit here to prevent future harm and seek declaratory and injunctive relief against these three specific orders,” Olsen said. “(Juliana) was not about a specific executive order that is being actively implemented today.”
Adams disagreed with the uniqueness of this case, comparing it to other cases in which Lighthizer has challenged executive orders. Items subject to customs duties, etc.does not address “immediate and automatic effects” on plaintiffs, which are not present in energy and climate-related orders.
In fact, Adams argued that challenging the executive order is far from being considered illegal. The order would create actions by government agencies that would encourage private industry to produce fossil fuels and produce emissions that can cause climate change, which plaintiffs claim is harmful.
“It’s an over-damped causal train,” Adams says. “They are challenging an executive order that is not a substantial part of the injury they claim.”
Montana Solicitor General Christian Corrigan further argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to argue that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by issuing the executive order, arguing that the executive order lacked sufficient detail to qualify for review by the courts.
But Olsen argued that the circuit court should allow the case to proceed on the merits, leaving it to the district court to decide whether the president’s actions were constitutionally permissible.
“You could lose on merit,” Olsen said. “A court might decide, ‘Oh, he has sufficient authority to do all of these things.’ But what we have argued, based on an extensive review of the law, is that he acted in excess of his statutory authority.”
“…What we are talking about is the right to life and liberty for these children,” Olsen continued. “And some of them are experiencing life-threatening harm due to pollution and heat. And we’re not just talking about climate change. We’re talking about direct air pollution that harms their lungs and their lives.”
In a statement released after the hearing, lead plaintiff Eva Lighthizer said the district court dismissed the case but recognized there was a “child health emergency.”
“Today, we asked the Ninth Circuit to do what the judiciary is supposed to do: protect our rights,” Lighthizer said. “The actions of the executive branch are putting us at risk, and many of us are too young to vote or participate in the political process, so we are looking to the courts to ensure our constitutional protections are upheld.”
The challenged orders included Trump Executive Orders 14154, “Freeing America’s Energy,” 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” and 14261, “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.”
