MISSOULA, Montana – A federal judge overseeing a closely watched climate case on Wednesday (Thursday Manila time) pressed the lawyer representing young Americans suing President Donald Trump on whether courts have constitutional authority to rein in his fossil-fuel agenda.
On the second and last day of hearings in Missoula, Montana, attorneys delivered final arguments in Lighthiser v. Trump, part of a growing global wave of lawsuits seeking to force climate action amid political inertia or hostility.
The 22 plaintiffs, represented by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, want a preliminary injunction against three executive orders they say trample their inalienable rights by seeking to “unleash” fossil fuel development while sidelining renewable energy.
They also accuse the administration of eroding federal climate science, leaving the public less informed about mounting dangers.
The government counters that the lawsuit is undemocratic and echoes Juliana v. United States, a similar youth-led case that wound through the courts for nearly a decade before the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal last year — and should be similarly dismissed.
“This case asks whether the United States Constitution guards against executive abuses of power by executive orders that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights to life and liberties,” said Julia Olson, director of Our Children’s Trust and the lead lawyer.
“And now that the court has had the opportunity to hear from some of the youth plaintiffs and their expert witnesses, the answer to that question is clear, and it’s yes,” she said.
But Judge Dana Christensen, who has issued favorable environmental rulings in the past, pressed Olson on whether precedent tied his hands, and asked if granting relief would require him to oversee every subsequent climate action taken by the executive branch.
“What exactly does that look like?” he asked. “I’d be required to continue to monitor the actions of this administration to determine whether or not they are acting in a manner that contravenes my injunction.”
