Lighthiser v. Trump

In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of youth and young adult plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of three energy-related executive orders issued by President Trump: 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 and Amending Executive Order 14241.” The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs lacked standing, but in addition to concluding that its decision in Juliana v. United States foreclosed the existence of the redressability element of standing, the Ninth Circuit also found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the executive orders caused their climate change-related injuries. The district court had found that the plaintiffs satisfied the standing requirement that alleged injuries be “fairly traceable” to the challenged actions, but the Ninth Circuit determined that the link between the executive orders and the alleged injuries was “too speculative” to support standing because courts could not predict how government agencies and officials might exercise their discretion. Regarding redressability, the Ninth Circuit concluded both that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that injunctive relief barring implementation of the executive orders would redress their injuries and also that the requested injunction would be beyond the courts’ Article III power. In addition, the Ninth Circuit stated that “a sweeping injunction against hundreds of agency actions in one lawsuit” was “unprecedented”; the appellate court viewed the suit as an attempt “to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions.” The Ninth Circuit also rejected the argument that declaratory relief alone could redress their injuries and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The federal district court for the District of Montana ruled that youth plaintiffs lacked standing for their lawsuit challenging three of President Trump’s energy-related executive orders. The plaintiffs alleged that the executive orders and agency actions implementing them would increase use of fossil fuels, slow development of renewable energy, and curtail availability of science research. They asserted that the defendants’ actions constituted ultra vires exercises of power and violations of the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights to life and liberty. In considering whether the plaintiffs established the prerequisites for standing, the court first found that the plaintiffs established an injury in fact sufficient for standing by alleging “overwhelming evidence that climate change is affecting them now in concrete ways, and that these effects will imminently worsen as a result of” the three executive orders. The court further found that expert affidavits filed in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction sufficiently established that the three executive orders “will render a meaningful contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,” satisfying the standing requirement that alleged injuries be “fairly traceable” to the challenged actions. The district court concluded, however, that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Juliana v. United States foreclosed the existence of the redressability element of standing. The district court found that it was unlikely that a declaration of the executive orders’ illegality would redress the plaintiffs’ injuries by “revert[ing] the entirety of the United States’s energy policy back to January 19” (the day before President Trump took office). The court also found that it was unclear whether recent Supreme Court precedent that “looked favorably” upon arguments that “injuries would be substantially ameliorated” by a judicial decision would provide sufficient support for the youth plaintiffs’ contention that the injunctive relief they sought would satisfy the redressability element. The court concluded, however, that even if there were a substantial likelihood that the injunctive relief sought would redress their injuries, the plaintiffs could not surmount the “final, dispositive hurdle” that the relief sought would be outside the court’s power to grant. The court viewed the relief sought as raising the same concerns regarding judicial power that were at issue in Juliana: that granting an injunction would require the court “to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since January 20, 2025” to determine whether they were implemented pursuant to the allegedly illegal executive orders. The court expressed concerns regarding the scope of the requested injunction and its potential for requiring the court to engage in policymaking. The court concluded that “Plaintiffs’ compelling case for redress must be made to the political branches or to the electorate.” Because the court viewed any amendment of the plaintiffs’ complaint as futile, it dismissed the case with prejudice.