Lighthiser v. Trump

–

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.

–