Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Lighthiser v. Trump

Geography
Year
2025
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2025
Status
Dismissal affirmed.
Docket number
25-6714
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)United StatesUnited States Federal Courts
Case category
Constitutional Claims (US)Fifth Amendment (US)Constitutional Claims (US)Other Constitutional Claims (US)
Principal law
United StatesClean Air Act (CAA)United StatesFifth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited StatesGlobal Change Research ActUnited StatesInflation Reduction Act of 2022United StatesPresentment ClauseUnited StatesSeparation of Powers DoctrineUnited StatesTake Care ClauseUnited StatesUltra Vires
At issue
Youth plaintiffs' lawsuit challenging Trump energy executive orders as violative of substantive due process rights and ultra vires.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
06/02/2026
Dismissal affirmed.
In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of youth and young adult plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of three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.
Decision
03/19/2026
Reply brief filed by defendants.
Reply
03/05/2026
Brief filed by amici curiae Pacific Legal Foundation and Young Americans for Liberty in support of defendants-appellees urging affirmance.
Amicus Motion/Brief
03/03/2026
Amicus brief filed by the Breakthrough Institute in support of defendants-appellees/affirmance.
Amicus Motion/Brief
02/26/2026
Answering brief filed by defendants-appellees.
Brief
02/26/2026
Answering brief filed by intervenors-defendants-appellees Montana, 18 other states, and the Territory of Guam.
Brief
01/26/2026
Brief filed by Public Health Law Center et al. as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Brief filed by former senior federal officials as amici curiae supporting plaintiffs-appellants and reversal.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Brief filed by amicus curiae Lawyers for Good Government in support of plaintiffs-appellants.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Brief filed by amici curiae law professors.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Brief filed by amici curiae faith leaders and organizations in support of plaintiffs-appellants.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Brief filed by amici curiae children's rights scholars and advocates in support of appellants' opening brief.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Brief filed by amicus curiae Renewable Northwest in support of plaintiffs-appellants and remand.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/20/2026
Amicus curiae brief filed by Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US and Greenpeace International in support of petition for discretionary review.
Amicus Motion/Brief
01/16/2026
Brief filed by climate scientists as amici curiae for appellants supporting reversal.
Amicus Motion/Brief

Summary

Youth plaintiffs' lawsuit challenging Trump energy executive orders as violative of substantive due process rights and ultra vires.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance