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.

–

–

–

The federal district court for the District of Montana granted a motion by 19 states and Guam (state intervenors) to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs challenging three executive orders issued by President Trump that the plaintiffs alleged were ultra vires and would deprive them of fundamental rights to life and liberty by increasing use of polluting fossil fuels and slowing the building of energy infrastructure to reduce fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions. The court found that the state intervenors satisfied criteria both for intervention as of right and permissive intervention. Regarding intervention as of right, the court found that the state intervenors established that their interests in their energy policies, businesses, and employment might be impaired and that they made a sufficient showing that the federal defendants would not adequately represent these interests. The court also ruled that the state intervenors would retain their sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

–

The court issued an order setting a schedule for any motion to dismiss and scheduling a hearing on September 16-17, 2025 on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs had requested an evidentiary hearing on their motion; the court directed that the parties file notice of any expected witness testimony by September 2.

–

–

A Regents Professor Emerita of Earth Sciences and Fellow of the Montana Institute on Ecosystems at Montana State University offered an expert opinion about “how ’unleashing’ fossil fuel will result in worsening climate impacts in Montana, causing greater injuries to the 22 Youth Plaintiffs, and how Defendants’ attacks on climate science undermines efforts to protect Plaintiffs and their communities from worsening climate disasters.”

A retired NOAA official offered testimony in support of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

–

–

–

A Professor Emeritus at Columbia University with joint appointments in the Graduate School of Business and the School of International and Public Affairs offered an expert opinion "about how ’unleashing’ fossil fuels and blocking wind and solar energy hurts, rather than helps the economy; how there is no national energy crisis; and how the Trump administration’s actions to impede climate science research endangers the economy and Youth Plaintiffs in this case."

–

A professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and the Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment at Princeton University offered an expert opinion "about the effects of the Executive Orders in reshaping American energy back to a system more reliant on fossil fuels than it would have otherwise been and the resulting increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next ten years if the Executive Orders persist."

A former Health and Human Services Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate Change and Health Equity submitted a declaration as a fact witness to provide "real-world examples of how the Defendants’ directives are being implemented in a way that harms the health and wellbeing of Americans, including the young Plaintiffs in this case."

A Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, filed a declaration describing "how the health of children and youth is currently being harmed by air pollution from fossil fuels and how those harms will get worse if Defendants are allowed to 'unleash' more fossil fuels" and how cuts in federal funding "will have immediate and long-lasting consequences for public health, and children in particular."

A University Professor at Columbia University with joint appointments in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics), the Graduate School of Business (Department of Finance), and the School of International and Public Affairs offered an expert opinion "about how 'unleashing' fossil fuels and blocking wind and solar energy hurts, rather than helps the economy; and how the Trump administration’s actions to disable climate science endangers the economy and youth Plaintiffs in this case."

–

–

–

–

A psychiatrist offered an expert opinion "about the immediate, severe, and ongoing harm to the physical and psychological health and well-being of Plaintiffs from the Defendants’ actions being challenged in this case."

A retired pediatric hospitalist offered an expert opinion "about how the federal government’s directives to 'unleash' fossil fuels harm the physical health of the Youth Plaintiffs in this case, and how the health and lives of children are uniquely and disproportionately impacted by policies that worsen climate change."

A Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University offered an expert opinion "to show that the United States is not experiencing an 'energy emergency,' that no new fossil fuels are needed to meet this country’s current and future energy needs, that unleashing fossil fuels would significantly increase the number of deaths associated with air pollution caused by fossil fuels, and that slowing the transition towards renewable energy at this pivotal time would be highly damaging to the health and economic wellbeing of the Youth Plaintiffs in this case."

A climate scientist submitted a declaration in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction.

–

A policy researcher and scientist with a background in geology and mathematics offered an expert opinion "about how some of Defendants’ Executive Orders are being implemented, including the quantity of greenhouse ('GHG') emissions that would result should the Defendants be permitted to continue to 'unleash' fossil fuels in Montana and elsewhere."

A University Regents Professor Emeritus of Global Ecology in the College of Forestry and Conservation with the University of Montana offered an expert opinion about "how excessive GHG emissions, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) largely from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing climate change that is dangerously warming the surface of the Earth in ways that are harming the Youth Plaintiffs in this case."

A former NOAA meteorologist, climate scientist and public affairs specialist offered information "regarding the cuts to NOAA that have resulted from the challenged Executive Orders."

–