A new youth-led lawsuit is challenging Trump’s fossil fuel orders

This article A new youth-led lawsuit is challenging Trump’s fossil fuel orders was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This summer, kids are taking the climate crisis to the courts. The 22 plaintiffs of Lighthiser v. Trump, a lawsuit filed in May, range from 7 to 25 years old. They are challenging three of President Donald Trump’s most controversial executive orders to “unleash” fossil fuels and revoke renewable energy initiatives. The orders roll back critical investments in sustainable technologies and climate science, declare a “National Energy Emergency” to increase fossil fuel use, and prop up the coal, oil and gas industries through deregulation.

The case will hinge on the youth’s constitutional rights — a pivotal angle in recent environmental suits. When hearings begin in September in the U.S. District Court of Montana, the Lighthiser plaintiffs will argue that the three executive orders violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty. Additionally, they allege the president exceeded his authority by attempting to override laws like the Clean Air Act. As the case unfolds, it will have sweeping implications for the legal resistance to the Trump administration, and for the climate movement at large.

While the most dangerous consequences of the executive orders will play out over years, from environmental degradation to increased carbon emissions, the plaintiffs can also point to more immediate personal consequences. That could help them prove that the orders harmed them directly, providing legal grounds for the case, which are often questioned in climate lawsuits.

Delaney Reynolds, a graduate student in climate policy and one of the plaintiffs in Lighthiser v. Trump, described the immediate impacts of the orders on her own work. “[Trump] took down the National Climate Assessment reports and website, so they’re no longer accessible,” she said. “Those reports and other scientific documents are all things that I’ve been personally using for my PhD dissertation. So now that I don’t have access to them, my ability to even get my degree is under threat.”

Reynolds also said that the potential impacts of the case extend far beyond the three executive orders that they’re challenging. She referenced other climate lawsuits she’s led in Florida, some of which were unsuccessful. Despite a suit getting dismissed, she said, “we gained the support in the court of public opinion. News about the case spread all across the state. … It basically comes down to educating people even if the lawsuit isn’t successful.”

Dana R. Fisher, the director of American University’s Center for Environment, Community and Equity, agreed. Much of Fisher’s research explores the strategies and motivations of the grassroots climate movement. Her latest book, “Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action,” argues for mass mobilization in response to increasingly frequent and severe climate disasters. With that aim in mind, she says constitutional climate lawsuits can be a critical tool for raising public awareness. In particular, they can reach moderates and those who don’t follow electoral politics.

The Lighthiser case, she said, presents an opportunity to elicit support or inspire action from people who wanted to install heat pumps or solar panels, but now can’t. “Even if [the lawsuit isn’t] successful,” she added, “it will help shine a light on some of these things that are happening.”

They’re also hoping to build on the momentum from previous cases. Nine of the Lighthiser plaintiffs — as well as Our Children’s Trust, the public-interest law firm leading the suit along with Gregory Law Group, McGarvey Law and Public Justice — recently scored a landmark victory in the case of Held v. Montana, which was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court last year. It argued that Montana’s aggressive fossil fuel extraction violated a state constitutional right to “a clean and healthful environment.” Our Children’s Trust and several of the Lighthiser plaintiffs from Hawaii were also successful last year in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, which marked the first ever settlement between a state and youth plaintiffs to address constitutional climate concerns.

Despite those major wins, some differences set Lighthiser v. Trump apart as an especially difficult uphill battle. The challenges of taking on Trump directly, along with many of his secretaries and agencies, also named as defendants in the case, are difficult to overstate. It is all but certain that the president and his supporters will try to pressure the judiciary. Moreover, this is not a repeat of the cases against Montana or Hawaii, in which state constitutions set clearer protections for environmental rights. Lightiser has a national scope, and it’s already getting attention. Nineteen states — all Republican led — have filed an unusual motion to intervene in the case, defending Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mandate. Among more than 450 legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders, this is the only time states have sought such an intervention.

Previous Coverage

How suing the US government can empower the climate movement

The closest parallel to Lightiser in recent litigation might be Juliana v. United States, another high-profile youth climate suit led by Our Children’s Trust. That unsuccessful case was closed by the Supreme Court in March after nearly a decade of government avoidance and extreme legal tactics. It also had national implications, challenging the U.S. government’s investment in fossil fuels on constitutional grounds.

But Liz Lee, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, emphasized that the new Lighthiser case is not “Juliana 2.0.” The major difference, she said, is that “the 21 Juliana plaintiffs were challenging the systemic national energy plan. … But this time around, we’re really focusing on the three executive orders.” That narrower focus means that there’s a clear remedy in this case, which has been a difficulty in more sweeping legal challenges. This time, as Lee put it, “You can’t say, well, climate change is too big. It’s too hard. We can’t handle it. Here, you revoke the executive orders.”

Our Children’s Trust has also been working to raise awareness and build public support for the case. They hosted a large press conference and rally on Capitol Hill on July 16, celebrating the introduction of concurrent House and Senate resolutions intended to support the lawsuit. The resolutions affirm young people’s fundamental right to a clean environment and condemn the executive actions of the Trump administration. They were introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley and Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Pramila Jayapal, and Jamie Raskin, along with eight Democratic senators and 43 representatives.

Although the resolutions are essentially symbolic, Fisher said they present an important opportunity to broaden the reach of the lawsuit and engage legislators, as climate activists set longer-term organizing goals and Democrats seek to regain control of Congress in the midterms. Resolutions “are a good way to gauge interest and get support,” she said, “particularly for minority folks when they’re not in power, so that they have a coalition already supporting an issue. Especially with the hope that there will be a turning of the tides.”

Rep. Jayapal spoke at the rally, urging young people to fight back against the Trump administration’s actions in the courts and Congress. “Every single one of us — no matter our age, our background, our race, our income — has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And you cannot divorce the future of our planet from that right… This administration is intent on destroying our planet, all to make the rich even richer. All of that action denies our youth a just future.”

Underscoring the urgency of Lighthiser v. Trump, the devastation and death tolls from this year’s unprecedented climate disasters continue to rise. As the U.S. heads into hurricane season, with FEMA and other emergency response agencies severely impaired, many communities have already faced horrific floods, storms, fires and heat waves. From Texas to California, hundreds of people have been killed in recent events fueled by global warming.

Young people, in particular, are experiencing a steep mental toll from the impacts of climate change, sometimes termed “eco-grief.” A slew of studies and articles have documented the rise in climate anxiety, all of which illustrate the critical role of youth in environmental litigation and the broader green movement. This sort of personal harm is exactly what youth climate lawsuits like Lighthiser v. Trump must prove in court.

At the same time, Fisher said, the tragic results of extreme weather often motivate communities and individuals to take action. “Personal experiences open up these windows of opportunity,” she said. “Research documents how even if you are very right-leaning, if you personally experience a climate-exacerbated extreme event, or what we call climate shocks, it actually does change your attitude. People’s attitudes shift to be more supportive of climate action and more supportive of climate science.”

That attitude shift could help the Lighthiser plaintiffs capture wider public attention and build bipartisan support for their case, even as the administration pushes back in the months to come. Although it’s certain to be a tough legal battle, the youth in the suit have no hesitation when it comes to the stakes. Eva Lighthiser, the 19-year-old named plaintiff, said in a press release, “I’m not suing because I want to — I’m suing because I have to. My health, my future and my right to speak the truth are all on the line.”

Without action, Lighthiser said, “Trump’s fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation.”

This article A new youth-led lawsuit is challenging Trump’s fossil fuel orders was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis

Source: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/07/lighthiser-trump-youth-climate-executive-orders/