Youth Plaintiffs Challenge Trump's Climate Policies in Landmark Court Case

Youth Challengers Argue Against Trump’s Climate Policies in Federal Court

MISSOULA — A significant court case unfolded on Tuesday as four young plaintiffs presented their arguments against the climate policies established by the Trump administration. They contended that recent executive orders related to energy are unconstitutional, significantly affecting their daily lives through increased wildfires and extreme weather conditions. The case, known as Lighthiser v. Trump, seeks to halt these policies, which prioritize coal industry support and announce a national energy emergency.

Ranging in ages from 11 to 20, the plaintiffs shared personal experiences that illustrated how climate change has adversely impacted their health and well-being. The government’s energy strategies, they claim, worsen pollution and other climate-related issues. In contrast, federal attorneys maintained that the courtroom is not the right venue for addressing energy policy disputes and called for the case to be dismissed.

This court appearance follows an earlier lawsuit in May, where 22 young individuals initiated legal action against the Trump administration. This group included some plaintiffs from the Held v. Montana case, asserting that executive orders infringe upon their Fifth Amendment rights. The current hearing is set to span two days.

Joseph Lee from California recounted his struggles with asthma exacerbated by wildfire smoke and rising temperatures. He described a frightening incident last year when he experienced heat stroke, which heightened his sensitivity to heat and left him anxious about outdoor activities. Seventeen-year-old Jorja M. from Livingston reflected on how climate change has disrupted local ski seasons and led to significant flooding that affected her family's veterinary business.

Avery McRae, an Oregon resident, shared her experience of evacuations due to hurricanes in Florida and articulated how the escalating wildfire threat has increased her anxiety about the future. McRae, currently studying environmental studies, expressed uncertainty regarding her career path, fearing the prospect of prolonged wildfire seasons might lead to deeper despair.

Approximately 50 supporters expressed solidarity with the youth plaintiffs at the Russell Smith Courthouse in Missoula on September 16, 2025. This case marks a historic first as a federal court hears live testimony in a constitutional climate lawsuit initiated by young people from multiple states, including Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, and California. Credit: John Stember / MTFP

McRae was also involved in the Juliana v. United States lawsuit, which concluded in favor of the government. Federal attorney Michael Sawyer observed that this current case shares similarities with Juliana, yet attorneys argue it takes a specific aim at halting three executive orders rather than proposing an overarching climate plan.

Testifying as an expert, climate researcher Steven Running emphasized the importance of every ton of carbon emissions in contributing to climate change, reaffirming the scientific consensus that all emissions have consequences. Additionally, John Podesta, a climate advisor in the Biden administration, explained the executive order process, asserting that the court has a role in addressing the harm caused by such orders to the plaintiffs. In their defense, federal attorneys cautioned that judicial intervention is premature, given the potential for new administrations to revise prior policies.

In support of dismissing the case, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, along with 18 other states and Guam, filed a motion citing significant state interests. The hearings are set to continue Wednesday with further testimonies and discussions.