A federal judge in Montana has dismissed a closely watched climate lawsuit brought by 22 young Americans against President Donald Trump, marking a significant—if procedural—turn in the expanding field of youth-led climate litigation.
In a 31-page order issued on October 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen ruled that the plaintiffs in Lighthiser vs. Trump lacked the constitutional standing required to pursue their claims. “This case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” Christensen wrote, explaining that although the court found the plaintiffs’ evidence “convincing,” it could not provide a judicial remedy for the broad harms alleged.
Newsweek contacted attorneys for the plaintiffs via email for comment outside of normal office hours on Thursday.
Why It Matters
The October 15 decision in Lighthiser vs. Trump matters less for its outcome than for what it reveals about the limits of American climate law. In dismissing the youth-led challenge to three of Trump’s energy executive orders, Christensen made clear that while courts recognize the scientific urgency of climate change, they remain constrained by constitutional boundaries that leave national policy to the political branches.
The ruling underscores a growing divide between scientific consensus and judicial capacity, confirming that federal courts are reluctant to dictate or monitor energy policy—even when plaintiffs show credible evidence of harm.
For climate advocates, it signals that meaningful change may depend more on state courts and elected officials than on the federal judiciary.
What To Know
The Case and the Challenge
In May 2025, the plaintiffs—aged 7 to 25—challenged three executive orders signed during Trump’s first months back in office: 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.
They argued the measures violated their constitutional rights to life and liberty by accelerating fossil-fuel production, halting climate-related programs, and rescinding clean-energy initiatives.
Christensen’s Reluctant Dismissal
Christensen acknowledged that the plaintiffs presented substantial testimony and scientific data during a two-day hearing in September. The evidence, he wrote, showed that the executive orders “would hasten climate change and exacerbate risks to the plaintiffs’ health and safety.”
Yet, the judge added, “Plaintiffs are effectively asking that this court order the United States to return to the environmental policy of the previous administration.”
Such a request, he said, would require judicial oversight of “an untold number” of federal agencies and actions—“an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent.”
The dismissal echoed reasoning from Juliana vs. United States, a 2015 youth-climate case led by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust.
Like Juliana, Lighthiser was found to raise questions “too broad in scope and too amorphous to be actionable.”
The court concluded that separation-of-powers principles prevented it from ordering the executive branch to adopt a particular climate policy.
Still, Christensen made clear that the scientific and moral issues raised were not lost on him. “The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children’s health emergency,” he wrote.
But he also stressed that “this concern does not automatically confer upon [the court] the power to act.” Ultimately, he said, such policy disputes “must be made to the political branches or to the electorate.”
Reaction and Broader Impact
The decision was immediately welcomed by officials defending the executive orders.
“Today’s decision from the District of Montana throws out a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump’s energy agenda,” said Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, whose office had intervened in the case, said in a statement that the ruling “affirmed what the Constitution already makes clear: courts exist to decide concrete disputes, not to supervise national energy policy.”
Julia Olson, founder of Our Children’s Trust and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, described the decision as a setback, but not the end of the fight. “The judge recognized that the government’s fossil-fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent,” she said. “The courts cannot offer more protection to fossil-fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights.”
Olson confirmed that her team intends to appeal.
Legal scholars noted that Christensen’s order, though jurisdictional, carries implications for future climate-rights litigation.
Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, noting the question is whether a constitutional basis exists for the court to act, said: “Striking down executive orders ‘can be done in a proper case if there is a legal basis for it.’”
While Debra Sivas, a professor at Stanford Law School, contrasting federal limits with state constitutions that explicitly protect environmental rights, said: “The U.S. Constitution does not have such language, and the federal courts have rejected attempts over the years to find a right to a clean environment.”
Describing plaintiffs’ narrower approach in Lighthiser, Mary Wood, a University of Oregon law professor, said: “It’s a discrete request in the here and now designed to prevent further, ongoing harm.”
For now, the decision underscores a recurring pattern in U.S. climate jurisprudence: courts acknowledge the reality and dangers of global warming, but decline to dictate national policy responses.
What People Are Saying
Judge Dana L. Christensen, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana: “However compelling the scientific record before it, this court is not empowered to draft or supervise the nation’s climate policy. That responsibility lies with the coordinate branches of government and, ultimately, with the electorate.”
He added, “The plaintiffs have demonstrated with striking clarity that the impacts of a warming planet fall disproportionately upon the young. The court does not question either the sincerity of their testimony or the legitimacy of their fears.”
On the limits of judicial remedies Christensen said: “The Constitution does not authorize this court to supervise the executive branch in perpetuity to ensure compliance with an injunction of such vast scope. To do so would transform the judiciary into an overseer of policy rather than an arbiter of law.”
What Happens Next
The youth plaintiffs in Lighthiser vs. Trump plan to appeal Christensen’s dismissal to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the court erred in finding it lacked authority to address the alleged harms from Trump’s energy executive orders. Unless overturned, the ruling leaves those orders in effect and reinforces the broad discretion presidents have over national energy policy.
At the same time, it shifts momentum toward state-level cases—like Held vs. Montana and Navahine F. vs. Hawai‘i—where courts have been more receptive to youth climate claims under state constitutions.
Ultimately, the decision underscores that federal judges remain reluctant to dictate climate policy, placing the next moves in the hands of higher courts, elected officials, and voters.
