A group of young Americans is suing over US President Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel policies, claiming they violate their rights. Photo / Getty Images
A group of young Americans is suing over US President Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel policies, claiming they violate their rights. Photo / Getty Images
Smoke-choked air that fills their lungs, floods that threaten their homes and heat strokes that strike without warning: a group of young Americans testified today that United States President Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel push is trampling their inalienable rights.
Lighthiser vs Trump is emblematic of a growing global trend of legalaction as a tool to push action on planetary warming amid political inertia or outright hostility.
At issue are three executive orders that “unleash” fossil fuel development and curb the electric vehicle market, invoke emergency powers to accelerate drilling, and designate coal a “mineral”, granting it priority status for extraction.
The group is also contesting the US Government’s actions undermining federal climate science.
A two-day hearing opened in a federal courtroom in Missoula, Montana, where Julia Olson, lead lawyer for the 22 plaintiffs, framed the dispute as a constitutional test.
“Does the US Constitution guard against executive abuses of power by executive order that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights to life and to their liberties?” she asked.
Michael Sawyer, representing the Trump Administration, countered that the case itself undermined democracy.
“This is, at its core, an anti-democratic lawsuit,” he argued.
“We just had an election. One of the major issues in that election was a duelling perspective on emissions, energy policy, and they are now stepping in and asking the court to overrule the results.”
Witnesses grilled
The spotlight then shifted to the young plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit Our Children’s Trust, who described how climate change is reshaping their lives.
JM, an adolescent minor from Livingstone, Montana, said that even in her short life, she has seen snowfall decline, wildfire seasons lengthen, and flooding worsen.
One blaze forced her family to evacuate, and she remembers worrying about the family’s horses and dogs.
“Just experiencing that from a young age put the fear of wildfire in me,” she said.
Asked how she would feel if climate change worsened, she replied that “it would be heartbreaking to watch my Montana burn”.
Another plaintiff, Joseph Lee, 19, recalled wildfires in California last year that destroyed the home of a friend.
“I don’t know if I’m going to be next – are my parents going to be safe?” he told the court.
Asked why he chose to participate in the lawsuit, Lee, who has been hospitalised for heat stroke, said while he wasn’t hoping to undo climate change completely, it was possible to stop it getting worse. “A better future is possible.”
The young people faced tough questioning from government lawyers, who grilled JM over her family’s decision to keep three horses – arguing that raising them contributed to greenhouse emissions – and implying she was being hypocritical.
Eva Lighthiser (second, right), lead plaintiff in the Lighthiser vs Trump case, walks with lawyer Mat dos Santos as they arrive at the Russell Smith Courthouse in Missoula, Montana. Photo / AFP
Long odds
Expert witnesses, including renowned climate scientist Steven Running and former senior White House official John Podesta, are set to take the stand today. The Government has not called any witnesses.
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that could open the door to a full trial.
The federal Government, joined by 19 conservative-leaning states and the territory of Guam, wants the case thrown out.
Most observers give the youths long odds.
Judge Dana Christensen, an Obama appointee with a record of pro-environment rulings, is presiding – but even if the plaintiffs notch a win, the case would then almost certainly land before the conservative-dominated Supreme Court.
“They’re trying to frame it as a matter of substance or due process, but that would require novel rulings from the courts to apply that to climate change,” Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental law at Columbia University told AFP.
“This Supreme Court is more about taking away rights than granting them, unless you’re a gun owner.”
The legal team points to recent state-level wins: a 2023 Montana ruling that oil and gas permits violated the state’s constitutional right to a clean environment, and a 2024 Hawaii settlement mandating faster decarbonisation of its transport sector.
But the record has proven bleak at the federal level.
The most prominent case was filed in 2015, Juliana vs United States, and eventually got dismissed after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal earlier this year.
