Ninth Circuit Unanimously Upholds Dismissal of Youth Climate Lawsuit Against Trump Energy Orders

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the 22 youth plaintiffs in Lighthiser v. Trump failed to establish standing to challenge three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term. The panel affirmed a federal district court decision from last fall that dismissed the case in Montana.

The lower court had found it could not redress the plaintiffs’ alleged harms without overseeing multiple federal agencies and actions. The Ninth Circuit panel, sitting in Portland, Oregon, heard arguments in April. It concluded that the requested relief would require extensive judicial supervision of executive branch energy policy and that the challenge was not meaningfully different from the earlier Juliana v.

United States case, which the same court had dismissed. The panel stated that the Lighthiser plaintiffs’ attempt to contest hundreds of agency actions through a single lawsuit was unprecedented. It also rejected the argument that a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the orders would deliver meaningful relief.

The three judges—an Obama appointee, a Biden appointee, and a Trump appointee—issued the ruling after the case reached the appeals court from Montana, the home state of many of the plaintiffs. Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser said the court never stated the harm was not real. “They just said they wouldn’t stop the harm,” she said.

Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, said the decision did not address whether the orders are constitutional or whether the government may endanger children. She said the ruling directed the plaintiffs to file separate cases against each agency action.

The Department of Justice stated that the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs did not establish injury caused by the orders or redressability by the courts.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who led a 19-state coalition intervening in support of the administration, called the outcome a huge win for Montana. He said two courts had confirmed the case was an attempt to block President Trump’s pro-energy policies.

The challenged orders include “Unleashing American Energy” and “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” both issued on President Trump’s first day back in office.

The plaintiffs had asked the court to declare the orders unconstitutional and to block further implementation. The youth plaintiffs previously prevailed in Held v. Montana, the first climate case of its kind to reach trial in the United States, which challenged a state law limiting consideration of climate impacts in fossil fuel permitting.

Our Children’s Trust said in a press release that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are reviewing the decision and assessing all legal options.