Ninth Circuit Denies 22 Young Americans Their Day in Court, Dismissing Constitutional Climate Case Against Trump Fossil Fuel Orders
Contacts:
Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel, 415.786.4825, julia@ourchildrenstrust.org
Helen Britto, Communications Director, 925.588.1171, helen@ourchildrenstrust.org
Nicole Funaro, Media Relations Strategist, communications@publicjustice.net
PORTLAND, Ore. — Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump, a youth-led constitutional climate case brought by 22 young Americans from Montana, Oregon, Hawai’i, California, and Florida. The court did not decide whether the Executive Orders are constitutional or whether the youth plaintiffs are injured by the federal government’s conduct. Instead, the panel held that the youth plaintiffs could not challenge the President’s sweeping Executive Orders and their coordinated implementation in one case, effectively forcing children to pursue separate challenges to individual agency actions while the harms to their lives, health, and futures continue to compound.
In an “unpublished” decision, meaning the court believes the decision should not be used as precedent, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless embraced reasoning that would make it harder for young people to challenge sweeping, unconstitutional executive orders that endanger their health and safety before they cause further harm. The opinion turns the motion-to-dismiss standard on its head. At the pleading stage, the court was required to credit the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded factual allegations and uncontested evidence that the Executive Orders are driving a coordinated federal effort to expand fossil fuel production, suppress climate science, and worsen the climate crisis.
The decision ignores the facts alleged in the complaint and the basic function of Executive Orders, which direct federal agencies to act. As required at this stage of litigation, the plaintiffs presented well-pleaded allegations and uncontested evidence that the Executive Orders are already being carried out across the federal government to expand fossil fuel production, suppress climate science, and worsen the climate crisis. Rather than crediting that record, the court dismissed it as speculation. In doing so, the court substituted its own assumptions for the plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence, and effectively told these young people to wait for more implementation and more harm before seeking constitutional review.
The panel further concluded that stopping implementation of the Executive Orders would require excessive judicial supervision of federal energy policy. The plaintiffs, however, did not ask the court to dictate or manage energy policy. They asked the court to prohibit the executive orders they alleged are unconstitutional, a traditional and essential judicial function.
“This decision lets the President direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece. That is not how the Constitution works,” said Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel and Co-Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust. “The court did not decide whether these Executive Orders are constitutional. It did not decide whether the federal government may knowingly endanger children. Instead, it slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives and told them to file hundreds of cases against every agency action carrying out the President’s unconstitutional Executive Orders. Courts do not become policymakers when they stop unconstitutional government action. That is their job. These young people deserve a court willing to do it.”
“The court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn’t real. They just said they wouldn’t stop the harm,” said lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser. “They had the power to act and they chose not to. By the time we are harmed enough to satisfy them, it will be too late. I am a young person. This is my life, my health, my future. And I deserve better than this. We all do.”
“The Trump Administration is responsible for a children’s health emergency by obligating federal agencies to take actions that dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and climate change,” said Dan Snyder, Director of Public Justice’s Environmental Enforcement Project. “The Ninth Circuit makes no mention of this emergency. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s decision is shocking in what it lacks. The Court didn’t even consider U.S. Supreme Court decisions — or decisions from within its own Circuit — which would require it to reach a very different decision than the one it did today. The Court ignored significant and undisputed facts that Trump’s executive orders are causing real-world injuries to our children today. And the Court ignores its most basic responsibility: finding workable remedies that provide relief to the uncontested injuries being inflicted by the Trump administration on our kids.”
Uncontested factual findings from the District Court of Montana that the Ninth Circuit’s decision ignored included:
- “The record [] demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children’s health emergency.” District Court Opinion page 10.
- “Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that implementation of the Challenged EOs will increase the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, thereby exacerbating the harms Plaintiffs experience from an already-warming climate.” District Court Opinion page 10.
- “Plaintiffs allege that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary pollutant from extracting and burning fossil fuels, will continue to cause temperatures to rise and expose Plaintiffs to further life-threatening conditions. [] Plaintiffs’ expert testimony relates their injuries to increased exposure to atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the Challenged EOs.” District Court Opinion page 14.
- “[T]he facts before this Court[] establish concrete evidence that the Challenged EOs themselves will increase greenhouse gas emissions and, in turn, worsen the climate-related injuries alleged here.” District Court Opinion page 18.
- “The Court finds Plaintiffs’ experts sufficiently establish that the Challenged EOs will render a meaningful contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.” District Court Opinion page 20.
- “[T]he expert testimony in this matter demonstrates that injunctive relief would likely ameliorate Plaintiffs’ potential climate-related injuries.” District Court Opinion page 25.
The ruling follows oral argument in April, where plaintiffs asked the Court to reverse a lower court decision that dismissed their case before trial and prevented them from presenting their full evidentiary record. The youth plaintiffs argued that three executive orders — directing federal agencies to “unleash” fossil fuels, obstruct clean energy, and suppress climate science — violate their constitutional rights to life and liberty and exceed the President’s legal authority.
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are reviewing the decision carefully and assessing all legal options available to these young people, whose lives, health, safety, and futures are on the line.
# # #
Our Children’s Trust was founded in 2010 on the idea that courts are vital to democracy and empowered to protect our children and the planet. Without a stable climate system, every natural resource we rely upon to exercise our basic human rights—life, liberty, home, happiness—is under threat. Our work will be achieved when there is universal recognition of children’s climate rights by courts around the world and children’s fundamental rights to life on this planet are protected. www.ourchildrenstrust.org
Public Justice takes on the most significant systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We link high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to combat these abusive and discriminatory systems and achieve social and economic justice. For more information, visit www.public-justice.org