Lighthiser v. Trump

Lighthiser v. Trump

What’s at stake:

Twenty-two youth plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana to challenge a coordinated set of executive orders issued in 2025. The challenged executive orders “unleash” fossil fuel development and amount to a wholesale attack on clean renewable energy and climate science—escalating the climate emergency and threatening the constitutional rights of young people.

The District Court issued an Order finding that that climate change presents a children’s health emergency and that the Challenged Executive Orders cause and contribute to the Youth Plaintiff’s injuries. The District Court dismissed the case, however, for lack of standing. Youth Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Update

On June 2, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that Youth Plaintiffs could not challenge all of the agency actions implementing the executive orders in one case. The panel found that Youth Plaintiffs’ injuries could not be traced to the challenged actions, and that the court could not redress Plaintiffs’ injuries. But in doing so, the Ninth Circuit’s decision entirely ignored Youth Plaintiffs’ uncontested evidence linking the challenged actions to Plaintiffs’ injuries and cited binding cases that mandated a different result. Counsel for Youth Plaintiffs are currently reviewing the decision carefully and assessing all potential legal options for these youth whose lives and liberties are at stake.

Core Legal Problem

The suit challenges the orders as ultra vires and unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The orders are not authorized under any constitutional or statutory provision. The executive orders violate the Constitution by immediately threatening essential aspects of plaintiffs’ lives, including their health, safety, bodily integrity, opportunity to pursue happiness, and their full natural lifespans and a livable future.

On September 16 and 17, 2025 a two-day hearing was held where Judge Dana L. Christensen heard arguments and live testimony from witnesses for both parties on two motions: a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the youth plaintiffs asking the court to halt the implementation of Executive Orders 14156, 14154, and 1426 until their case is decided, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the youths’ case. The District Court dismissed youth plaintiffs’ case. After finding that the government’s actions created a “children’s health emergency,” the District Court nonetheless found that it could not do anything to redress Plaintiffs’ injuries. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.