9th Circuit Rejects Youth Climate Lawsuit Over Trump Energy Orders

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by twenty children and young adults challenging three 2024 Trump executive orders that direct agencies to boost coal production, declare a national energy emergency, and accelerate fossil-fuel development. The panel said the plaintiffs could not plausibly show that an injunction would likely prevent future emissions-inducing actions.

Common Dreams

The suit was filed in May 2025 in the District of Montana by lead plaintiffs Eva Lighthiser and Rikki Held, joined by eighteen other youths, and was represented by Our Children’s Trust and Public Justice. The plaintiffs argued the three 2024 orders would worsen climate change and threaten children’s health. Judge Dana Christensen dismissed the case, leading to the Ninth Circuit appeal.

Common Dreams

The case involved twenty plaintiffs challenging three executive orders; they sought an injunction to halt agency actions they said would increase greenhouse-gas emissions.

Common Dreams

The ruling underscores judicial reluctance to enjoin broad executive energy directives based on speculative harms, highlighting procedural hurdles for youth climate suits and limiting court oversight of presidential energy policy.

Common Dreams

Julia Olson of Our Children’s Trust said the decision permits a fossil-fuel agenda without congressional authorization and curtails judicial review of actions that endanger children. Dan Snyder of Public Justice called the ruling a disregard of a children’s health emergency and noted the lack of reference to relevant Supreme Court precedent.

Common Dreams

The plaintiffs’ counsel argue the court’s refusal to enjoin the orders deprives children of effective legal recourse for alleged health and climate harms and sidesteps constitutional principles that allow courts to intervene when government actions pose imminent injury to vulnerable populations.

Common Dreams

• “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.” — Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director, Our Children’s Trust

Common Dreams

• “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," Dan Snyder, director of Public Justice's Environmental Enforcement Project, said Tuesday.” — Dan Snyder, director, Public Justice’s Environmental Enforcement Project

Common Dreams

• “ "The court didn't even consider US 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," he highlighted.” — Dan Snyder, director, Public Justice’s Environmental Enforcement Project

Common Dreams

The appellate opinion did not address the constitutionality of the executive orders or determine whether the alleged injuries to children are imminent, leaving those legal questions unresolved.

Common Dreams

The plaintiffs indicated they may file separate actions against individual agency implementations of the orders, and observers anticipate further challenges focused on specific regulatory measures.

Common Dreams