PORTLAND — A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the youth climate lawsuit Lighthiser v. Trump on Tuesday, ruling that the judiciary cannot supervise federal energy policy. The court held that it is not the role of the judiciary to oversee government energy policy decisions.
The lawsuit, filed in Montana by 22 youth plaintiffs, challenged three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump at the beginning of his second term, including 'Unleashing American Energy' and 'Declaring a National Energy Emergency,' both issued on his first day back in office. The plaintiffs sought a court declaration that the executive orders were unconstitutional and requested an injunction blocking their implementation.
A federal district court in Montana had dismissed the case last fall, finding that redressing the plaintiffs’ alleged harms would require the court to supervise numerous federal agencies and actions—a role the judiciary cannot assume without intruding into policymaking. The district court cited the Ninth Circuit’s prior dismissal of Juliana v. United States as binding precedent.
The Ninth Circuit panel, composed of one Obama appointee, one Biden appointee, and one Trump appointee, agreed with the lower court. The judges stated they were 'not persuaded' that the relief sought in Lighthiser v. Trump was meaningfully different from that in Juliana v. United States, as both cases would necessitate extensive judicial supervision of executive branch energy policy. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that a declaration of unconstitutionality would provide meaningful relief.
Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser said, 'The court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn’t real. They just said they wouldn’t stop the harm.' She added, '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.'
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, said, '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.' Olson also said, '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 Department of Justice stated that the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not establish that the executive orders caused any injury or that any injury could be redressed by the courts. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who led a 19-state coalition intervening in support of the Trump administration, said, 'My office was happy to step in and help the Trump Administration litigate this case.' Our Children’s Trust said attorneys are reviewing the decision and assessing all legal options. It is unclear whether the plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.