A legal effort by 22 young Americans to curb atmosphere-warming greenhouse gas emissions experienced a major setback Tuesday. The Ninth Circuit Court rejected a lawsuit seeking to reverse President Donald Trump’s efforts to expand fossil fuel development. In a 10-page opinion, the Ninth Circui t wrote that the climate change-related injuries the plaintiffs reported in their litigation bear too tenuous a tie to a trio of executive orders they sought to reverse with the lawsuit.  Those executive orders, issued in the early days of Trump’s second term, directed federal agencies to “unleash” American energy, use emergency powers to expedite permitting for fossil fuel extraction, and identify and rescind actions that place an “undue burden [on] domestic energy resources” such as oil, gas, hydropower and biofuels. Drawing extensive parallels between Juliana v. United States, a decade-long lawsuit seeking a federal climate response plan, the court foregrounded separation-of-power concerns in its opinion. The judges in 2024 wrote that the judicial branch lacks the power to grant or enforce the federal policy changes the plaintiffs requested. “Similar to the injunction requested in Juliana, the injunction Plaintiffs seek would require extensive judicial supervision of executive branch actions related to energy policy,” the trio of appellate judges wrote. “Indeed, Plaintiffs explicitly seek to undo everything from staffing reductions, to the revocation of research grants, to anticipated rule changes, to the type of language the current administration has used on government websites. To assign such policy-laden choices to one district court would invert the ‘common understanding what activities are appropriate to legislatures, to executives, and to courts.’”Julia Olson, co-director of Our Children’s Trust, the Oregon-based nonprofit that represented the plaintiffs in the litigation, maintains that the executive orders are unconstitutional and expressed frustration with the court’s decision not to examine that component of the litigation. “[The court] did not decide whether the federal government may knowingly endanger children,” Olson wrote in a statement. “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.” In an email to Montana Free Press, White House spokesperson Taylor Rodgers described the order as “another massive victory for President Trump and his commonsense energy agenda.” “The President will continue to unleash reliable, affordable and secure energy, which is critical to the United States’ economic and national security,” Rodgers wrote. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who intervened in the litigation to support the Trump administration, echoed that sentiment in a Tuesday afternoon statement. “We couldn’t have asked for a better outcome, as now two courts have proven that we were right all along — this case was nothing more than an attempt to stop President Trump’s pro-energy policies and push a bad-for-Montana liberal climate agenda,” Knudsen said. The Ninth Circuit issued the decision about two months after an oral argument before the appellate judges. The appellate court’s decision followed a two-day hearing last September in which the plaintiffs described climate-change related harms and outlined a path toward a renewable-energy future for the country. At that hearing before district court judge Brian Christiensen, the plaintiffs, who reside in five states, described how climate-accelerated wildfire, flooding and drought have negatively affected their economic prospects and their physical and mental health. A month after the September hearing in Missoula, Christensen concluded that the plaintiffs had submitted “overwhelming evidence” that climate change was affecting them. The plaintiffs also made a strong case that climate change would worsen as a result of the Trump orders, Christensen wrote, but ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had submitted an “unworkable request.” In her statement, Lighthiser leaned into the district court’s finding that climate change is altering her life and her co-plaintiffs’ lives for the worse. “The court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn’t real. They just said they won’t stop the harm,” she said. “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.” As of Tuesday afternoon, it is unclear if the plaintiffs would appeal the decision. A spokesperson for Our Children’s Trust wrote in an email to Montana Free Press that the plaintiffs are deciding on their next steps for the lawsuit. If the plaintiffs appealed the decision, it is unlikely that they would find a warmer reception in the Supreme Court, which is dominated by conservative justices who have demonstrated a willingness to give Trump a long leash in pursuit of his administration’s objectives. Ten of the plaintiffs in the Lighthiser v. Trump litigation prevailed in the Held v. Montana constitutional climate case. In that litigation, the Montana Supreme Court found that Montanans’ right to a “clean and healthful environment” includes the right to a “stable climate system.” In 2024, the state’s highest court directed Montana agencies to inventory and disclose the climate-related impacts of large energy projects such as coal mines and power plants as part of the state’s permitting process. The post Ninth Circuit Court denies young Americans’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s handling of climate change appeared first on Montana Free Press. ...read more read less