Twenty-two young Americans, 10 of whom prevailed in the Held v. Montana constitutional climate case, are suing the Trump administration over its climate and energy policies.
The plaintiffs argue in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that by dismantling climate protections and working to “unleash†American energy, the executive branch is violating the separation of powers clause in the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs also argue that the president’s executive orders are threatening their rights to life and liberty.
The lead plaintiff in the litigation is Eva Lighthiser, a 19-year-old Livingston resident who also was a plaintiff in a constitutional lawsuit that challenged Montana’s permissive approach to approving fossil fuel projects. Lighthiser is joined by Rikki Held and eight other plaintiffs from the Montana litigation, as well as a handful of young Americans from Hawaii, Oregon, Florida and California.
During a seven-day bench trial in 2023, the Held lawsuit focused an international spotlight on Montana and its unique constitutional guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment,†which the district court — and later the Montana Supreme Court — interpreted to include a “stable climate system.â€
RELATED
Montana Supreme Court sides with youth plaintiffs in landmark climate lawsuit
The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling in a precedent-setting constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 16 young Montanans.
The federal lawsuit Lighthiser and her co-plaintiffs filed on May 29 challenges three executive orders that Trump issued during the first three months of his second term in the White House. The plaintiffs argue that the orders have suppressed climate science and slowed the transition to renewable energy sources in favor of fossil fuels, “thereby worsening the air pollution and climate conditions that immediately harm and endanger Plaintiffs’ lives and personal security.â€
The plaintiffs are asking the court to invalidate the executive orders and direct Trump and the 11 federal agencies listed as defendants not to implement or enforce them.
“President Trump’s EOs falsely claim an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that fossil fuel pollution is destroying the foundation of Plaintiffs’ lives,†the reads.
In a press release about the lawsuit, Lighthiser described Trump’s fossil fuel directives as a “death sentence for my generation.â€
“I’m not suing because I want to — I’m suing because I have to,†said Lighthiser, who plans to pursue environmental studies in college. “My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line. [President Trump is] waging war on us with fossil fuels as his weapon, and we’re fighting back with the Constitution.â€
RELATED
Trump energy policy aims to unplug Endangered Species Act
President Donald Trump has explicitly targeted the Endangered Species Act as an obstacle to his energy policies and appears intent to evade the 51-year-old law in other ways.
In an email to ³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏ on Thursday, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers defended Trump’s energy agenda.
“The American people are more concerned with the future generations’ economic and national security, which is why they elected President Trump in a landslide victory to restore America’s energy dominance. Future generations should not have to foot the bill for the lefts’ radical climate agenda,†Rogers wrote.
In addition to enumerating the climate harms plaintiffs have reported, including wildfire-related and heat-induced visits to the emergency room, diminished career opportunities, property damage spurred by extreme weather events and a loss of cultural and recreational traditions, the complaint outlines tensions between Trump’s executive orders and the missions of congressionally authorized agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
One of the executive orders named in the lawsuit directs federal agencies to identify and rescind actions that place an “undue burden†on the “identification, development or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral and nuclear energy resources.†Another directs executive branch agencies to use emergency powers to facilitate energy companies’ access to federally-owned energy resources and the infrastructure required to transport and process them. The third focuses on the development and prioritization of coal-fired electricity.
In the Held v. Montana case, the Montana Supreme Court directed the state to develop a system for inventorying and disclosing greenhouse gas emissions associated with large projects seeking state-issued permits. This spring, the Montana Legislature adopted a framework that state agencies like the Montana Department of Environmental Quality can use to quantify greenhouse gas emissions.
Many of the same attorneys who argued the Held v. Montana case are representing the plaintiffs in this litigation, including Roger Sullivan of Kalispell. Three of the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the case work for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit focused on climate litigation that spent the better part of a decade fighting the federal government in the Juliana v. United States lawsuit, a federal constitutional climate case that in the government’s favor.
LATEST STORIES
Jury finds former GOP strategist guilty of stalking
A Flathead County jury found a former Republican political strategist guilty on two counts of stalking based on texts, emails and letters he sent to and about his victim, as well as incendiary flyers he distributed in late 2023 and early 2024.
Montana’s American Indian Caucus touts historic success in 2025 legislative session
The state’s American Indian Caucus is a group of about a dozen Native American lawmakers who work together to advance legislation they say is good for Indian Country. This year, the group saw historic success in advancing their priority bills.
Questions and answers about Montana’s new second-home tax
In an effort to lower property tax bills for homeowners and landlords who provide long-term rental housing, the state Legislature and Gov. Gianforte passed major tax relief legislation that will scale back taxes on most homes being used as primary residences while offsetting those cuts with higher taxes on most other residential properties starting in 2026. The MTFP newsroom is fielding many, many questions about new tax law from readers. Here are the most common ones — and the best answers we currently have.