The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a constitutional climate lawsuit brought by young plaintiffs against President Donald trump‘s executive orders promoting fossil fuel energy. The ruling, issued on June 2, 2026, upheld a Montana District Court’s decision from last fall, stating that the plaintiffs did not establish a plausible connection between their alleged injuries and the executive orders in question.
The lawsuit, Lighthiser v. Trumpwas initiated by Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based advocacy law firm known for its climate change litigation. The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s executive orders would accelerate climate change and cause harm throughout their lives. However, the court found the requested injunction to be overly broad and complex, noting that it would require extensive judicial supervision of executive branch actions related to energy policy.
Court’s Reasoning and Implications
The three-judge panel, including Lawrence VanDyke, John Owens, and Jennifer Sung, agreed that the plaintiffs’ request to challenge hundreds of agency actions in a single lawsuit was unprecedented. The court’s memorandum emphasized that such a sweeping injunction would circumvent established jurisdictional and procedural rules. “By effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions,” the court wrote.
The challenged executive orders were Trump’s Executive Orders 14154“Unleashing American Energy,” 14156“Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” and 14261“Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry.” The court noted that granting an injunction rolling back these orders would require “extensive judicial supervision of executive branch actions related to energy policy.” The plaintiffs sought to undo a wide range of actions, from staffing reductions to the revocation of research grants and anticipated rule changes.
Reactions from Both Sides
Julia Olson, Chief Legal Counsel of Our Children’s Trust, criticized the decision, stating that it allows the President to direct a fossil fuel agenda without Congressional approval or judicial review. “This decision 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,” Olson said. The White House, however, celebrated the decision, with spokesperson Taylor Rogers calling it “another massive victory for President trump and his commonsense energy dominance agenda.”
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen praised the court’s decision, stating that it proved the case was an attempt to stop President Trump’s pro-energy policies. “We couldn’t have asked for a better outcome, as now two courts have proven that we were right all along,” Knudsen said. Our Children’s Trust, however, vowed to assess all legal options available to the young plaintiffs, whose lives, health, safety, and futures are at stake.
The Plaintiffs’ Perspective
Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser of Livingston expressed disappointment with the court’s decision, stating that the court never said the harm wasn’t real. “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,” Lighthiser said. The court’s decision highlighted the challenges faced by young plaintiffs in seeking judicial review of executive actions that they believe will have long-term environmental impacts.
The ruling underscores the complex interplay between executive power, judicial review, and environmental advocacy. As the debate over climate policy continues, this case serves as a significant precedent for future litigation involving executive orders and their impact on the environment.
