Children have a legal stake in climate change. After winning America’s first constitutional climate case brought by young people, the activists are now seeking a court order to roll back several of President Donald Trump’s energy policies. Their goal is to stop Trump’s orders that promote fossil fuels and hold the federal government accountable for the effects of climate change.
“Trump’s fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation,” Eva Lighthiser, a 19-year-old, said in the complaint for Lighthiser v. Trump. “I am not suing because I want to, I am suing because I have to. My health, my future and my right to speak the truth are all on the line.”
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
In August 2025, lawyers from the Department of Justice asked U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to toss the lawsuit. In its motion filed Aug. 4, the DOJ said the young advocates lack standing and that there is no constitutional right to energy policies. In addition, 19 states, as well as Guam, oppose this lawsuit and want the judge to dismiss it.
While the young people won their 2024 case in Montana’s state supreme court, arguing that the president’s drilling policies violated their constitutional rights, their federal case will likely prove to be a tougher battle. This year, the Supreme Court denied a similar federal climate lawsuit filed by the same nonprofit team behind the kids, Our Children’s Trust, after a decade-long legal battle.
The federal trial
A two-day hearing for the trial kicked off in a Missoula, Montana, federal courthouse last week. The children range from 7 to 24 years old. They plan to argue that Trump’s executive energy orders violated their Fifth Amendment rights.
“We’re seeing, especially when we’re talking about the fight for climate change, we are really seeing youth voices leading that charge,” Diana Imbert-Hodges, who runs Defying Legal Gravity, told Straight Arrow News.
Her nonprofit, a David Prize winner, teaches high school kids from low-income households about America’s legal system.
The 22 plaintiffs aim to show that Republicans violated their constitutional rights by accelerating global warming. According to The Associated Press, the plaintiffs plan to include testimony from a 19-year-old on the harms of wildfire smoke, a 17-year-old to speak about Trump’s role in her inability to ride an electric bus to school, and a 20-year-old Oregon woman being at risk of hurricanes and wildfires while attending college in Florida.
“Students can be able to bring litigation if necessary on the things that they really believe in to create the world that they want to see in the future,” Imbert-Hodges said. “And there’s no one else I put more faith in.”
First constitutional climate case brought by kids
Last year, the young environmental activists won in state court in Held v. Montana, where the historic ruling struck down a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act that limited consideration of climate impact in fossil fuel projects.
This was also the nation’s first constitutional climate case to go to trial, brought by children, according to Our Children’s Trust.
“In March 2020, 16 young Montanans courageously filed a lawsuit against their state, challenging laws and policies that promote fossil fuel development, accelerate the climate crisis, and inflict direct harm on their health and futures,” a July 2025 press release from the Our Children’s Trust said. “These laws, they argued, violate their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment, life, dignity, and freedom. The youth plaintiffs brought their claims to court to demand protection of their fundamental rights.”
In December 2024’s landmark decision, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution includes a right to a stable climate, which includes future climate considerations and generations.
“Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system,” the court wrote, “which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers’ inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment.”
While Montana’s case applied the state’s constitutional framework, the federal case will face a tougher legal hurdle since the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly cite environmental protections in the same way that Montana’s Constitution does. The plaintiffs are focusing on a broader argument citing the Constitution’s “life and liberty” protections for their federal case.
“I’m interested to see sort of the creative arguments that will be made,” Imbert-Hodges said. “I don’t think it’s impossible, but I do think that it will be a much bigger hurdle because it is not clearly written. You’ll have to do some creative lawyering. But if anyone can do it, I do believe that the youth will be very creative in being able to sort of make these arguments.”
If the young advocates win their case, a favorable ruling could hold the federal government accountable for harms done to the environment, especially those that involve fossil fuels. It could also pave the way for more climate lawsuits similar in nature.
