A federal appeals court has refused to give a group of youth climate activists another chance to pursue their sweeping challenge to President Donald Trumps profossil fuel agenda.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday declined to rehear Lighthiser v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by twenty-two young plaintiffs that sought to derail Trump-era executive orders promoting domestic energy production, thereby leaving in place a prior panel ruling that the activists lacked legal standing to sue, according to Western Journal. The case, which initially targeted what the plaintiffs called the Trump administrations fossil fuel agenda, alleged that the presidents directives would drive up greenhouse gas emissions and aggravate future climate-related harms to children and young adults.
Filed in May 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, the complaint was brought by plaintiffs from Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, California and Florida, all represented by the progressive climate-litigation group Our Childrens Trust. The Montana court dismissed the case in October 2025 for lack of jurisdiction, even while declaring there was overwhelming evidence that climate change would harm the plaintiffs in the future and characterizing the situation as a childrens health emergency.
The youths appealed to the Ninth Circuit in June 2026, but a three-judge panel affirmed the Montana courts dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs had not met the constitutional requirements for standing.
Unwilling to accept that outcome, the activists then sought en banc review in July, asking the full Ninth Circuit to revisit and overturn the panels decision.
Our Childrens Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has made a name for itself by orchestrating youth-led climate lawsuits against federal and state agencies, framed Lighthiser as part of a broader constitutional struggle over environmental policy. In September 2025, the young plaintiffs delivered live testimony in federal court, which their attorneys touted as the first instance of such testimony in a federal constitutional climate case.
Despite the high-profile nature of the litigation, Our Childrens Trust did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundations request for comment on the Ninth Circuits refusal to rehear the case.
The group has long pursued a strategy of using the judiciary to force sweeping climate mandates that elected branches have declined to enact, a tactic that has drawn criticism from conservatives who see it as an end-run around democratic accountability.
At the heart of Lighthiser were three Trump executive orders issued in early 2025: Unleashing American Energy, DECLARING A NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY, and Reinvigorating Americas Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241. Those directives were designed to expand fossil-fuel development, streamline permitting, and roll back regulatory barriers that had constrained American energy producers under prior administrations.
The plaintiffs argued that these orders were already harming young Americans across multiple states by contributing to a range of alleged climate-related events, from wildfires to extreme weather.
They also leaned heavily on Juliana v. United States, another Our Childrens Trust case in which judges concluded that the federal courts lack authority to dictate broad climate policy to the political branches.
In a press release reacting to the panel decision, Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Childrens Trust, blasted the ruling in stark terms. The panels decision is the first in American history to deny courts the power to review an unconstitutional executive order. That is not a small mistake. That is constitutional corruption, Olson declared, adding, No president should be able to direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda that endangers childrens lives and face zero judicial review. The full Ninth Circuit has the opportunity and the obligation to correct that.
The Ninth Circuits refusal to intervene underscores a growing judicial reluctance to entertain expansive climate lawsuits that seek to transform energy policy through the courts rather than through Congress or state legislatures. That trend has been evident in other recent defeats for climate litigants, including a March decision by the Maryland Supreme Court dismissing suits by Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County that sought damages from major fossil fuel companies over alleged climate harms.
In Pennsylvania, a judge similarly threw out Bucks Countys climate lawsuit against major oil companies in May 2025, ruling that state courts lacked jurisdiction over claims tied to interstate air pollution.
Taken together, these rulings signal that judges are increasingly wary of being drafted into what amounts to a political and regulatory battle over Americas energy futureone that conservatives argue should be resolved by voters and their elected representatives, not by activist litigation.
For now, the Ninth Circuits stance leaves Trumps energy orders intact and reinforces the constitutional limits on who can sue and on what grounds, even in cases framed as existential climate emergencies. While progressive legal groups vow to keep pressing their cause, the courts are drawing a clear line: ambitious climate policy must be won in the public square and through the legislative process, not imposed by judicial fiat at the expense of American energy independence and economic freedom.
Login