HELENA — Federal judges have rejected a group of young plaintiffs’ request to revive a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s energy policies. It’s the latest turn in a series of climate lawsuits in Montana over the last few years, starting with the Held v. Montana case.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s decision to dismiss Lighthiser v. Trump.
“It’s definitely frustrating,” said Nate Bellinger, a senior staff attorney with Our Children’s Trust, who worked with the plaintiffs in Lighthiser and in Held.
(Watch the video for more on the judges' decision.)
In Lighthiser, 22 young plaintiffs, ranging in age from seven to 25, sued over three executive orders from President Donald Trump, intended to boost energy development. They argued by encouraging fossil fuel production, the orders were contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions that are having real impacts on their health and lives.
“The plaintiffs are really bearing the burden of these worsening climate harms and air pollution injuries,” Bellinger said.
Last fall, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen ruled the plaintiffs had legitimate concerns, but that he didn’t have the jurisdiction to grant what they were asking. He cited a 9th Circuit ruling dismissing another youth-led climate case in Juliana v. United States.
The 9th Circuit panel addressed Lighthiser in a memorandum opinion, a shorter and less formal document usually issued when judges believe the legal reasoning of a case is similar to other cases that have already been decided. In the opinion, the judges said the plaintiffs’ claims about harms from the executive orders were speculative, and they restated their conclusion from the Juliana case that courts do not have the authority to grant or enforce the type of relief this case is asking for.
Bellinger said attorneys had worked to narrow the scope of their request this time, specifically in response to what the court ruled in Juliana. He said this decision would leave an “accountability gap” for the Trump administration.
“I think it's a real abdication of the court's duty to provide a check on the political branches, and it's a really dangerous precedent,” he said.
However, in a statement, the U.S. Justice Department praised the court’s ruling.
“The appellate court unanimously affirmed what the district court said months ago — the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this suit because they did not establish that the Executive Orders caused any injury or that any injury could be redressed by the courts,” said Adam Gustafson, a principal deputy assistant attorney general.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who intervened in the case in support of the administration, released a statement calling the decision a “huge win for Montana.”
“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 courts are not meant to advance political agendas, but uphold the law, which they did today.”
This might not be the last word. Bellinger said the plaintiffs now have the option to go back to the 9th Circuit and ask for a larger panel to hear their request, but that they haven’t decided how to move forward yet.
“Talking to the plaintiffs in the last couple of days, one thing that's clear is they're not done – they want to continue this fight at the state level, at the federal level, and do everything they can to hold their government accountable for the harms that they're causing to them,” he said.
Several of the Lighthiser plaintiffs are also involved with a second Held v. Montana lawsuit, filed in state court last year. In that case, they’re arguing that Montana laws regulating environmental reviews and air quality standards violate the state constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.”
The second Held case is still working its way through the legal process. One question is where a trial may be held: The Montana Legislature passed a bill last year requiring a lawsuit challenging a state law to be heard in the home judicial district of the law’s legislative sponsor. House Speaker Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage, has therefore moved for this case to be moved from Broadwater County to eastern Montana.
