After winning a landmark climate case at the state level last year, a group of young Montanans are taking the fight to the federal government. They presented their arguments to a judge in Missoula last week. MTPR's Ellis Juhlin joins Morning Edition host Austin Amestoy to help break down the arguments.
Austin Amestoy Good to be here, Ellis. I think most listeners are pretty familiar with the Held v. Montana case at this point. This was where a group of young plaintiffs sued the state government over policies they said impacted their right to a clean and healthful environment, specifically climate policies. The state Supreme Court sided with those youth plaintiffs. This time, they're back with a new challenge to Trump administration policies in federal court in Missoula, actually. And you were there for some of the arguments last week. Give us a quick rundown of where things are at.
Ellis Juhlin This case is brought by Eva Lighthiser. She's a college student from Livingston and was part of that state-level case Held v. Montana.
Eva Lighthiser We really want to have our voices be heard by the people in power. We are currently on a very destructive path and we have to take action.
Ellis Juhlin That case was centered on Montana's Constitution, like you mentioned, Austin, but this time around, we're talking about the U.S. Constitution. Lighthiser and her other coplaintiffs are suing the federal government for ramping up fossil fuel production that worsens climate change. They claim that violates their rights to life and liberty under the federal Constitution.
This case specifically is challenging three executive orders that President Trump signed in his first few months in office. The orders declare a national energy emergency, prioritize fossil fuel energy development, and aim to revive the United States coal industry. The plaintiffs say all of those policies are blocking the clean energy transition that really started to take off under the Biden administration, and are going to worsen climate change. And worsening climate change means worsening the negative mental and physical health impacts they're already experiencing by living in a warming world. They want the judge to put an immediate stop to those orders.
Austin Amestoy So the plaintiffs are claiming that these fossil fuel promoting policies are violating their rights to life and liberty. How did they go about explaining what those violations or harms look like?
Ellis Juhlin As part of making their case, the court heard from several of these plaintiffs about how they're specifically harmed by climate change. That includes everything from asthma issues that are worsened by poor air quality from increasing wildfires or coal production, and heat exhaustion as heat waves are becoming more common. And then also the mental health impacts that a lot of these young people are facing, like general increases in anxiety about what their future is going to look like. They also had a suite of experts including pediatricians, renewable energy policy experts and climate scientists who all backed up the plaintiff's arguments.
Austin Amestoy And how did lawyers from the government respond to those arguments?
Ellis Juhlin So, the federal government's lawyers argue that the court is not the place for this fight because this is a policy issue. They said that the plaintiffs aren't entitled to ask the court to resolve this issue because interpreting the Constitution to decide on energy policy isn't really part of the court's purview. They also argued that some of the executive orders in question aren't only for fossil fuels, because some renewable energy sources like hydropower and geothermal are also included. And that's true, but those orders exclude major renewable sources like wind and solar with battery storage that were all prioritized under the Biden administration.
Austin Amestoy You know, from our previous conversations about Held v. Montana, Ellis, I'm realizing that there's a big distinction between the Montana and U.S. Constitutions when it comes to environmental policy. The state Constitution contains a right to a clean and healthful environment. The federal Constitution does not – among other differences between the two documents. So how are plaintiffs tailoring their case for federal court?
Ellis Juhlin Yeah, that's a great question, Austin. And we talked a lot during the Held coverage about Montana's specific constitutional language that is lacking in the U.S. Constitution. What the U.S. Constitution does have is the right to life and liberty. And these young people are arguing that climate change threatens those rights. But there's a bigger hurdle here for the plaintiffs to clear beyond just that constitutional language.
This isn't the first time that there's been a youth-led climate case at the federal level. There was a big one before this called Juliana v. United States. That was brought by the same law firm, Our Children's Trust. Now, that case was dismissed because the court found it couldn't stop climate change and therefore it couldn't adequately address the cause of the plaintiff's suit.
Austin Amestoy So precedent here does not seem to favor plaintiffs this time around. How are their lawyers working to address those concerns?
Ellis Juhlin It's definitely an uphill battle that they're facing and that Juliana case loomed large over the courtroom in Missoula. The lawyers are trying now to target specific policies that the court can strike down. And that's different from what the Juliana case was seeking. The same question of standing from that case was echoed, though, in this Missoula courtroom by Judge Dana Christensen. While talking with the plaintiff's lawyers at the end of the hearing, the judge said he was troubled by the practical effects of what the plaintiffs' lawyers were asking him to do. Even if he rules to halt those executive orders, would that actually address the problem of climate change, was one of the things he brought up. And Christensen also expressed concerns that if he overturned these executive orders he'd still have to continue monitoring everything the Trump administration does from here on out to make sure it's in line with that decision.
Austin Amestoy So what's next in the case?
Ellis Juhlin Now we wait for Christensen to make a decision. He hasn't indicated when that could happen, but I'll be keeping an eye out for it.
Austin Amestoy And we'll keep tabs with you, Ellis. Thank you for your reporting.
Ellis Juhlin Thanks, Austin.
