San Francisco Frontiers - US judge 'reluctantly' tosses youth case challenging Trump climate policies

In his written order, Judge Dana Christensen of Missoula, Montana, said that while the youth plaintiffs in Lighthiser v. Trump had presented "overwhelming" evidence showing the administration's actions would further destabilize the climate and harm them, their case "must be made to the political branches or to the electorate."

"With this understanding in mind, the Court reluctantly concludes...that it cannot grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek," wrote Christensen.

The 22 plaintiffs, including several minors and represented by the nonprofit Our Children's Trust, had sought a stay against three executive orders they said violated their constitutional rights to life and liberty by seeking to "unleash" fossil fuel development while sidelining renewable energy.

They also accused the administration of eroding federal climate science, leaving the public less informed about mounting dangers.

During a two-day hearing held in Christensen's courtroom last month, the youth were given the opportunity to testify about the ways global warming had impacted their lives.

The witnesses included Joseph Lee, an undergraduate from California who suffered a life-threatening heat stroke, and Jorja McCormick of Livingston, Montana, who said she was traumatized by wildfires that forced her family to evacuate.

Christensen, who has issued favorable environmental rulings in the past, listened intently as the plaintiffs called experts in climate science, energy economics, politics, and children's health.

Government lawyers, on the other hand, did not call their own witnesses and did not spend significant time disputing the reality of climate change.

Instead, they argued that the lawsuit was fundamentally undemocratic and echoed Juliana v. United States -- a similar youth-led case that featured some of the same plaintiffs and wound through the courts for nearly a decade before the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal last year, closing it out.

While lawyers for the youths contended the case differed from Juliana in key ways, Christensen ultimately disagreed.

"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," Christensen wrote.

He added that they had also shown "overwhelming evidence that implementation of the Challenged EOs will increase the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, thereby exacerbating the harms Plaintiffs experience from an already-warming climate."

But he maintained the injuries were not redressable by a court, saying he was troubled by being asked to reset national energy policy to the way it was before Trump took office a second time, and by the fact that his court would be required to monitor all of the administration's actions if he sided with the youths.

"The Court reads Juliana to mandate this outcome," he said, but added that he would gladly hear the case on its merits if an appeals court, the Ninth Circuit, disagreed.

Z.Sanchez--SFF