MISSOULA, MT – A group of young plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the federal government alleging a series of executive orders threaten their constitutional right to life by exacerbating climate change haven’t given up on their fight.

After a federal judge in Missoula dismissed the case, Lighthiser v. Trump, last fall over a lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and overturn the ruling that blocked their efforts to challenge the federal government’s plan to “unleash American energy.”

“Our government has a system of checks and balances, and right now those checks have failed us,” lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser said in a statement. “These executive orders are directly harming me and my fellow plaintiffs. Every additional wildfire, smoky day, flood, puts our lives and health at risk. With this appeal, we have hope that the Ninth Circuit will uphold its constitutional duty to protect this nation’s young people.”

Lighthiser v. Trump is the latest of a series of youth-led climate change lawsuits brought by Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based advocacy law firm, during the last decade. Several of the plaintiffs were also involved in the Held v. Montana case, a landmark court victory for climate activists.

In a hearing last September, several youth plaintiffs testified to the harm they suffer from climate change, including increased experiences with environmental disasters, respiratory issues exacerbated by wildfires and heat waves, and concerns that their future families and careers could be jeopardized by federal actions.

They alleged that three executive orders President Donald Trump signed early in his second term will accelerate human-caused climate change and cause further harm throughout their lives.

Expert witnesses, including renowned climate scientist Steven Running and policy experts, testified to the harms suffered by the plaintiffs and the ability of the government to roll back the orders.

But federal district court Judge Dana Christensen “reluctantly” dismissed the lawsuit, despite writing that the court had been presented with “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.”

While the plaintiffs showed they have injuries that can be concretely traced to fossil fuel production, he said their requests for relief, including an injunction against multiple federal agencies, exceeded the court’s authority.

“At the heart of Plaintiffs’ request is that the Court wind back the clock to the regulatory framework that existed on January 19, 2025,” Christensen wrote of the date Trump’s second term started.

Granting the plaintiffs’ request to roll back executive orders and subsequent agency actions would require the court to “monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction,” the order wrote. “This is, quite simply, an unworkable request.”

In their appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs’ legal team argues that the district court does have the authority to rule on the claims, and they should be allowed to amend their complaint and return to the lower court for a ruling “on the merits.”

“Solutions exist for every workability, policymaking, and specificity concern raised by the district court,” lawyers for the plaintiffs said in their opening brief. “The district court simply did not address them.”

In his order dismissing the case, Christensen relied on a court ruling in the federal case Juliana v. United States, which was also a youth-led effort stretching across three presidential administrations that alleged a federal failure to mitigate the effects of climate change. The case never went to trial and was repeatedly dismissed due to a lack of standing.

However, he wrote that if the appeals court disagreed with his interpretation of previous rulings, Christensen “welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits.”

“The district court recognized that these Executive Orders are causing a children’s health emergency and directly harming the youth plaintiffs, but wrongly concluded it lacked the power to provide relief,” Julia Olson, lead attorney to the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “President Trump’s orders cost these young plaintiffs their ability to live healthy lives … The cost to our clients’ physical health and safety is enormous and can be remedied by the federal courts saying the President’s acts violate the U.S. Constitution.”

In a statement to the Daily Montanan, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Trump “ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy which gave unfair and preferential treatment to certain sectors of the industry.”

“As promised, President Trump declared an energy emergency on day one in the best interest of the American people to protect our economic and national security. He will continue to unleash American energy,” Rogers said.

The Lighthiser suit names Trump as a defendant along with 11 federal agencies and their respective agency heads, including the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency and NASA.

This story first appeared on Daily Montanan.