🕒 Last updated on September 23, 2025
In Montana, a historic case is unfolding in a federal courtroom. A group of 22 children and young adults, aged between 7 and 25, have brought a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
A fight for life, liberty, and a safe future
They argue that recent government actions promoting fossil fuels violate their basic rights to life, liberty, and security.
The young plaintiffs say the administration issued executive orders to increase coal and oil production, block renewable energy growth, and cut climate research. According to them, these moves worsen the climate crisis and endanger their lives. They argue that the government is claiming an “energy emergency” when the real emergency is the rising pollution and global warming threatening their future.
The case, known as Lighthiser v. Trump, is the first time a federal court has heard live testimony in a constitutional climate case. For the youth, it is not only about protecting the planet but also about protecting democracy. They believe the president is using power without the checks and balances that the Constitution demands.
Testimonies of young lives under threat
During the two-day hearing, several young people and experts gave powerful testimony. They shared personal stories of how the climate crisis is already affecting their health, homes, and dreams. One of the youngest, just 11 years old, described how his little brother was rushed to the hospital because of breathing problems caused by polluted air.
Another plaintiff, a 25-year-old from Florida, spoke about the heartbreak of hearing these stories and explained why young people have no choice but to turn to the courts. She said when lawmakers and leaders do nothing to solve the problem and even make it worse, the judicial system becomes the only place left for protection.
Trump backs NATO defense of Poland and Baltic states as Russia airspace incursions increase
Crowds gathered outside the courthouse to cheer on the plaintiffs. Supporters held signs, chanted names, and offered encouragement. For many of the youth, walking through that scene was described as joyful and full of hope, even while they were preparing to discuss serious issues inside.
The government chose not to call any witnesses of its own during the hearing. Instead, its lawyers argued that the court does not have the power to decide this case. They claimed the young plaintiffs did not show a clear legal path for the court to stop the policies they are challenging. Legal experts observed that this showed the government was avoiding the scientific debate over climate change, since the evidence was so strong on the side of the plaintiffs.
A challenge to both climate policies and democracy
This lawsuit is different from past climate cases because it does not only deal with emissions or pollution. It questions whether a president can act alone in ways that put people’s rights at risk. The youth argue that the executive branch cannot ignore Congress, the courts, and the Constitution while making policies that affect the entire country.
The list of defendants in the case shows how widespread the administration’s energy policies are. More than a dozen federal agencies were named, along with the president himself. Later, a group of 19 states and Guam also joined the defense, making this one of the most heavily defended lawsuits against the administration. The young plaintiffs and their lawyers say this shows how seriously the government takes the threat of their case.
During the hearing, expert witnesses supported the plaintiffs with scientific evidence about the dangers of fossil fuel expansion. They explained how more drilling and coal burning would increase pollution, worsen climate disasters, and harm the health of children. Their arguments built on earlier youth-led legal victories in Montana and Hawaii, where courts recognized that climate change is a direct threat to young people’s rights.
The atmosphere in the courtroom was intense but also hopeful. Many of the young plaintiffs spoke about their belief in the justice system, even when other branches of government fail them. They see their case as not just about saving the environment but about making sure democracy works the way it was meant to.