A new lawsuit filed by young Americans challenges the legality of President Trump’s climate-related executive actions, aiming to push the case into open court in ways earlier youth climate suits have not.
Jenni Doering reports for Living on Earth.
In short:
- The plaintiffs in Lighthiser v. Trump argue that recent executive actions and environmental rollbacks violate their constitutional rights to life and liberty, and that Trump is acting beyond his legal authority.
- Unlike the earlier Juliana v. United States case, this lawsuit strategically targets specific agency actions and includes a request for a preliminary injunction to stop them during litigation.
- Legal experts believe the case could proceed further than previous youth-led suits, thanks to a strong factual record and a favorable judge known for environmental rulings.
Key quote:
"The danger is incredibly severe, existential even. But the idea that what the government is doing is it knowingly, deliberately putting these young people's lives in danger, that's really powerful."
— Pat Parenteau, emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School and former EPA Regional Counsel
Why this matters:
Climate litigation is rapidly emerging as a front-line tactic in the fight against environmental degradation, especially as traditional policy avenues stall. Youth-led cases like Lighthiser v. Trump aim to hold governments accountable not just for inaction, but for actively worsening climate threats. These lawsuits rely on scientific evidence showing how rising temperatures, wildfires, and extreme weather are harming young people’s mental and physical health. If courts begin to accept arguments that constitutional rights include access to a livable environment, the legal landscape could shift dramatically.
Related: Youth climate lawsuit challenges Trump orders boosting fossil fuel production
