A cohort of young individuals, ranging in age from 7 to 25, is taking legal action against the Trump administration to halt what they describe as detrimental policies toward renewable energy and climate initiatives.
In a complaint filed at a US District Court in Montana, the 22 plaintiffs assert that executive orders issued by President Donald Trump to favor fossil fuel production represent an “unconstitutional” overreach of authority. They further contend that increased pollution and a dismissal of climate science infringe upon their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty.
This lawsuit is part of a broader movement wherein youth are challenging governmental actions that they believe exacerbate the risks posed by fossil fuel emissions and climate change to their health and future.
Two brothers, aged 11 and 7, “were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations.”
Two brothers, referred to as “J.K.” and “N.K.” in court documents, claim that they have grown up in an environment heavily affected by climate change, citing serious health impacts from smoke and pollution. The complaint states that they were born into increasingly hazardous conditions that older generations did not experience.
Primarily raised in Montana and now residing in Southern California, the brothers’ lives have been disrupted by wildfire smoke across states. J.K. was born with lung tissue abnormalities and has suffered from nosebleeds, throat soreness, headaches, fatigue, coughing, breathing issues, and eye irritations linked to wildfire smoke. N.K. frequently battles upper respiratory infections, necessitating visits to the emergency room. Both have missed educational opportunities due to health issues associated with unhealthy air quality from wildfires.
The plaintiffs argue that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels significantly contribute to elevated temperatures, which in turn exacerbate wildfire seasons. Recent studies show that conditions have worsened markedly in the western United States, with the area affected by wildfires increasing substantially from 1984 to 2015.
“Every additional ton of greenhouse gas pollution that the defendants allow will lead to more days of poor air quality, increasing smoke exposure and further harming J.K. and N.K.,” the complaint states.
In recent years, research has increasingly focused on the long-term health consequences of wildfire smoke, which has not received the same level of attention as other pollution sources like industrial emissions and vehicle exhaust. Chronic exposure to wildfire smoke is emerging as a significant health risk, with evidence suggesting that it is a neurotoxin that could be more harmful than other pollutants.
President Trump has prioritized fossil fuels, initiating policies on his first day in office aimed at enhancing domestic oil and gas production. These actions include a declaration of a “national energy emergency” and an initiative to promote gas-powered vehicles over electric ones. Additionally, an executive order aimed at revitalizing the coal industry was signed, despite the fact that burning coal emits more greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels and that the coal sector has been struggling economically.
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to prevent the implementation of Trump’s executive orders, arguing that they are unconstitutional and that the president does not possess the authority to undermine existing environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act. They assert that governmental efforts to suppress climate research and remove essential climate information from federal platforms constitute “censorship” that limits their access to vital resources for mitigating climate risks.
In a response to the lawsuit, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers stated that the American public is more focused on economic and national security issues, claiming that President Trump was elected overwhelmingly to restore energy independence. She emphasized that future generations should not bear the burden of what she referred to as the “radical climate agenda” of the left.
The plaintiffs, who come from states including Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, California, and Florida, are represented by the nonprofit legal organization Our Children’s Trust, which has participated in similar climate lawsuits in the past. While a previous case brought against the Obama administration was dismissed, there have been notable victories as well. For instance, a settlement was reached last year in Hawaii mandating a plan for zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2045.
Additionally, J.K. and N.K. were involved in another climate lawsuit against the state of Montana, where the state Supreme Court affirmed their right to a healthy environment and rejected policies limiting the consideration of climate impacts in energy project approvals.
