Young Americans suing Trump on fossil fuel agenda

That’s a question that a federal judge in Montana opposes as a group of young Americans this September. I’m suing the Trump administration – Asserting an aggressive fossil fuel agenda is not only to accelerate climate change, but to infringe on constitutional rights.

Courts around the world have emerged as a tool to promote climate action against political inertia, and the International Court of Justice is set to hand out a groundbreaking ruling on Wednesday.

“It’s very intimidating to think about my future,” Chief Plaintiff Eva Lightscissor told AFP in recent out-of-Congress protests in which she and other young plaintiffs joined Democrats.

“The climate is very unreliable, unstable and it’s going to get worse. There’s a lot to reconcile with just the adulthood,” said the 19-year-old from Livingston, Montana.

Their case, Lighthiserv. Trump is the most notable in the new wave of US climate lawsuits. That depends on the due process clause of the fifth amendment. This prohibits the government from depriving people of fundamental rights without a legitimate process of the law.

The 22 young plaintiffs, including several minors, are represented by the trust of children in the nonprofit. They aim to build on two recent state-level victory.

In 2023, a Montana judge sided with a young plaintiff who allegedly failed to consider the state’s climate impact when issuing oil and gas permits.

A year later, in Hawaii, young activists reached a settlement to accelerate the decarbonization of the transport sector.

Wildfires, floods, anxiety

Now they are targeting President Donald Trump’s second term executive order, declaring a “national energy emergency.”

Trump has directed the agency to “unleash” fossil fuel production while stalling clean energy projects.

The lawsuit also alleges that the administration has illegally curbed public access to federal climate science.

Matt dos Santos, the general counsel for the trust of our children, told AFP that the conservatively controlled Supreme Court has shown an appetite for listening to the “rights of life” case.

“We are trying to make sure that the rights of life extend to children who are truly living,” they said.

In an unusual move, the 19 state attorney generals led by Montana submitted that they would intervene on behalf of the Trump administration.

“We grew up in rural Montana, so there is a lot of emphasis in our natural environment,” Lighthiser says.

Smoke-filled skies, relentless floods and the climate-forced relocation of her family have shaped her short life.

She plans to study environmental science and says she is struggling with anxiety and depression.

Joseph Lee, a 19-year-old student at UC San Diego, said the threat of a climate disaster caused him to question whether he should start a family.

Growing up near a California oil refinery, he suffered from severe asthma as a child. His family temporarily moved to North Carolina to escape the pollution, but only faced with aggravating flash floods.

Patrick Dylentaw, an honorary environmental law professor at Vermont Law School, said the case was based on the same constitutional logic as the rulings on interracial marriage, racism and, until recently, on abortion rights.

But he supports it in principle, but he doubts it will succeed.

Long shot

Judge Dana Christensen, who heard the case on September 16-17, previously announced an eco-friendly ruling. However, even if he is on his side with the plaintiff, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

“I think the plaintiffs understand that it’s a difficult fight. “But the point is, they need to give it a try.”

Other scholars are less sympathetic. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William and Mary, dismisses efforts that are more directed towards public opinion than legitimate victory.

Lighthiserv. Trump “is based on a very vast and immovable theory of what the power of federal courts is,” Adler told AFP, telling AFP that it is not based on legal doctrine.

He said a more viable strategy involves filing a claim for tort against certain regulations and contaminants rather than wiping away constitutional agendas.

“Climate change is a serious issue and we should do more about it,” Adler said.

“However, the most viable types of legal strategies in court are not of the kind adjusted for attention.”