Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of youth suit over Trump fossil fuel policies

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday dismissed claims challenging three executive orders aimed at increasing domestic energy production and investments in fossil fuels, finding that the youth plaintiffs who brought the case lack standing.

The 22 plaintiffs, aged 7 to 25 at the time of filing, sued the administration in May 2025, claiming President Donald Trump acted outside his authority when he issued executive orders 14154, 14156 and 14261. A federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice in October, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

“While this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs’ effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act,” Senior U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in his opinion.

A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the lower court’s findings, ruling the plaintiffs failed to plausibly claim that the challenged executive orders caused their injuries, noting they could only speculate on the impacts of the orders and whether or not government agencies would rely on them when taking future action.

The panel — comprised of U.S. Circuit Judges John B. Owens, an Obama appointee; Jennifer Sung, a Joe Biden appointee; and Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee — further found that the court does not have the power to grant or enforce the relief the plaintiffs asked for, which included enjoining any “implementing” agency action, even those not named in the complaint.

“Issuing such an injunction would effectively place one federal District Court in charge of executive branch energy policy — ‘an extraordinary and unprecedented role’ for a member of the ‘unelected and politically unaccountable branch,’” the panel wrote in its 10-page opinion.

The judges said the requested relief would necessitate “extensive judicial supervision of executive branch actions related to energy policy” and require the court to evaluate which actions “implement” the challenged orders and which did not.

“Would the injunction prohibit agencies from advancing any policies like those expressed in the executive orders — promoting coal, oil, natural gas and hydropower; increasing domestic energy production; or expediting permitting and leasing timelines, to name a few? For every energy-policy action, would the court need to scrutinize agency officials’ motives in search of any hidden reliance on the enjoined executive orders?” the panel pondered.

“The District Court correctly recognized that disputes over such questions would inevitably result in the court ‘spending a lot of time together’ with the parties and holding hearings ‘until the expiration of [their] collective lifetimes,’” they continued.

The judges added that the plaintiffs had effectively sought to “circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions” and granting an injunction against hundreds of agency actions in one lawsuit would be “unprecedented.”

They further affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant dismissal without leave to amend, saying the plaintiffs had not identified specific claims that would fix the “fundamental problems with their standing theory.”

In a press release, Our Children’s Trust, a law firm representing the plaintiffs, said the appeals panel “substituted its own assumptions for the plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence” and “effectively told these young people to wait for more implementation and more harm before seeking constitutional review.”

“This decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece. That is not how the Constitution works,” Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, said.

Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser added that the court “had the power to act and they chose not to.”

“By the time we are harmed enough to satisfy them, it will be too late. I am a young person. This is my life, my health, my future. And I deserve better than this. We all do,” she said.

Our Children’s Trust said it is reviewing the decision and assessing all legal options available.

Representatives for the DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At the appeal, Olson argued the lower court wrongfully found they lacked standing.

“We are here because the president rewrote energy law without statutory or constitutional authority to do so, and the District Court mistakenly believed it lacked Article III power to redress the constitutional violations and the injuries to the plaintiffs that are undisputed in the case,” Olson said.

She also told the panel that the court had the power to remedy the plaintiffs’ claims and return energy policy back to what it was before the executive orders were issued, a claim John K. Adams, representing the government, denied.

“The relief plaintiffs seek here requires a balancing of competing economic, social and political forces that must be made to our elected officials, both within the legislative branch and within the executive branch,” he said.

Follow @mhattridge_