Youth climate trial closes in Missoula
MISSOULA, Mont. — U.S. District Court concluded the hearings in Lighthiser v. Trump Wednesday in Missoula, where young plaintiffs are challenging executive orders that expand fossil fuel production.
The 22 young Americans are asking the court to overturn three executive orders that encourage coal production and declare a national energy emergency. The plaintiffs argue the directives violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty and want them temporarily blocked while the case proceeds.
During Tuesday’s hearing, plaintiffs ages 11 to 20 outlined the toll of worsening wildfires, flooding and heat on their well-being. A California teen described hospitalizations from heat illness and asthma triggered by smoke, while a Montana plaintiff said wildfires and shortened winters limit outdoor activities and harm community health. An Oregon student recalled evacuations from hurricanes and the anxiety of worsening wildfire seasons, saying it has left her unsure about her future.
Attorneys for the Trump administration countered that the case repeats arguments already rejected in prior litigation. They argued that courts are not the proper venue to set energy policy and that future administrative review is the appropriate channel for challenging federal energy actions. Montana and 18 other states joined the administration in calling for dismissal.
U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen presided over the hearing on Tuesday.
Dr. Lori Byron, a pediatrician formerly based in Billings, testified as an expert on the specific health risks climate change poses to children. She reviewed peerreviewed medical studies and EPA research to explain how rising temperatures, wildfire smoke and increased exposure to fossil fuel pollutants disproportionately harm young people compared to adults. Byron said children’s developing bodies, faster breathing rates and higher relative intake of food and water make them uniquely vulnerable to pollutants.
She detailed how extreme weather displaces children, disrupts stability and increases the risk of longterm mental health issues. Byron testified that exposure to coal pollution contributes to cancers, heart disease, strokes and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. She pointed specifically to emissions from the Colstrip power plant.
Byron also warned of the effects of coal trains traveling through the Treasure State, saying uncovered cars spill hundreds of pounds of coal dust along the route, exposing nearby communities to toxins such as arsenic and mercury. She ended her testimony by saying halting fossil fuel expansion would have nearimmediate health benefits, citing evidence that children’s hospital visits for asthma in one Pennsylvania community dropped by 41% after a coal coke plant shut down.
A plaintiff from Missoula rounded out the witnesses. He mirrored the experience of his peers. He shared personal stories on how his life has been impacted: he sees less snow during prime ski season and longer fire season gets in the way of his cross-country training.
No witnesses came forward for the federal government and state interveners.
Following the hearing, Andrea Rodgers, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, told reporters that the plaintiffs left the courtroom encouraged. She said much of the court’s focus was on how an injunction against the Trump-era executive orders could be implemented in practice going on to say similar injunctions have been granted against past Trump administration actions and that courts across the country are wrestling with these same questions.
“We feel very optimistic,” Rodgers said. “It was really clear that the judge was very engaged. He has read all of the testimony. He paid very close attention to the live testimony in front of him. He engaged some of our witnesses with questions of his own which is really all you can ask for in an evidentiary hearing.”
The post-hearing served as a chance of reflection for some including Eva Lighthiser, the lead plaintiff. She said it reminded her of her role in the Held v. State of Montana trial nearly two years ago, though this case carries different stakes because it targets federal policy.
“I felt a lot of empathy when my co-plaintiffs were testifying yesterday and today because I went through that during Held,” Lighthiser said. “That was a very nerve-racking experience but also so incredibly empowering.”
Christensen will now decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the challenged executive orders.