Youth activists try to revive suit over Trump fossil fuel policies
The plaintiffs argue that three executive orders focused on “unleashing” American energy are unconstitutional.
by Margaret Attridge, Court House News, April 13, 2026
(CN) — Youth plaintiffs suing the Trump administration urged a Ninth Circuit panel Monday to overturn the dismissal of their claims challenging three executive orders aimed at increasing domestic energy production and investments in fossil fuels.
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. The plaintiffs from Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, California, and Florida argued U.S. Judge Dana L. Christensen, a Barack Obama appointee, 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,” Julia Olson, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, representing the plaintiffs, said.
Olson told the panel that the court has the ability to remedy the plaintiffs’ claims and return energy policy back to what it was before the executive orders were issued.
“Since 2020, there have been three major pieces of legislation that address energy and climate, and those pieces of legislation have moved the country intentionally towards renewable energy, to expand it, to electrify the transportation system, and very intentionally, Congress’ policy has been to reduce greenhouse gas pollution," she said. “That’s the law as it exists today, and the president, via these executive orders, is attempting to rewrite that law, and that is illegal and reviewable by the court.”
Olson compared the case to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Learning Resource Inc. v. Trump, which struck down International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs issued via executive order. There, Olson said, the justices rejected the government’s foreign policy, national and economic security defenses, as well as the argument of manageability.
U.S. Circuit Judge John B. Owens, a Barack Obama appointee, asked Olson about the “managerial management problem” the lower court raised, and the practicality of building an entire system to monitor the government’s compliance under the plaintiffs’ request for relief.
“It does seem like this could just be something that goes on and on. It’s not a ruling that the district court would just make once,” he said.
Olson responded that the president and federal agencies are allowed to still act with respect to energy or climate policy; they just need to act within the law and congressional authority.
John K. Adams, representing the government, argued any injunction against the challenged executive orders would not address the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries because the policies can be implemented via a variety of different authorities.
Adams also said the court would run into a separation of powers issue if it issued an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
“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.
Adams further argued the plaintiffs had not established injury to bring the case because the effects of climate change related to the plaintiffs are not “meaningfully distinct from the public at large.”
“Changing the atmosphere of the world is outside of this court’s Article III power,” he said. “In this case, it’s a novel injury. Plaintiffs allege that every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere inflicts an injury, new to them, that this court can redress through its Article III power.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, a Joe Biden appointee, asked Adams whether he believed there can never be a case concerning climate change because it affects everyone.
“Yes, I am saying that," Adams responded.
“There’s a distinction between a concrete injury, which the United States does not discount through the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, and a constitutional injury under Article III, and that particularized injury … needs to be particularized and needs to be meaningfully distinct for the plaintiffs, and not some type of broad policy making goal,” Adams added.
The government additionally argued that even if the appeals panel finds that the plaintiffs do have standing, they should dismiss the case on the merits. Montana Solicitor General Christian Corrigan, also arguing for the defense, told the panel that the plaintiffs improperly challenge the executive orders, rather than agency actions.
Corrigan also disputed the plaintiffs’ claims that the executive orders violate their constitutional rights to life and liberty, as well as constitute a state-created danger.
“Here, ultimately, their complaint is about a lack of regulation, about the administration’s lack of regulation of fossil fuels and climate change. That is not the type of affirmative action that’s required for a deprivation of individual liberty, individual privacy, or any of the substantive due process cases that have been recognized by the Supreme Court,” he said.
In rebuttal, Olson said the challenged executive orders do not cite any congressional authority that allows the president to issue such directives, telling the panel their questions about the merits of the case imply that the court has the authority to hear the case.
“If a plaintiff has established injury and traceability, Article III courts have authority to actually do the analysis that you’re talking about. Looking and seeing, is there statutory authority for what the President has invoked?” she said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, rounded out the panel.
Representatives for either party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.