MISSOULA: A group of young Americans testified that President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel policies are violating their fundamental constitutional rights through climate change impacts.
The plaintiffs described smoke-choked air filling their lungs, floods threatening their homes, and debilitating heat as direct consequences of government actions promoting fossil fuels.
Lighthiser v Trump represents a growing global trend of using legal action to push for climate measures amid political inaction or opposition.
The case challenges three executive orders that collectively seek to unleash fossil fuel development at the expense of renewable energy alternatives.
Plaintiffs also contest government actions undermining federal climate science, including scientist dismissals and removal of critical climate reports.
Lead attorney Julia Olson framed the dispute as a constitutional test during the two-day federal hearing in Montana.
She questioned whether the Constitution protects against executive abuses that deprive youth of their fundamental rights to life and liberty.
Government lawyer Michael Sawyer countered that the lawsuit itself undermines democratic processes by seeking to override election results.
He argued that energy policy and emissions were major election issues that voters had already decided through democratic means.
Young plaintiffs from nonprofit Our Children’s Trust then described how climate change is reshaping their lives and futures.
A Montana teenager testified about declining snowfall, lengthening wildfire seasons, and worsening flooding in her short lifetime.
She recalled evacuating from one wildfire while packing stuffed toys and worrying about family animals.
Another plaintiff remembered California wildfires that destroyed a friend’s home last year, creating constant safety concerns.
The 19-year-old explained his participation despite previous heat stroke hospitalization that nearly caused organ failure.
Government lawyers subjected the young witnesses to tough questioning about their personal choices and potential hypocrisy.
They grilled one plaintiff about her family’s decision to keep three horses, suggesting this contributed to greenhouse emissions.
Expert witnesses including Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist Steven Running testified for the plaintiffs.
Running stated unequivocally that plaintiff injuries would worsen if more fossil fuels were unleashed under the executive orders.
Former White House official John Podesta distinguished this case from previous failed climate litigation attempts.
He noted that while Juliana v United States required reversing five decades of policy, this case seeks narrower, more direct remedies.
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that could lead to a full trial despite government efforts to dismiss the case.
They hope to build on recent state-level victories in Montana and Hawaii regarding environmental rights and decarbonization.
The case faces long odds at the federal level following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Juliana appeal earlier this year.
Judge Dana Christensen, known for pro-environment rulings, presides over the potentially landmark case.
Even if plaintiffs succeed initially, the case will likely eventually reach the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. – AFP