Judge dismisses suit by young climate activists against Trump's pro-fossil fuel policies

"According to the plaintiffs, the executive orders amount to unlawful executive overreach and breach the state-created danger doctrine a legal principle designed to prevent government officials from causing harm to their citizens. Among the plaintiffs were also several young individuals who had previously been part of the landmark 2023 Held v Montana case the first constitutional climate trial in the United States."

"In Wednesday's ruling, Christensen said that the plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels. However, Christensen went on to say: Yet while this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged [executive orders'] effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act. He added: Granting plaintiffs' injunction would require the defendant agencies, and ultimately this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since the start of Trump's second presidency on 20 January 2025. In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene i"

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen dismissed a lawsuit brought by 22 young plaintiffs, ages seven to 25 from five states, that sought to block three presidential executive orders: a national energy emergency, directives to unleash American energy, and measures to reinvigorate coal production. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful executive overreach and violation of the state-created danger doctrine. Several plaintiffs had participated in Held v. Montana. Christensen acknowledged overwhelming evidence of rapid climate change driven by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel production and burning, but ruled that courts lack authority to grant the requested injunction because doing so would require scrutinizing countless federal agency climate actions since January 20, 2025.

Read at www.theguardian.com