The Justice Department urged an appeals court on Monday to reject a bid by a group of young climate activists to revive a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive orders slashing climate change funding and aiming to boost energy production.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in a case brought by a group of 22 climate activists challenging Trump’s orders halting funding for climate change programs. As the activists describe it, his actions violate their constitutional right to life because the executive orders will have harmful impacts on the environment. A lower federal court tossed out the lawsuit due to a lack of standing, a ruling the Justice Department asked the panel to uphold.
“This case is another climate change case with sprawling and speculative legal theories and claims,” DOJ lawyer John K. Adams told the panel.
Trump has enacted several executive orders cutting funding for climate change programs, largely enacted under the Biden administration. Trump has also cut regulations, clearing the way for increased production of various forms of energy, including oil. The president’s actions have sparked outrage from Democrats and climate change activists.
Adams explained that the courts have no business addressing the issues the climate activists brought forward in their lawsuit, noting they are instead policy issues.
“This court cannot enjoin the executive branch from exercising express congressional authority,” Adams said. “The relief plaintiffs seek here require 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.”
The lawyer for the group of young climate activists, Julia Olson, argued that the executive orders in question unlawfully subvert Congress’s goal of combating climate change and urged the appeals court to allow the case to continue in the lower district court.
“The president has directed the agencies to take action that is contrary to law, just as in the tariff executive orders,” Olson said, attempting to tie the case to the Supreme Court’s February ruling finding the president sweeping tariffs, enacted via an executive order citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unconstitutional.
Olson emphasized the potential impacts of climate change in her closing arguments to the panel.
“We’ve alleged, based on our extensive review of the law, that [the president] has acted outside of his statutory authority, and the separation of powers violations is so important here, because what we’re talking about is the right to life and liberty of these children,” Olson said. “And some of them have suffered life-threatening harm because of pollution and heat. And we’re not just talking about climate change, we’re talking about the direct air pollution that harms their lungs and their lives.”
The appeals court panel that heard the case included U.S. Circuit Judges John Owens, an appointee of former President Barack Obama; Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee; and Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. The panel asked few questions during the hearing and did not say when it would issue a decision in the appeal.
ILLINOIS LAW FORCING PREGNANCY CENTERS TO GIVE ABORTION INFO FACES APPEALS COURT SCRUTINY
A previous lawsuit brought by young climate activists, Juliana v. United States, which claimed the U.S. government’s energy policies violated their constitutional rights by worsening climate change, was tossed out by the Ninth Circuit in 2020. The Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal to revive that case in 2024.
One of the climate activist coalition lawsuits was successful in Montana in 2023, when a state court found that the state’s constitution provided the right to a clean environment. The ruling was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court in 2024.