Eva Lighthiser had to leave a dorm party early. Her classmates at her Colorado college wanted to know why she was flying to Portland the next morning. The explanation was complicated.
The 20-year-old climate activist was heading to federal court to argue that the Trump administration had violated her constitutional rights by expanding fossil fuel production. Lighthiser and 22 other young Americans filed suit, claiming executive orders that boost planet-warming energy sources violate their fundamental right to a livable future.
The case, Lighthiser v Trump, was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court in the fall. But in April, Lighthiser traveled to Oregon to ask the court to reconsider. Standing outside the courthouse, she delivered her argument directly: "We are challenging this administration for sacrificing the lives of myself and my fellow plaintiffs by expanding fossil fuels for the sake of power."
The experience was nerve-racking but invigorating, she said. The Ninth Circuit, which covers Montana, has a month to decide whether to reinstate the case.
From Montana mountains to the courthouse
Lighthiser grew up in Livingston, Montana, where her parents met as hiking buddies. She spent her childhood camping and climbing mountains, and during her first year of high school, she was home-schooled from the road, learning math and history while visiting national parks. Her father, Mark, said the idea of his daughter suing the president seemed improbable. "Taking on Trump, it's not the first thing that occurs to you that she would do," he said. "I think Eva has had to push herself."
She discovered youth-led climate litigation in early 2020 when a family friend mentioned Our Children's Trust, a nonprofit law firm pursuing legal actions against governments across the country. The group wanted to bring a suit in Montana. Lighthiser joined a Zoom call out of curiosity and quickly became convinced.
On her 14th birthday, she became a plaintiff in Held v Montana, challenging the state's pro-fossil fuel policies as violations of the state constitution's guarantee of a "clean and healthful environment for present and future generations." When the case went to trial in 2023, it became the first lawsuit of its kind to reach that stage. Lighthiser testified about her love for Montana and the climate threats it faces. "My future feels uncertain," she told the court.
The judge ruled in her favor. It was a groundbreaking win, though Lighthiser and her fellow plaintiffs are still pushing the state to enforce the decision against new laws they say contradict it.
By early 2025, Lighthiser was thinking about the next fight. At an event with Julia Olson, founder of Our Children's Trust, both recognized that a federal case against the Trump administration needed to be filed. Olson said Lighthiser was one of the first young people they approached.
Lighthiser was preparing for an overnight bike trip in nearby Paradise Valley when a lawyer called her family's driveway. He asked if she would be willing to serve as the lead plaintiff in a federal case. The lawsuit would bear her name against the president's. "That was really a moment when it clicked," she said. "My name against his name."
Livingston is a tight-knit community of ranchers, artists, and some celebrities like Jeff Bridges and Michael Keaton. The mountains and rivers make it beautiful. But environmental threats are visible everywhere. Coal trains spill dust blocks from Lighthiser's home. A climate-linked parasite killed tens of thousands of fish in 2016. Extreme floods, once rare during her childhood, are now frequent.
In 2018, the Shields River flooded, washing out the bridge her family used to reach town. The family moved. In 2022, the Yellowstone River, a three-minute walk from their new home, overflowed, inundating neighborhoods and causing 128 million dollars in damages.
But Lighthiser remembers the community response. "In the following weeks, I remember there were a lot of efforts to clean up homes and help each other out," she said. "I thought that was a really special thing." Youth-led climate litigation gives her that same sense of togetherness in the face of crisis.
As the named plaintiff in her current case, she mentors younger challengers. Jorja McCormick, a 17-year-old plaintiff also from Livingston, first learned about the lawsuit after hearing Lighthiser speak at a local climate club. "I definitely look up to the older plaintiffs like Eva," McCormick said.
Lighthiser's mother, Erica, is proud but worried. "Look, it's our last name next to the president's last name," she said. Still, she sees her daughter's sense of duty to future generations.
Legal experts have raised concerns. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School, worries the case could backfire. Courts typically hear cases demonstrating specific injury from particular government actions, not broad constitutional claims about multiple executive orders and their cascading effects. "The courts are not able to reform the energy system of the United States, and they're not going to entertain requests for them to do that," Parenteau said.
When the Montana district court dismissed the case last fall, the judge said so "reluctantly" but found the scope of requests "unworkable" and outside the court's jurisdiction. Parenteau does not expect the Ninth Circuit to reinstate it. If Our Children's Trust takes it to the Supreme Court, the risk is far greater. A Supreme Court rejection could be used to block other environmental lawsuits entirely.
Parenteau acknowledges the arguments are legally sound but doubts high court justices will embrace them. "You're playing with fire with courts nowadays," he said. "I believe in their cause, because what they're arguing is what the law ought to be, but it's not what the law is."
Olson dismissed those fears, noting that major civil rights advances have always faced similar warnings. "The answer has never been to step back from the courthouse door," she said. "Children are being harmed right now." She is optimistic about the case's prospects but said even an unfavorable ruling serves a purpose by educating judges about climate harms facing young people.
Lighthiser remains committed to the fight. If the lawsuit succeeds, it would set "an incredible legal precedent" and force the government to acknowledge it is actively harming young people, she said. Even if it fails, she believes bold climate litigation must push courts forward. "There are risks. But if you never take risks, nothing good happens," she said.
Author James Rodriguez: "This case perfectly captures the desperation of a generation watching their world burn and the long odds they face in the courts designed to protect the status quo."
Comments