Eighteen youth are asking a federal appeals court to immediately block the Trump administration's repeal of a landmark scientific finding on climate pollution, arguing the action violates their constitutional protections.
The lawsuit, filed in the Washington DC circuit court of appeals and titled Venner v EPA, targets the February revocation of the 2009 endangerment finding, which established that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The plaintiffs contend the repeal strips them of rights to religious freedom, life, and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
Elena Venner, the 21-year-old lead plaintiff, said her Catholic faith compels her to protect creation. "With these repeals, the conditions for life are not being protected," she said, referencing Pope Francis's 2015 encyclical on climate as a common good.
The youth also challenge the EPA's simultaneous repeal of annual vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards. A motion filed Wednesday, shared with the Guardian, warns that the damage is already underway: car manufacturers are revising production plans to increase gas-powered vehicles. The filing estimates that both rollbacks could result in an additional gigaton of carbon dioxide emissions annually, equivalent to Japan's yearly output.
Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel of Our Childrenâs Trust, the nonprofit law firm representing the plaintiffs, stressed the stakes. "The increased exposure to all of the pollutants that will result from this rule can't be undone," she said. "The harm to the petitioners is irreversible."
The legal strategy is novel. While more than a dozen environmental and public health organizations have separately sued the EPA over the same February repeals, Venner v EPA is the first to seek an emergency halt and the only one grounding the challenge in constitutional law.
The plaintiffs argue that worsening air quality and warming temperatures directly infringe on their rights under the Fifth Amendment, and that the rollbacks threaten states' ability to protect constitutional rights of their residents. Hawaii, which committed in June 2024 to decarbonizing transportation by 2045 in an Our Childrenâs Trust settlement, now sees that obligation undermined by the EPA action, Olson noted.
Religious practice forms a central pillar of the complaint. One Muslim plaintiff in California says her ability to safely fast during Ramadan is threatened by increased heat exposure. Elijah Schaffzin, 17, from Memphis, relies on several medications to manage asthma and severe pollen allergies. As an observant Jew, he walks nearly a mile to synagogue on Saturdays, a journey that becomes impossible when air quality worsens or heat spikes.
"If I want to go to services on Saturdays, I have to walk about 0.7 miles along a six-lane road that is extremely busy and polluted," Schaffzin said. "On days where the heat index is too high, or when there's an air quality alert, or if the pollen is too intense, I'm unable to go."
The White House and EPA declined to comment on the case. Olson characterized the administration's moves as a choice to favor corporate interests over children's welfare. "They're prioritizing the financial interests of certain industries over the health and safety of children," she said.
Author James Rodriguez: "This suit puts constitutional language on a climate fight that's usually fought in regulatory and scientific arenas, which could shift how courts evaluate environmental rollbacks."
Comments