Young climate activists seeking to block President Trump’s energy policies in the name of climate change have been sent packing by a federal judge who says courts do not have the authority to set energy policy in America. 

A left-wing group, Our Children’s Trust, filed a lawsuit on behalf of 22 plaintiffs between the ages of 7 and 24 from California, Florida, Hawaii, Montana, and Oregon who say the Trump administration’s policies are a “death sentence for their generation.”

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Montana, Dana Christensen, an Obama appointee, said that the plaintiffs presented “overwhelming evidence” that the Trump policies will “increase the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, thereby exacerbating the harms [they] experience from an already-warming climate.” 

However, he dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the plaintiffs’ attempt to force a return to Biden-era policies is “unworkable” and beyond the scope of the authority of the judiciary branch. 

Judge Christensen wrote that ruling in favor of the young climate activists would require “Defendant agencies and — ultimately — this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action” since January 20, 2025, to determine whether Mr. Trump’s execution orders at question were behind the decision or “some other government policy.”

“In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction,” he said. “This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent.”

Judge Christensen also said that an injunction requiring the Trump administration to return to Biden-era policies would require the court to “pass judgment on the sufficiency of the government’s response to [its] order, which would necessarily entail a broad range of policymaking.”

“It is far beyond the power of an Article III court to create environmental policy, which is left ‘for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches,’” Judge Christensen said. 

The Trump executive orders challenged by the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit involve policies aimed at accelerating the production and transportation of crude oil, natural gas, and coal, as well as the necessary infrastructure to support those efforts. The lawsuit also challenges the administration’s removal of climate information on federal websites.

The plaintiffs alleged that the policies violate the Fifth Amendment and their right to life. The lead plaintiff, Eva Lighthiser, said in a statement about the lawsuit, “Trump’s fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation.”

Several of the plaintiffs in the federal case were involved in a 2023 lawsuit that alleged Montana’s law that prohibits lengthy environmental impact reviews when planning new energy projects, such as the construction of a power plant, is unconstitutional. A lower state court sided with the plaintiffs, and Montana’s supreme court upheld the decision in a 6-1 vote, ruling that the plaintiffs have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.”

While they won that case, analysts noted that Montana’s constitution states that residents have the “right to a clean and healthful environment,” a statement which is not in the U.S. Constitution. 

A White House spokesman, Taylor Rogers, said in a statement that the ruling was a victory for the president’s energy policies. 

The CEO of the right-leaning American Energy Institute, Jason Isaac, told the Sun that the lawsuit was “nothing more than a political stunt dressed up as legal action,” and part of a “coordinated legal campaign to shut down the U.S. energy industry through the courts.”

Our Children’s Trust said it plans to appeal the ruling.