*****************
Update as of 10/21/25: Judge Christensen has dismissed the plaintiff’s constitutional right to life case, denying their request for a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s executive orders that direct unleashing fossil fuel energy at the expense of wind and solar. The court found it lacked the power to redress plaintiffs’ injuries. For an excellent review of the ruling, which included the judge stating in his 31-page opinion that the plaintiffs had successfully argued that climate change constitutes a “children’s health emergency”, read Karen Zraick’s article in The New York Times, “The Kids Who Sued Trump Just Lost Big in Court. Or Did They?“ Also see this article from Public Justice on the plaintiff’s appeal.
*****************
Sustainable San Mateo County’s recent webinar, “Our Case for the Future,” offered a powerful look into the landmark climate case, Lighthiser v. Trump, and the vital role of youth-led legal action in securing climate justice. The case, brought by 22 young plaintiffs ranging from age 7 to 26, directly challenges three executive orders from the Trump administration that sought to unleash fossil fuel production, block renewable energy and suppress climate science. The webinar welcomed plaintiffs Eva Lighthiser and Delaney Reynolds, as well as Of Council Philip Gregory of Our Children’s Trust.
Watch SSMC’s webinar to learn about the landmark climate case, Lighthiser v. Trump.
Attorney Phil Gregory explains what’s at stake, while youth plaintiffs Eva Lighthiser and Delaney Reynolds share their personal stories of how climate change has impacted their lives and why they’re still hopeful.
Challenging Executive Orders and Protecting Rights
In introducing the webinar, Sustainable San Mateo County Board Chair Terry Nagel emphasized a core issue from the Lighthiser v. Trump case: whether the President has the power to unilaterally act without regard for the separation of powers and the rights of future generations.
Philip Gregory, Of Counsel with the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, detailed the legal fight. Our Children’s Trust advocates for youth voices and science-based climate action, drawing inspiration from systemic cases like Brown v. Board of Education.
The Case: Lighthiser v. Trump asserts that the executive orders violate the youth plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to life, health and safety by exacerbating the climate crisis. The orders promote a “national energy emergency” to increase fossil fuel extraction while “squelching” renewable energy.
The Hearing: In a recent federal court hearing, Judge Dana Christensen heard live testimony for the case. This marked the first youth-led constitutional climate case to present live testimony in a federal court. The hearing addressed the plaintiffs’ motion to stop unconstitutional orders and the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
The Evidence: The youth plaintiffs and their expert witnesses provided substantial evidence detailing how the orders were harming young people’s lives, from heatstroke hospitalizations and worsening wildfire smoke to the cancellation of renewable energy projects. The plaintiffs used expert testimony to argue that renewables are the cheapest energy, and stopping them will create a new energy emergency. Critically, the federal and state governments chose not to present a single witness to defend the orders. Gregory also noted that the court environment discourages “fake news,” as false testimony is perjury.
“These experiences with the climate crisis caused me a lot of anxiety about my future and the very uncertain environment young people are being thrown into,… Taking action has really improved my mental health regarding climate change.”
Eva Lighthiser, Lead Plaintiff
Voices from the Frontlines: Plaintiffs’ Personal Stories
Two key youth plaintiffs shared deeply personal accounts of how the climate crisis is already impacting their lives, grounding the legal fight in lived reality, as presented during the Sustainable San Mateo County webinar:
Eva Lighthiser (Lead Plaintiff, Montana)
Eva, who was also a plaintiff in the groundbreaking Held v. Montana victory, spoke about growing up surrounded by nature and witnessing its decline.
Wildfires and Flooding: She described a new, pervasive wildfire season with smoke causing shortness of breath, as well as multiple devastating flooding events near her home in Livingston, Montana including one that destroyed a key bridge and another that flooded her town.
Action and Courage: Eva emphasized the importance of young people using their voices, calling it their “strongest tool.” She found testifying in court terrifying but essential for affirming the rights of youth to a clean and healthy environment. Eva noted that taking action has been an antidote to climate anxiety and provides an empowering, tangible way to create change.
Delaney Reynolds (Plaintiff, Florida)
Delaney shared her expertise from growing up in Miami and the Florida Keys, and from her current work in a dual-degree J.D. and Ph.D. program from the University of Miami’s Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy.
Lived Reality: She stated that for her, climate risks are not abstract but are a daily reality. She has witnessed “sunny day tidal flooding” that has increased by nearly 400% in Miami since 2006, turning streets into rivers.
Worsening Disasters: Her family’s home was damaged by Hurricane Irma, and she noted that the Atlantic Basin has seen a five-fold increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes since the mid-20th century. Warmer oceans intensify storms faster and higher seas lead to more destructive storm surge.
Constitutional Violation: Delaney called the executive orders “catastrophic” for low-lying Florida, asserting that every ton of unleashed greenhouse gases accelerates sea level rise, which could drown critical habitats like the Everglades and the Florida Keys and threaten their tourist-driven economy. She stressed that the orders are not just bad policy, but unconstitutional, arguing that the President cannot sacrifice the lives of children for fossil fuel profits.
“I wish that I didn’t have to do this at all. But when your home, your future and your right to live safely are on the line, you don’t just sit back, you stand up.”
Delaney Reynolds, Plaintiff
The Path Forward: Advocacy and Hope
The webinar concluded with an inspiring discussion about the unique motivation of young people and the hope that the litigation provides.
The Urgency of Youth
The plaintiffs believe their generation is acting with urgency because they are experiencing the direct, worsening effects of climate change firsthand. Mr. Gregory pointed out that because older generations and political bodies have failed to act effectively, youth have taken on the responsibility to solve the problem through the courts.
A Call for Judicial Courage
The plaintiffs said they have faith in the courts as the final branch of government to turn to, after being let down by the legislative and executive branches.
Legal Goals: Delaney hopes the court will affirm a constitutional right to a safe climate and send a clear message that no President can endanger children to bolster fossil fuel profits.
Beyond the Court: The plaintiffs emphasized the dual goal of their work: securing a legal victory and raising public awareness about climate science and its impacts, even in the face of deniers, by sticking to the facts.
How to Get Involved
To engage more young people, the speakers suggested:
Early Education: Teaching climate science and local impacts at a young age.
Local Action: Encouraging participation in local nonprofits and initiatives to provide a tangible starting point for such a massive global issue.
The outcome of Lighthiser v. Trump remains pending before Judge Christensen, but a favorable ruling would protect millions of young people and affirm their fundamental right to a livable planet. Having seen firsthand the passion and commitment of the youth involved in this case, we at Sustainable San Mateo County are left more hopeful about our future!
