Excerpt:
A two-day hearing in Missoula, Montana, pits 22 young Americans against a slate of federal executive orders that turbo-charge fossil fuels. Fresh off a landmark win in Held v. Montana, these plaintiffs and their legal team say the White House’s new energy directives endanger their lives and liberties. The federal stage is steeper than state court—but the stakes for health, justice, and democracy are unmistakable for communities from Billings to Dearborn. [1][2][3]
What’s happening—and why it matters now
Youth climate activists who helped secure a historic state-court victory in Montana are back in court, this time asking a federal judge—U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula—to halt several Trump-era 2025 executive orders that expand drilling, mining, and coal while sidelining clean energy. Over two days of testimony, young plaintiffs plan to describe how extreme heat, wildfire smoke, and intensified storms are already reshaping their lives. [1]
AP News
In 2023, a Montana trial court ruled—and in 2024 the Montana Supreme Court affirmed—that the state’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” includes a stable climate. The court found Montana violated that right by blocking greenhouse-gas analysis in environmental reviews. [4][5]
Now the same youth-led movement is testing whether federal courts will go where state courts have begun to tread. Unlike Montana’s constitution, the U.S. Constitution has no explicit environmental right—one reason legal scholars caution the federal case is an uphill climb. [1]
AP News
“These cases have always been about not just the court of law, but the court of public opinion,” one legal scholar noted in coverage of the hearing. [1]
AP News
The executive orders at the center of the case
On January 20, 2025—the day of inauguration—the White House declared a National Energy Emergency and issued “Unleashing American Energy”, directing agencies to expedite fossil-fuel production, permitting, transport, and power generation using emergency authorities. In April, a third order sought to “reinvigorate” coal, reducing regulatory barriers to coal extraction and export. [6][7][8][9][10][11]
Analyses from legal institutes and agency guidance underscore the breadth of the emergency declaration, from fast-tracking infrastructure to altering how environmental safeguards are applied in practice. [9][12][13][14]
The youth argue these actions amplify climate harms in ways that violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty. Federal and state attorneys (19 states plus Guam) are seeking dismissal, and the defense does not plan to call witnesses. [1][2]
By the numbers
- 22 youth plaintiffs challenging new federal energy orders. [1]
- 3 targeted executive orders: emergency declaration, “Unleashing American Energy,” and a coal-promotion order. [6][7][8]
- 87,000 estimated premature deaths worldwide linked to 2023 Canada wildfire smoke—signal of a warming world’s health toll. [15]
- 2045 zero-emissions target in Hawaiʻi’s youth-led settlement—proof youth litigation can change policy. [16][17]
- Statewide air-quality alerts this summer in Michigan from Canadian smoke—again. [18][19]
:contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}
Why the federal fight is harder than Held v. Montana
Montana’s constitution gives judges a clean hook: a textual right to a healthful environment. The U.S. Constitution has no such clause, and past federal youth cases—most famously Juliana v. United States—hit jurisdictional walls. In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to revive Juliana, effectively ending a decade-long effort to litigate a federal constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate. [2][20][21]
This Missoula case advances a different tack: that federal orders have created or worsened danger (a “state-created danger” theory) and thus imperil the plaintiffs’ rights to life and liberty. It’s a novel approach—and novelty is risky in federal court. [2]
The Guardian
Still, there’s momentum in the states. Montana’s high court decision and Hawaiʻi’s 2024 youth settlement—which requires decarbonizing transportation and recognizes children’s rights to a life-sustaining climate—show what’s possible when state constitutions and courts engage directly with climate harms. [4][5][16][17]
The health stakes are not abstract
The science is clear: carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat; the IPCC says human influence on warming is “unequivocal.” [22][23][24]
“Greenhouse gases trap extra heat near Earth’s surface, causing temperatures to rise,” NASA explains. [25]
NASA Science
Health impacts follow the physics. Plaintiffs cite modeling that Trump’s orders could contribute to nearly 200,000 additional deaths over 25 years due to pollution and heat-related illnesses—figures the court will scrutinize, but which signal the scale of risk when policy swings widen fossil fuel combustion. [26]
KFF Health News
Closer to home, Michigan residents have repeatedly inhaled the costs of a warming world. The state issued air-quality alerts again this summer as Canadian smoke pushed PM2.5 (soot) into unhealthy ranges. Detroit has ranked among the world’s worst air-quality cities on some smoke-choked days since 2023. [18][27][28]
And the global picture is equally sobering: a new peer-reviewed analysis estimates 87,000 premature deaths worldwide from 2023’s Canadian wildfire smoke, including thousands in the United States. [15]
Live Science
Where do regulators stand after Held?
Even in Montana, translating judicial wins into regulatory practice is a grind. On September 2, 2025, the Montana Public Service Commission rejected a petition to factor climate impacts into its decisions, despite the Held ruling. Commissioners argued they lacked authority; petitioners argued the constitution requires it. [29][30][31]
That tension—between constitutional principle and administrative practice—hangs over the federal case. An energy-emergency framing can tilt agency priorities toward speed and extraction. The court will weigh whether that tilt unlawfully endangers young people whose lives will play out amid the policies’ long tail of emissions. [9][12][13][14]
The bigger legal ecosystem: youth climate cases keep evolving
Montana: Held stands as the first U.S. trial victory on constitutional climate rights, now affirmed by the state’s high court. [4][5]
Hawaiʻi: Navahine F. settlement binds the state to decarbonize ground, sea, and inter-island air transport by 2045, with court oversight and youth participation. [16][17]
Federal (Oregon): Juliana ended with SCOTUS declining review in March 2025, signaling federal courts’ reluctance to craft nationwide climate remedies. [2][21]
Regardless of outcomes, these cases have shifted public narratives: climate harms are concrete, rights-based, and unequally distributed. And youth are not waiting their turn.
A pragmatic lens: energy security vs. climate security
Supporters of the 2025 executive orders frame them as essential to grid reliability, national security, and lower prices; Interior Department orders implementing the emergency and “Unleashing American Energy” emphasize removing barriers and accelerating projects. [11][14]
Skeptics counter that emergency powers are being used to short-circuit democratic checks and environmental protections, deepening dependence on fuels whose pollution and climate impacts are well-documented. Independent legal analyses warn the declaration’s breadth raises separation-of-powers questions—even before you get to climate science. [9][12][13]
This is the real contest: not science versus denial, but competing definitions of “security” and the time horizon we honor.
“No matter where I live, I cannot escape extreme climate events.” — Youth plaintiff’s declaration, echoing what families from Missoula to Metro Detroit have felt on high-smoke days. [1][27]
Dearborn’s stake—and a Green path forward
Dearborn is a working-class, proudly multiracial city with a deep Arab-American heartbeat. We live at the nexus of manufacturing, migration, and environmental justice. When smoke heads south, or heat sticks around in neighborhoods with less tree cover, our elders and children feel it fastest. The 2023–2025 smoke episodes, the repeated AQI alerts, the asthma spikes—these aren’t “future” problems. They’re ZIP-code-level realities. [18][27][28]
The Green Party perspective aligns with that lived truth: a transition as ambitious as a moonshot and as local as a school bus route. The party’s Green New Deal vision couples rapid decarbonization with an Economic Bill of Rights—clean energy by 2030, union jobs, housing, and healthcare—because communities can’t be asked to choose between the lights staying on and lungs staying clear. [32][33]
In that register, youth litigation is not a silver bullet; it’s a pressure valve. Courts can block harms and clarify rights. But the rest of us—municipal leaders, school boards, unions, mosques, small businesses, and yes, political parties—must build the durable institutions that make a clean, dignified life the cheaper, easier default.
That’s the Dearborn way: solidarity plus pragmatism. We rally for Palestine because oppression anywhere corrodes justice everywhere; we also retrofit our buildings, electrify buses, and plant trees because resilience is neighbor-to-neighbor work. Climate justice is not a boutique cause. It’s the air we breathe at Ford Road and Schaefer. It’s our kids’ recess. It’s weekends at Rouge Park under a cooler canopy.
So when young Montanans ask a federal judge to press pause on policies that supercharge the problem, they’re speaking a language Dearborn understands: rights, responsibility, and a future worth staying for.
What to watch next
The court’s threshold call: Will Judge Christensen accept the youth’s theories under federal law, or dismiss as a policy fight for Congress and agencies? [1]
AP News
Emergency powers, tested: How far can an energy “emergency” stretch—legally and factually—before constitutional rights arguments gain traction? [9][12][13]
State-level ripples: Expect more petitions and rulemakings invoking Held, even as some commissions resist. [29][31]
Sources
Matthew Brown / Associated Press, “Young activists won a landmark state climate trial. Now they’re challenging Trump’s orders,” updated Sept. 15, 2025. [1]
AP News
The Guardian, “Young climate activists in court aim to stop Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders,” Sept. 16, 2025. [2]
The Guardian
Fortune, “Gen Z climate activists take Trump to court in Montana,” Sept. 16, 2025. [3]
Fortune
Montana Supreme Court, Held v. State decision summary (affirming trial court), Dec. 18, 2024. [4]
Alaska Beacon
Justia, Held v. State (Montana), 2024. [5]
Justia Law
White House, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” Executive Order, Jan. 20, 2025. [6]
The White House
White House, “Unleashing American Energy,” Executive Order, Jan. 20, 2025. [7]
The White House
White House, “Reinvigorating America’s … Coal Industry,” Executive Order, Apr. 8, 2025. [8]
The White House
Columbia Law (Sabin Center) analysis of the National Energy Emergency EO, Feb. 14, 2025. [9]
Columbia Law School Blogs
NCSL tracker of 2025 administration actions on energy/coal, Apr. 8, 2025. [10]
NCSL
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation note on the energy emergency EO, Feb. 25, 2025. [11]
ACHP
Georgetown Climate Center explainer on the Energy Emergency and state policies, July 1, 2025. [12]
Georgetown Climate Center
Latham & Watkins client note on emergency power grid order, Apr. 15, 2025. [13]
Latham & Watkins
U.S. DOI Secretary’s Orders implementing the EO (Nos. 3417/3418), Feb. 3, 2025. [14]
U.S. Department of the Interior
+1
Nature study coverage via Live Science estimating 87,000 premature deaths from 2023 Canada wildfire smoke, Sept. 10, 2025. [15]
Live Science
Hawaiʻi Governor’s Office release on Navahine F. v. HDOT settlement, June 20, 2024. [16]
Hawaii Governor’s Office
Climate Case Chart summary of Navahine F. settlement, June 20, 2024. [17]
Climate Change Litigation
Michigan EGLE air-quality alert (smoke/PM2.5), May 30, 2025. [18]
Michigan
Planet Detroit, statewide smoke advisory explainer, July 14, 2025. [19]
Planet Detroit
Our Children’s Trust, Juliana v. United States—SCOTUS denial, Mar. 24, 2025. [20]
Our Children’s Trust
Oregon Capital Chronicle, “Supreme Court declines to revive youth climate suit,” Mar. 24, 2025. [21]
Oregon Capital Chronicle
IPCC AR6 (WG1) Summary for Policymakers: headline statements, 2021. [22]
IPCC
IPCC AR6 SPM (PDF). [23]
IPCC
NASA Climate “Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs.” [24]
NASA Science
NASA Science, “What is the greenhouse effect?” [25]
NASA Science
KFF Health News, preview of plaintiffs’ health-risk evidence for Missoula hearing, Sept. 2025. [26]
KFF Health News
ClickOnDetroit, Detroit air quality among world’s worst during 2023 smoke, June 7, 2023. [27]
WDIV
The Guardian, Canada wildfires drive hazardous air across North America, June 7, 2023. [28]
The Guardian
Daily Montanan, PSC rejects climate petition post-Held, Sept. 2, 2025. [29]
Daily Montanan
Montana Free Press, utility board declines climate petition, Sept. 5, 2025. [30]
Montana Free Press
Earthjustice press note on PSC decision, Sept. 2, 2025. [31]
Earthjustice
Green Party US, Green New Deal platform page. [32]
http://www.gp.org
Green Party US, Green New Deal archive explainer. [33]
http://www.gp.org
Notes on balance and verification
This article draws on court documents, state and federal agency materials, peer-reviewed science, and reporting from a range of outlets. Where plaintiffs’ projections (e.g., mortality estimates) are cited, they are identified as claims to be weighed by the court.
KFF Health News
Legal and Editorial Disclaimer
The views expressed here are presented in the context of public debate and are based on sources cited above. Dearborn Blog is a community platform that aims to provide balanced, good-faith analysis. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice. All readers are encouraged to review primary documents and official court filings, and to consult experts for specific guidance. The inclusion of quotes or summaries of third-party positions does not imply endorsement by Dearborn Blog or its contributors.
Why this resonates in Dearborn
Dearborn’s youth, families, and workers live at the crossroads of health, climate, and economic dignity. The Green Party’s call for a just transition—from cleaner buses to unionized clean-energy jobs—speaks our language of shared prosperity. Whether or not the federal court grants relief this week, we’ll keep building the local future we deserve: breathable air, reliable power, affordable homes, and a politics fierce enough to protect both people and planet. [32][33][18][19]
Dearborn Blog 