A group of young climate activists is taking on a major federal legal battle aimed at halting government policies that promote fossil fuel development. Following their landmark victory in a state climate trial last year, the plaintiffs are now asking a federal judge to block executive actions that they argue endanger their futures and violate their constitutional rights.

The new lawsuit, being heard in a federal courtroom in Missoula, Montana, targets executive orders issued under the previous administration that prioritized fossil fuel production and discouraged the advancement of renewable energy. Over the course of a two-day hearing, the plaintiffs and their legal team from an environmental nonprofit plan to present scientific and personal testimony detailing the effects of these federal policies on young people and the environment.

The case follows a successful 2023 legal battle in Montana, where a state court ruled that the government had failed to consider climate impacts when approving fossil fuel projects. That ruling was based on unique provisions in the state constitution, which guarantee citizens the right to a clean and healthful environment. However, those legal protections are not present in the U.S. Constitution, making the current federal case a steeper uphill battle.

Legal scholars caution that while the Montana decision broke new ground, its reasoning is unlikely to carry over into federal court, where the legal framework is significantly narrower. Without explicit environmental rights enshrined in federal law, the plaintiffs must rely on broader constitutional protections such as the rights to life, liberty, and due process.

Government attorneys representing the federal administration, joined by officials from 19 states and one U.S. territory, are urging the presiding judge to dismiss the case. They argue that the executive actions in question were within legal bounds and aimed at protecting national and economic security. According to their defense, shifting energy policies were designed to end perceived imbalances in energy regulation and promote domestic energy independence.

The plaintiffs, however, contend that such policies accelerate climate change, leading to more severe weather events, air pollution, and ecosystem disruption. In written declarations submitted to the court, the young claimants describe firsthand experiences with wildfire smoke, flooding, hurricanes, and other climate-related threats that have affected their health, education, and quality of life.

One of the claimants plans to testify about the harmful effects of wildfire smoke in her home state. Another will speak to the courtroom about how administrative roadblocks have hindered local efforts to adopt clean transportation for schools. A third will address how worsening hurricanes and wildfires linked to fossil fuel emissions have followed her across state lines, illustrating the widespread and borderless nature of climate change.

The legal strategy mirrors that used in the successful state case, where the plaintiffs offered emotional and scientific testimony about how environmental degradation directly harms their lives. In both cases, the emphasis has been on demonstrating the real-world impacts of government policies on the younger generation.

Despite the challenges in federal court, the plaintiffs’ attorneys maintain that fundamental constitutional protections offer a path forward. They argue that governmental actions that knowingly harm future generations by exacerbating climate change run counter to the founding principles of the nation.

The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications. A victory for the plaintiffs would mark a significant expansion of how constitutional rights are interpreted in the context of environmental protection, potentially reshaping federal energy policy and climate law. Conversely, a dismissal would underscore the legal limits of climate litigation at the federal level, even as environmental risks continue to escalate.

As the hearings unfold, the case is being closely watched by legal experts, environmental advocates, and policymakers alike. Regardless of the outcome, the legal challenge highlights the growing momentum of youth-led climate activism and its potential to influence national discourse on energy and the environment.