Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t rhs; “… while this court is certainly troubled … this concern does not automatically confer … the power to act. …”
Judge dismisses suit by young climate activists against Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies
Plaintiffs had ‘overwhelming evidence’ of climate crisis but a court injunction would be ‘unworkable’, ruling says
Maya Yang
Thu 16 Oct 2025 08.22 AEDTThe dismissal by US district judge Dana Christensen on Wednesday came after 22 plaintiffs, ages seven to 25 and from five states, sought to block three of the president’s executive orders, including those declaring a “national energy emergency” and seeking to “unleash American energy” – as well as one aimed at “reinvigorating” the US’s production of coal.
…
In Wednesday’s ruling, Christensen said that the plaintiffs presented “overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels”.
However, Christensen said: “Yet while this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged [executive orders’] effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”
He added: “Granting plaintiffs’ injunction would require the defendant agencies, and – ultimately – this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since” the start of Trump’s second presidency on 20 January 2025.
“In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction. This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent,” Christensen continued.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/oct/15/youth-climate-activist-lawsuit-dismissed-trump-executive-orders
Judge Dana Christensen was appointed by President Obama in 2011.
Usually in these kinds of articles we report how Biden or Obama appointed judges issued activist rulings which force the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court for a rapid resolution, so this is a welcome relief from the usual charade. Credit to Judge Christensen for adhering to the law, despite his obvious personal concerns about climate change.
But the plaintiffs intend to appeal the decision, so they might get lucky with the next judge.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh pitty oh sorrow, when even your “friends” abandon you…that SARC-tag deserves to be written in EXTRA BOLD letters.🤪
As it does seem to be the same collection of lawyers and activists filing such suits, it is an issue with the courts that such suits continue, despite losing.
Win or lose, there’s money to be made, and that’s a win (in their checkbook).
Are the liars… er lawyers going to get paid much by enviro activists? Pro bono?
Probably being paid by various NGOs, and ultimately by a small handful of far left billionaires.
I am not in USA, so I do not know why RICO action cannot be taken against the legal firm and/or disciples who repeatedly lose in Court the try again with the same template. Misuse or abuse of the Court system should be punished, no?
Geoff S
In the US, I believe it’s called barratry (vexatious litigation). And yes, it is a crime in all States.
“Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes) within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an enterprise.”
Applying RICO redefines lawfare as racketeering. The simplest definition of racketeering, “dishonest and fraudulent business dealings”, requires motive be ascribed to the plaintiffs. I don’t think the process would pass founding fathers’ sniff test.
Remember – you’d be giving the power for government to seize assets from plaintiffs to the exact same judges that are in place now. Whoever wrote this article could rule, say, all current and future exon profits will be seized by local government and used to sue Shell (in the International Court of Justice?).
An interesting study would survey how many of these cases are thrown out every year. We’re looking at the story knowing mostly about cases that did not get thrown out. I hope judges, even the sympathetic ones, are getting “sick of it”.
fwiw – I am a little surprised why the same group filed in Montana district court when it is governed by CA9 and the juliana case
The Biden administration funneled nearly $100 billion to NGOs and other leftwing groups and businesses last January. I suspect that is one way these lawsuits get funded.
And another one bites the dust. Aren’t we past the point where CC lawfare is vexatious to the courts?
Several weeks ago, I was on the road coming back from a vacation trip and spent time with a former manager who is retired and who now lives near Spokane, before heading south to my abode in the Middle of Nowhere, southeastern Washington State.
His grown daughter was visiting as well and had arrived driving one of these Ford Mustang Mach-E fully electric vehicles. A very nice car, even if I wouldn’t own one myself.
During the course of our conversation, she bemoaned the election of Donald Trump and his anti-RE energy policies.
My response was that while he was president, Joe Biden had legal authority under his Article II constitutional powers, backed by past legal precedent primarily from presidential edicts issued in World War II, to declare a climate emergency and to immediately impose a program of fossil fuel rationing on America’s economy.
Since there is no definition of what constitutes a ‘climate emergency’ in any current US law, Joe Biden was free under his Article II powers to define what a climate emergency is and to then issue a series of declarations, proclamations, and executive orders imposing a fossil fuel rationing scheme based on his own definition of that emergency.
So I asked her this question. If Joe Biden claimed that climate change was an existential threat to humanity, then why didn’t he declare a climate emergency and then move a lot farther and faster than he actually did in suppressing America’s carbon emissions?
As one might expect, she had no explanation for why he didn’t.
Maybe he didn’t because he knew fine well that in fact there is no climate emergency and that climate change is not caused by CO2.
That’s never stopped any of these nutters from doing any of this stuff.
I called 911 to find out what actions I needed to take to live through the “climate emergency” that our City had just proclaimed.
They told me they had no advice for me, but I should seek advice & instructions from the City.
So I asked our local City’s public safety officer what I needed to be doing to stay alive from the threats of the “climate emergency” that the City had just proclaimed.
She had no answers, but did threaten to call the police to deal with me as a “crank”.
She knows her fully elecric mustang wouldn’t exist without exploiting fossil fuels.
“Plaintiffs had ‘overwhelming evidence’ of climate crisis…”
No they didn’t. And, he should have kept his mouth shut on whether there is or is not such overwhelming evidence.
Yikes. Judges are supposed to be able to use sound reasoning to distinguish between a claim and a fact.
Overwhelming hysteria, more like..
The planet is ‘on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster,’ scientists warn – Yale
The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth – Oxford
Toxic belief: Where does climate crisis denial come from – The Independent
The loonies are in charge of the asylum.
And you left out this big one (hysteria goes both ways):
Earth on the verge of a new Ice Age – multiple scientists, early- to mid-1970’s
As a paid in full member of the left wing cabal, the judge was duly obligated to provide full lip service to the cause, even if he couldn’t rule in it’s favor.
Exactly. The judge can’t weigh the validity of the evidence because he hasn’t seen any counter evidence from the defense, which would have been presented if the case had gone to trial. He was blinded by the BS from only one side of the case. The case didn’t go to trial because the judge understood that the courts are the wrong way to “remedy” this in a representative republic. Our elected representatives in legislatures are the ones who make laws, not judges. Using courts to inflict the mandates of leftists on the people is tyrannical, which is exactly how leftists operate. They are at heart petty tyrants. It’s a defining characteristic.
Actually the case was dismissed due to Juliana. If the CA9 Juliana case wasnt binding precedent, the case would have gone to trial. Though, I am troubled on how the judge allowed an evidentiary hearing.
Likely they presented a litany of weather events such as floods, droughts, hot days, forest fires, bleaching coral, and disappearing islands. Oh, I just remembered massive immigration from all the once wonderful places that are warming 3X faster than all the other hotted-up places.
The world is bent. So, what is new?
“young climate activists”
Well under 30 no doubt… FFS.
Obama appointee – held evidentiary hearing even though case had to be dismissed under Juliana.
Heard testimony from “expert witness” marc jacobson.
What a joke –
A – he testified as expert for health damages caused by global warming. There is absolutely nothing in his realm that would qualify him as an expert in that arena.
B – he testified on renewable energy which is not an issue before the court. ( He is actually a fraud, not an expert )
The court displayed overwhelming evidence of agenda science persuasion and manipulation, like in other kangaroo courts.
Did the court employ climate communicators for wording of the soft touch ruling?
No expert witnesses or scientific studies were presented in opposition to the plaintiffs’ evidence during the hearing for Lighthiser v. Trump. The government defendants and state intervenors did not introduce their own witnesses or data to directly challenge the plaintiffs’ climate science or health testimony in court.
Opposition Strategy
Legal Rather than Scientific Challenge
In summary, the defense in Lighthiser v. Trump relied exclusively on legal arguments, with no substantive presentation of opposing climate science, health data, or expert testimony.
They won the legal battle, but are losing the propaganda war.
A – the case had to be dismissed under the Juliana precedent, So why waste time and legal fees on an issue?
B – See my comment above on Marc Jacobson the “Expert Witness”. Why would jacobson qualify as an expert on the issue before the court? The judge allowing him in as an expert makes a mockery of the Daubert standard.
On cross exam, the opposing attorney would rip jacobson a new one. Jacobson states that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels at least 100 times in his 100% renewable studies. Run the math on His tables S’ and the claim gets blown out of the water. Same with his claim that his every 30 second stress test proved the reliability of 100% renewables.
idbodbi: “….. In summary, the defense in Lighthiser v. Trump relied exclusively on legal arguments, with no substantive presentation of opposing climate science, health data, or expert testimony.”
While he was president, Joe Biden had legal authority under his Article II constitutional powers — backed by past legal precedent primarily from presidential edicts issued in World War II — to declare a climate emergency and to immediately impose a program of fossil fuel rationing on America’s economy.
Since there is no definition of what constitutes a ‘climate emergency’ in any current US law, Joe Biden was free under his Article II powers to define what a climate emergency is and to then issue a series of declarations, proclamations, and executive orders imposing a fossil fuel rationing scheme based on his own definition of that emergency.
Had he chosen to formally declare a climate emergency, Joe Biden would have cited the same scientific arguments presented in the Our Children’s Trust lawsuit to justify his actions.
He would also have cited past legal precedent in defending his power under Article II of the constitution to define what a climate emergency is, and to then take further actions based on that definition. In addition, Biden might have also cited wording contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act which labels carbon emissions as pollutants and which supplies funding for their regulation.
Biden’s formal declaration of a climate emergency and a follow-on series of actions implementing a fossil fuel rationing scheme would have generated a number of lawsuits from a variety of plaintiffs.
All of those plaintiffs would have challenged Biden’s Article II authority to declare a climate emergency and to impose a fossil fuel lockdown on America’s economy. Some of those plaintiffs would also have challenged the climate science Biden cited in declaring his climate emergency.
In my humble opinion, based on past legal precedents dating from World War II and after, the courts all the way up to SCOTUS would have upheld Biden’s Article II authority to define what a climate emergency is and to then impose a program of fossil fueling rationing based on his own definition.
Please don’t give the idiots ideas.
Is the court qualified to judge and label the soft, agenda science of an advocacy movement?
No way qualified. An unbiased judge would have either recused himself, or resisted the temptation to share his bias with the world.
Be sure and subscribe to more productions of the climate melodrama troupe.
Britannica
melodrama, in Western theatre, sentimental drama with an improbable plot that concerns the vicissitudes suffered by the virtuous at the hands of the villainous but ends happily with virtue triumphant. Featuring stock characters such as the noble hero, the long-suffering heroine, and the cold-blooded villain, the melodrama focusses not on character development but on sensational incidents and spectacular staging.
But your honor … “They Knew” 😁
It is a huge mistake to get the legal industry involved in the advance of science.
Who would have confidence in any judge who writes such drivel as quoted above “Overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace … CO2 …burning fossil fuel…” What a wanker.
Geoff S
But it isn’t the advance of science. What I would argue it is, is the respectable, authoritative voice of science used to provide the fig leaf for alleged well-meaning political ambitions.
Education to this end was hijacked long ago bringing us the climate anxious etc. For them, as they’ve been repeatedly told, it’s very real.
Thanks to the Climate Fascists, science is no longer respectable or authoritative.
As Eisenhower warned the nation in his farewell address before I was even born.
A better description I can’t think of.
😆😅🤣😂
Anybody should be able to spot this dichotomy/bias in US district judge Dana Christensen’s ruling (my bold emphasis added):
“Christensen said that the plaintiffs presented ‘overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels’ . . . He added: ‘Granting plaintiffs’ injunction would require the defendant agencies, and – ultimately – this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since’ the start of Trump’s second presidency on 20 January 2025.“
Hmmm . . . so the overwhelming evidence and staggering pace of climate change is limited to only what has occurred under the Trump presidency starting in January 2025? Really??? No significant global warming or rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration before that, especially during the Presidency of Barack Obama???
So says Christensen, who was appointed by President Obama in 2011.
I feel the need to remind judge Christensen of these Obama Executive Orders:
— Executive Order 13514 (2009): Established a new integrated strategy for federal agency sustainability and prioritized reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
—Executive Order 13653 (2013): Directed federal agencies to prepare for the impacts of climate change by assessing risks and developing strategies to build resilience. It also established a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to advise the administration on how to support communities in their climate preparedness efforts.
— Executive Order 13690 (2015): Established the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which required federal investments in floodplains to meet higher standards, based on the projected impacts of climate change.
— Executive Order 13693 (2015): Set new goals for federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2025, increase renewable energy use to 30% of federal electricity, and improve energy efficiency in federal buildings.
— Executive Order on Climate Change and National Security (2016): Directed federal departments and agencies to fully consider climate-related impacts when developing national security policies and plans.
But, of course, any person—federal judge or not—that believes climate change is at a “staggering pace” and that this change “stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels” has passed the point of being objective and rational about such things.
If it were really kids doing this stuff, I might think “they don’t know yet what stopping all FF would do” but I wonder sometimes what the adults who run the campaign are hoping for. Do they not realize millions who live North of Virginia will die at night when the firewood runs out?
It would have been interesting to learn of the “overwhelming” evidence of the damage from “climate change” offered by the kids. Storms? Nope. Flooding and drought? Nope. Tornadoes? Nope. Accelerated sea level rise? Nope. Heat waves? Nope. Declining harvests? Nope. A couple degree rise in night time temperature? Ahh. Got one.
He’s an idiot, but at least not a total idiot.
Inasmuch as the judge didn’t allow cross-examination of the ‘evidence’ or allow expert testimony against the position of the plaintiffs, the judge’s questions were only ‘half-asked’. 🙂
Cute…. thanks.
What is this “overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace?” A simple reading of the 2021 UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group One, Chapter 12 will show the judge that no climate metric is changing at a staggering pace.
The judge seems to believe mis-quoting of over-heated CliSciFi climate models and media headline reporting are scientific facts. He did not take any rudimentary fact-finding steps to determine the truth of the Leftist’s overheated claims. His personal bias is manifest.
*************
Exactly. I hardly think that 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade (UAH satellite record) qualifies as anything that could be called “staggering” regarding temperatures.
The judge said he was “troubled” by the effects of climate change. Natural change or man-made? Does he know how much warming is natural and how much is due to human emitted GHG’s? Where is his evidence that weather extremes are getting worse?
As we have seen in history, we once again see the manipulation of the emotions and mindset of children to abuse, justify and aid the power of govt to advance an agenda. Hitler did it (with his Hitler Youth), Stalin did it and Mao Tse Tung did it with his Cultural Revolution.
The manipulation of children to do this has happened at least twice now, and we can only hope that it will be the last time these idiot lawyers attempt such a thing. Sadly, I fear it won’t be.
“Huey, Dewey and Louie” from the movie “Silent Running.” Sci-Fi dystopia.
While the ruling is useful the additional commentary by the judge clearly abdicates all pretense of Judicial impartiality. Heck I would like to know what the ‘overwhelming evidence of the climate changing at a staggering pace’ could possibly be. By every measure the planet and human environment is getting better. There is no accelerated sea level rise, the planet is greening, humans are living twice as long, we can support vastly more people than pre-industrial society could ever hope to achieve.
The only ‘evidence’ that could possibly be submitted to suggest otherwise would be based on unverified, useless models and that can not possibly count as evidence in a court of law.
“Overwhelming evidence?!”
LMFAO, there IS NO “evidence.” What a crock of shit.
More good news. Is it at all feasible for our side to get hold of the evidence the judge was so impressed with and officially refute it?
These children and young adults have one thing in common, they are all greenhorns.
Greenhorn = an inexperienced person, esp one who is extremely gullible (Collins Dictionary)
I have no doubt that the judge and all the court staff drove on a hot asphalt road to a hot asphalt parking lot oblivious of UHI and temperature station location bias in ever growing urban areas. Did the advocates tell them about the trend differences of station data for rural vs. urban measurement or of a host of medium- and long-term ocean cycles in global climate. I thought not.