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.
The courts recognize that climate change requires a political solution not a legal interpretation.
It’s interesting that the judge deemed running around in circles waving your arms over your head as “overwhelming evidence.” The reason judges should stay out of these matters.
Faced with the usual feminine/child emotionalism creating legal and practical chaos he opted wisely for masculine logic. Thankfully the Kamala Donald conundrum was settled the same way but we still have to put up with the screechy hysterics and blubbering.
Not to mention the professionally made signs handed out when the ‘protestors’ get off their buses.
How can the judge make such a claim when he is not qualified to consider the evidence, and he refuses to allow cross-examination of the supposed evidence or allow expert witness testimony that questions the claimed evidence? The judge should not have made such a prejudicial statement!
Eschew your misogynistic veil and feel the vibe-
The Great Feminisation
When push came to shove he could sense the chaos in giving in to his emotions.
Let’s salute the woman who has identified the source of the problem with the challenge to objective factual science-
Helen Andrews | Overcoming the Feminization of Culture | NatCon 5
It’s largely a contest coming from two completely different paradigms. Even if you’re a true believer the purported fix will run headlong into factual physics engineering and economics. Why should the woke women in HR care as the working class men have plenty of muscles and sweat in them to take care of it all.
“…In Wednesday’s ruling, Christensen said that the plaintiffs presented “overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace…”
Clearly she should not be a judge of anything.
There is a wee problem with the feminisation of the workforce as they’re mostly in their woke soft girl era and unlike say hands on tradeys that makes them vulnerable-
Channel 4 makes British TV history with first-ever AI presenter | Watch