WASHINGTON — Yesterday, Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) filed an amicus brief in support of youth plaintiffs represented by Our Children’s Trust in Lighthister, et al. v. Trump, et al., a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing the dismissal of claims challenging federal executive actions designed to expand fossil fuel use.
The brief urges the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s ruling, which held that despite “overwhelming” evidence that the Plaintiffs are suffering tangible injury caused by the implementation of the challenged laws, the harm was not redressable by the courts. L4GG argues that this conclusion misapplies binding precedent and, if allowed to stand, would severely weaken the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights.
The brief, which you can read in full here, argues that federal courts have both the authority and the obligation to declare unconstitutional executive actions invalid—particularly where those actions are the legal cause of ongoing harm to young people’s health, safety, and lives.
Specifically, the brief explains:
Declaratory relief is meaningful redress. Longstanding Supreme Court precedent—including Brown v. Board of Education—establishes that invalidating an unconstitutional legal mandate itself constitutes redress, even where full compliance may take time or face resistance.
The district court misread Juliana v. United States. Unlike Juliana, where plaintiffs sought a court-designed national climate plan, the youth plaintiffs here seek a narrow, traditional remedy: a declaration that specific executive orders are unconstitutional and ultra vires.
Courts are not powerless simply because a remedy is incomplete. Article III does not require courts to solve a policy problem in full—only to eliminate the legal cause of a constitutional injury. Declaring the challenged executive orders invalid would withdraw their legal force and reduce the harms they are causing.
Denying redressability here would undermine the rule of law. If courts may not invalidate unconstitutional executive mandates simply because they do not control every downstream effect, entire categories of constitutional claims would become nonjusticeable.
“Federal courts do not lose their constitutional role simply because a case involves climate change or executive policy,” said Charles Dell’Ario, counsel for amicus, and pro bono volunteer for Lawyers for Good Government. “When an executive order is the legal cause of constitutional injury, courts have both the power and the duty to say what the law is and to withdraw that mandate from the legal system.”
"When courts find that the administration has caused a constitutional injury—as the court did here—the government cannot evade liability by arguing that there is nothing a court can do about it,” added Amy Powell, Litigation Director, Pro Bono Litigation Corps, Lawyers for Good Government. “Rather, a declaratory judgment invalidating the challenged executive actions is real relief with real meaning. The rule of law requires no less."
If you’d be interested in discussing the case and this brief further, we’d be happy to connect you to one of our spokespeople at L4GG’s Pro Bono Litigation Corps, for any comment.
# # #
Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) is a nonprofit organization that harnesses the power of 125,000 lawyers, law students, and advocates in the fight for justice. We identify where lawyers can make the greatest impact and mobilize them to defend democracy and the rule of law, protect civil and human rights, and advance environmental justice through coordinated legal action and advocacy efforts that create meaningful change for all Americans.
