Youth Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Climate Rollbacks
Eighteen young Americans are demanding that a federal court immediately halt the Trump administration's repeal of the scientific finding that underpins virtually all U.S. climate regulations. The plaintiffs, ranging in age from 17 to 21, filed the lawsuit Venner v. EPA in February 2025, shortly after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the 2009 endangerment finding, which concluded that greenhouse gas pollution threatens public health and welfare. The case, now before the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, argues that the repeal infringes upon rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, including religious freedom, life, and liberty.
Urgent Motion for a Stay
On Wednesday, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency stay, arguing that the repeal is already causing irreversible harm. According to the motion, shared with the Guardian, automakers are altering their business plans to prioritize gas-powered vehicles, locking in higher emissions. The filing also seeks to halt the repeal of annual motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards, which the EPA finalized on the same day it rolled back the endangerment finding. If the lawsuit proceeds through normal channels, the additional pollution could reach one gigaton of CO2—more than Japan's total annual emissions—based on EPA's 2024 calculations of projected pollution cuts from the regulations.
“The increased exposure to all of the pollutants that will result from this rule can’t be undone,” said Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm representing the plaintiffs. “The harm to the petitioners is irreversible.” The White House and EPA declined to comment on the case.
Constitutional Grounds and Religious Freedom
While more than a dozen environmental and public health groups have also sued the EPA over the February repeals, the Venner v. EPA plaintiffs are the first to seek a stay and the only ones to challenge the repeal on constitutional grounds. They argue that worsening planet-warming and toxic pollution violates their rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment, and threatens states' ability to protect citizens' rights. For example, in June 2024, Hawaii committed to decarbonizing its transportation system by 2045 in a settlement from another Our Children's Trust case, Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, brought under the state's constitution, which holds natural resources in trust for the people. “Hawaii’s ability to decarbonize transportation and move towards EVs, to comply with the settlement agreement [and to] uphold its own constitution are all being harmed by what EPA has just done,” Olson said.
The plaintiffs also claim the repeal impedes their ability to practice religion, violating the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. One Muslim plaintiff in California stated that increased risk of dehydration from extreme heat threatens her ability to fast during Ramadan. Elena Venner, the 21-year-old named plaintiff, said the repeal hinders her practice of Catholicism. In his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis declared the climate a common good. “When I look at what’s being rolled back right now, it’s making that foundation less stable,” Venner said.
Elijah Schaffzin, a 17-year-old from Memphis and another plaintiff, suffers from asthma and severe pollen allergies, requiring a “cocktail of medications” and forcing him indoors during spring. Increased heat and pollution worsen his conditions, making it difficult to observe Judaism, such as walking to synagogue on Saturdays—a 0.7-mile journey along a busy six-lane road. “That means for stretches that are unshaded on days where the heat index is too high, or when there’s an air quality alert issued, or if the pollen is too intense, I’m unable to go,” he said.
Allegations of Industry Favoritism
By repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration revealed its allegiance to polluting companies, Olson argued. “They’re prioritizing the financial interests of certain industries over the health and safety of children,” she said. The case highlights a growing trend of youth-led climate litigation, as young people seek to hold governments accountable for environmental degradation and its impacts on their futures.
