Eva Lighthiser, a 20-year-old college student from Montana, has emerged as the lead plaintiff in a youth-led constitutional lawsuit challenging executive actions by U.S. President Donald Trump that support expanded fossil fuel development.

The case, Lighthiser v Trump, was filed by 23 young Americans who argue that federal policies promoting fossil fuel extraction and production violate constitutional protections by worsening climate-related harms affecting younger generations. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court last year, but the plaintiffs appeared before the ninth circuit court of appeals in Portland, Oregon, in April seeking reinstatement.

Lighthiser, who studies in Colorado and is considering a major in environmental studies, said balancing university life with high-profile litigation has altered the course of her early adulthood.“I said, ‘Hey, I’ve got to go to bed, I’m flying out to Portland tomorrow,’” she recalled while describing a recent college gathering. “Then follow-up questions get raised. I’m like, ‘Well, it’s a lot to explain.

”Outside the appeals court, Lighthiser accused the federal government of prioritizing fossil fuel development despite growing evidence of climate-related damage.“We are challenging this administration for sacrificing the lives of myself and my fellow plaintiffs by expanding fossil fuels for the sake of power,” she said during remarks delivered outside the courthouse.

The case reflects the growing prominence of youth-led climate litigation in the United States, where environmental groups increasingly seek constitutional arguments to challenge government policies tied to fossil fuel production. Legal advocates argue that climate change threatens rights relating to health, safety and environmental protections, while critics say courts are not equipped to direct national energy policy.

Lighthiser grew up in Livingston, Montana, a town surrounded by mountain ranges and river systems that have become central to her environmental activism. Her parents met while hiking, and she spent much of her childhood camping, climbing and traveling through national parks. During her first year of high school, she was homeschooled while traveling with her family across the western United States.

Her involvement in climate litigation began in 2020 after learning about Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit legal organization focused on youth climate cases. She later joined Held v Montana, a constitutional challenge alleging that state policies favoring fossil fuels violated protections in Montana’s constitution guaranteeing a “clean and healthful environment.”Filed on Lighthiser’s 14th birthday, the Montana lawsuit became one of the first youth climate cases in the United States to proceed to trial.

During testimony, she described growing fears about climate-related environmental instability affecting the state she called home.“My future feels uncertain,” she said during the proceedings.In 2023, the court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs in what was widely regarded as a landmark climate decision.

The plaintiffs later argued that Montana lawmakers enacted additional legislation conflicting with the court’s findings, prompting continued legal disputes over implementation and enforcement.Lighthiser said discussions about a federal challenge accelerated after the start of Trump’s second administration in 2025.

According to Julia Olson, the organization quickly identified the possibility of a broader constitutional case focused on federal executive actions supporting fossil fuel expansion.“It became clear early in the second Trump administration that a federal case was something to pursue,” Olson said.

Lighthiser said she was contacted while preparing for an overnight cycling trip near Montana’s Paradise Valley and asked whether she would consider becoming the lead plaintiff.“The lawsuit also would be called Lighthiser v Trump,” she said. “That was really a moment when it clicked.

My name against his name.”Montana occupies a complex position in the U.S. environmental debate. The state’s economy has long depended on natural resource extraction industries, including mining and coal production, while simultaneously cultivating a strong outdoor conservation culture. Critics have described the state as a “resource colony” whose raw materials historically benefited outside commercial interests.

Lighthiser said environmental concerns often transcend political divisions in Montana, where many residents identify closely with local ecosystems regardless of party affiliation. She pointed to polling conducted in April indicating that a large majority of residents considered conservation issues important when evaluating elected officials.

“There’s a lot of people who may not believe in climate change or be resistant to conversion to renewables,” she said. “But there’s also a sense that everyone knows how special this place is.”Livingston, located near the Yellowstone River and framed by the Gallatin and Absaroka mountain ranges, has experienced multiple environmental disruptions in recent years.

Coal trains regularly pass through the area, dispersing coal dust, while warming river conditions contributed to a parasite outbreak that killed large numbers of fish in 2016.Flooding has had an especially direct impact on Lighthiser’s family. In 2018, the Shields River overflowed near the family’s former home, damaging infrastructure and forcing major transportation detours.

Four years later, severe flooding along the Yellowstone River caused widespread destruction across southern Montana, resulting in an estimated $128 million in damages.Lighthiser said those events deepened her sense of urgency while also reinforcing the importance of community response efforts.“In the following weeks, I remember there were a lot of efforts to clean up homes and help each other out,” she said.

“I thought that was a really special thing.”Other plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit said Lighthiser’s public role has encouraged younger activists to participate. Jorja McCormick, a 17-year-old co-plaintiff from Livingston, said hearing Lighthiser speak publicly made the legal process appear more accessible.“I definitely look up to the older plaintiffs like Eva,” McCormick said.Lighthiser’s parents have expressed both pride and concern over the case’s visibility.

Her mother, Erica, said the family understood the political sensitivity attached to directly challenging a sitting president in federal court.“Look, it’s our last name next to the president’s last name,” she said.Legal scholars remain divided over the long-term implications of such cases.

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law School who has supported youth climate litigation efforts, warned that broad constitutional challenges may face substantial resistance from federal courts.“The courts are not able to reform the energy system of the United States,” Parenteau said.

“They’re not going to entertain requests for them to do that.”When dismissing the case last year, Montana district judge Dana Christensen described the plaintiffs’ requests as “unworkable” and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, though he said the dismissal came “reluctantly.”Parenteau said an unfavorable ruling from higher courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, could establish precedents limiting future environmental litigation.

“You’re playing with fire with courts nowadays,” he said. “I believe in their cause, because what they’re arguing is what the law ought to be, but it’s not what the law is.”Olson rejected suggestions that ambitious constitutional climate arguments should be avoided because of potential legal setbacks.

She compared the strategy to earlier civil rights litigation efforts that initially faced skepticism before reshaping U.S. law.“The answer has never been to step back from the courthouse door,” Olson said. “Children are being harmed right now.”

Lighthiser said she believes the legal risks are outweighed by the need to challenge policies that contribute to climate-related damage affecting younger generations.

“There are risks,” she said. “But if you never take risks, nothing good happens.”

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

During oral arguments, several conservative justices signaled openness to the government’s request to revive the practice known as “metering,” which caps the number of migrants allowed to apply for asylum at official border crossings.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued the measure is a necessary tool to manage surges in migration and has been used under multiple administrations.

Critics, including immigration advocates, said the policy previously triggered a humanitarian crisis by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, often in makeshift camps, before being allowed to present claims.

The practice is not currently in force, and Trump has separately ordered a broader suspension of asylum processing during his second term.

The case centers on interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees that individuals who “arrive” in the United States may apply for asylum if they fear persecution. Government lawyers contend the provision applies only once migrants are physically inside U.S. territory, not when they are turned away at the border.

Attorneys representing migrants argued the law has long been understood to include individuals presenting themselves at ports of entry, and that restricting access violates statutory protections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether current interpretations create incentives for illegal entry over lawful arrival, while Chief Justice John Roberts pressed both sides on where legal eligibility for asylum begins.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised procedural concerns, noting the absence of an active policy and questioning whether the court was evaluating hypothetical scenarios rather than a live dispute.

Metering was first introduced during the administration of Barack Obama and later expanded nationwide under Trump. The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.

That same year, a federal district court ruled the practice unlawful, finding it violated both constitutional protections and federal asylum law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, though internal divisions among judges highlighted ongoing legal uncertainty.

The case is one of several major immigration disputes before the court this term, including challenges related to birthright citizenship and the administration’s efforts to roll back protections for migrants fleeing conflict and instability.U.S. law allows individuals granted asylum to remain in the country, work legally, reunite with immediate family members, and eventually seek permanent residency and citizenship.