A series of legal actions initiated by young American citizens seek to invalidate executive orders and regulatory repeals concerning fossil fuel expansion and climate oversight.

一系列由美國青年公民發起的法律行動，旨在撤銷有關化石燃料擴張與氣候監管的行政命令及法規廢止。

The current legal landscape is characterized by two primary litigations coordinated by the non-profit firm Our Children's Trust. In Lighthiser v. Trump, plaintiffs allege that the federal government has violated constitutional rights through executive orders that facilitate the expansion of fossil fuel industries. This case follows a successful precedent in Held v. Montana, where the judiciary ruled that state policies failed to protect the right to a clean and healthful environment. However, Lighthiser v. Trump was initially dismissed by a district court on the grounds that the requested remedies were unworkable and exceeded judicial jurisdiction. The matter currently awaits a determination by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the reinstatement of the case.

目前的法律格局以由非營利機構 Our Children's Trust 協調的兩起主要訴訟為特徵。在 Lighthiser v. Trump 案中，原告指控聯邦政府透過促進化石燃料工業擴張的行政命令，違反了憲法權利。此案遵循了 Held v. Montana 的成功先例，當時司法機關裁定州政府政策未能保護享有清潔與健康環境的權利。然而，Lighthiser v. Trump 最初被地方法院駁回，理由是所要求的救濟措施不可行且超出了司法管轄權。目前此案正等待第九巡迴上訴法院就恢復案件做出裁定。

Simultaneously, the case of Venner v. EPA challenges the revocation of the 2009 endangerment finding, which established that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. The plaintiffs argue that this repeal, alongside the rescission of motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards, infringes upon constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and religious freedom. Specifically, the petitioners assert that environmental degradation impedes the practice of various faiths—including Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam—by exacerbating health risks and environmental instability. Furthermore, the litigation posits that federal deregulation undermines the capacity of individual states, such as Hawaii, to adhere to state-level decarbonization commitments.

同時，Venner v. EPA 案挑戰撤銷 2009 年的「危害認定」，該認定確立了溫室氣體排放對公眾健康構成威脅。原告主張，此次撤銷以及對機動車溫室氣體標準的廢止，侵害了憲法對生命、自由和宗教自由的保障。具體而言，請願者主張環境惡化透過加劇健康風險與環境不穩定，妨礙了包括天主教、猶太教和伊斯蘭教在內的各種信仰實踐。此外，該訴訟認為聯邦的去管制化削弱了如夏威夷等個別州遵守州級脫碳承諾的能力。

Legal scholars have expressed divergent views on the viability of these strategies. Some experts suggest that the broad scope of these constitutional claims may be perceived as judicial overreach, potentially leading to adverse precedents if the cases reach the Supreme Court. Conversely, representatives of Our Children's Trust maintain that bold constitutional arguments are a necessary mechanism for securing civil rights and ensuring the protection of future generations.

法律學者對這些策略的可行性持有分歧看法。部分專家認為，這些憲法主張的範圍過廣，可能會被視為司法過度擴權，若案件到達最高法院，可能會導致不利的先例。相反地，Our Children's Trust 的代表堅持認為，大膽的憲法論證是保障公民權利並確保後代受到保護的必要機制。

The judiciary is currently deliberating on the admissibility and constitutional validity of these youth-led challenges to federal climate policy.

司法機關目前正在審議這些由青年主導的聯邦氣候政策挑戰的可受理性及其憲法有效性。