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 resolution, scheduled for debate on Wednesday, was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which led a successful 2024 campaign urging the ICJ to clarify states’ duties under international law regarding climate action.

Last year, the Hague-based court concluded that governments are legally obligated to take measures against climate change and warned that failure to meet those obligations could expose states to claims for reparations from countries most vulnerable to climate impacts.

The latest draft resolution describes the ICJ opinion as “an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law” and calls on countries to comply with obligations aimed at protecting the global climate system.

The text also reiterates support for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and references the international commitment adopted at the 2023 climate summit in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

Negotiations over the resolution, however, resulted in significant revisions after opposition from several major greenhouse gas emitters and industrial economies, according to diplomatic sources.

An earlier proposal to establish an “International Register of Damage” documenting climate-related losses and injuries was removed from the current version after objections from countries including the United States, China, Japan, members of the European Union and oil-producing states.

Those governments argued the mechanism extended beyond the scope of the ICJ opinion and raised concerns about potential pathways toward compensation claims or reparations linked to historical emissions.

Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu defended the revised text, saying the resolution does not create new legal obligations or assign liability to individual states.

“For Vanuatu and for many climate-vulnerable states, this is ultimately about survival,” Regenvanu said, adding that the measure was intended to strengthen multilateral cooperation on climate governance.

Despite the dilution of several provisions, climate advocates said the resolution remains politically significant because it reinforces the growing role of international law in shaping climate accountability.

Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, described the current draft as “still a strong text” despite intense diplomatic pressure during negotiations.

Diplomatic sources said the resolution may not secure the broad consensus achieved during the General Assembly’s original request for the ICJ opinion in 2024, with at least one member state expected to call for a formal vote.

The draft also requests that United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres prepare a report outlining options to advance compliance with obligations identified in the ICJ ruling.

A controversial reform to Ley de Glaciares has intensified debate in Argentina, as the government moves to relax environmental protections in high-altitude regions to facilitate mining investment.

The decision has triggered protests from environmental groups and raised concerns among communities dependent on glacier-fed water systems.The shift follows years of tensions surrounding mining operations such as the Veladero mine, a gold and silver project that began operating in 2005 in San Juan Province.

The mine, jointly owned by Barrick Mining Corporation and Shandong Gold, has long been at the center of environmental scrutiny. A cyanide spill in 2015 polluted rivers in the region, raising concerns about downstream water safety in the Jáchal basin, although subsequent studies indicated that contamination levels remained within safe limits.

Additional spills reported in 2016 and 2017 remain under investigation.Local residents and environmental advocates have argued that operations at Veladero violate glacier protection laws, which were originally designed to prohibit industrial activity in sensitive high-mountain ecosystems.

These concerns have persisted despite legal challenges by mining companies, including attempts to have the law declared unconstitutional, which were rejected by Argentina’s Supreme Court.The newly approved reform, backed by President Javier Milei, introduces significant changes to how glacier protection is applied.

Passed by 137 votes to 111 in the Chamber of Deputies following earlier Senate approval, the legislation allows provincial authorities to determine which glaciers and periglacial areas qualify for protection.

The criteria hinge on whether these ice formations serve a “relevant water function,” effectively decentralizing decision-making that was previously governed by national standards.

Government officials argue that the reform is essential to unlocking Argentina’s mineral wealth, particularly as global demand for critical resources such as lithium and copper rises in response to the energy transition.

Milei described the previous framework as overly restrictive, stating that it created “artificial obstacles” and prevented development even in areas lacking significant environmental value.However, critics contend that the changes weaken a foundational environmental safeguard.

Andrés Nápoli, executive director of the Foundation of Environment and Natural Resources, warned that the reform undermines protections for key water reserves. He argued that linking glacier exploitation to sustainable energy goals presents a contradiction, emphasizing that glaciers play an essential role in maintaining ecological balance.

Environmental groups estimate that approximately 7 million people, or 16 percent of Argentina’s population, rely on glacier-fed water systems. Beyond supplying rivers, glaciers regulate fragile ecosystems that are increasingly vulnerable to climate change.

In the country’s northwest, scientists report that glacier mass has declined by around 17 percent over the past decade, heightening concerns about long-term water availability.The reform has prompted public demonstrations, including protests organized by Greenpeace outside the National Congress.

Several activists were detained earlier this year during a demonstration coinciding with Senate deliberations. Protesters argue that transferring authority to provincial governments risks prioritizing short-term economic gains over environmental sustainability.

Supporters of the reform, including provincial leaders in resource-rich regions, maintain that the previous law was overly broad and hindered investment in areas where environmental impact is minimal. Luis Lucero stated during a congressional hearing that framing mining and environmental protection as mutually exclusive is misleading, describing it as a misconception that should be removed from public discourse.

Experts caution that the issue extends beyond technical definitions of glaciers. Ruiz noted that glaciers are dynamic systems whose role in water supply can vary over time, making it difficult to assess their importance through fixed criteria.

He argued that the debate is ultimately political, centering on who has the authority to determine what constitutes a resource worth protecting.In communities such as Jáchal, the stakes are immediate and tangible. Residents have expressed fears about water contamination and long-term environmental degradation.

Activists like Zeballos, a local campaigner, have taken personal measures such as avoiding river water, citing concerns over safety. For many, the issue is framed not only as an environmental question but as one of survival.The reform underscores the broader challenge facing resource-rich nations seeking to balance economic development with environmental preservation.

As Argentina positions itself as a key supplier of minerals critical to global energy systems, tensions between national growth strategies and local ecological concerns are likely to intensify.