In his written order, Judge Dana Christensen of Missoula, Montana said that while the youth plaintiffs in Ligthiser v Trump had presented "overwhelming" evidence showing the administration's actions would further destabilize the climate and harm them, he lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

"With this understanding in mind, the Court reluctantly concludes... that it cannot grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek," wrote Christensen.

The 22 plaintiffs, who included several minors and were represented by the nonprofit Our Children's Trust, had sought a preliminary injunction against three executive orders they say trample their Constitutional rights to life and liberty by seeking to "unleash" fossil fuel development while sidelining renewable energy.

They also accused the administration of eroding federal climate science, leaving the public less informed about mounting dangers.

The government countered that the lawsuit was undemocratic and echoed Juliana v. United States -- a similar youth-led case that featured some of the same plaintiffs and wound through the courts for nearly a decade before the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal last year -- and thus should be similarly dismissed.

While lawyers for the youths contended the case differed from Juliana in key ways, Christensen ultimately found that was not the case.

"The Court reads Juliana to mandate this outcome," he said, but added that he would gladly hear the case on its merits if an appeals court, the Ninth Circuit, disagreed.