Fifteen Wisconsin children and teens are not taking no for an answer after a judge tossed their climate lawsuit. The young plaintiffs, who were between 8 and 17 years old when they first filed, have now appealed a ruling that dismissed their constitutional challenge to state energy laws. They argue those laws lock Wisconsin into a fossil-fuel-heavy power system and violate their right to a healthy environment.
This week, the youth plaintiffs asked a higher court to revive their claims against statutes that prevent regulators from weighing greenhouse gas pollution and that limit how much renewable power utilities must buy. Lead plaintiff Kaarina Dunn says climate-driven flooding displaced her family, and the groups backing the suit say the case is about defending fundamental rights for the generations coming up behind them.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Julie Genovese dismissed the lawsuit in April, finding that the issues raised are political questions that belong with elected officials, not judges, according to Wisconsin Public Radio. Our Children’s Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates have now filed an appeal on the teens’ behalf, asking an appellate court to overturn that dismissal and take up the constitutional arguments. Attorneys for the Legislature and the Public Service Commission had pushed to throw the case out, saying it raised “nonjusticiable political questions,” the reporting said.
What the youths are challenging
The lawsuit asks the courts to strike down statutes that bar the Public Service Commission from considering air-pollution impacts and that cap the state’s renewable-energy requirements. The plaintiffs say those rules box regulators into approving more fossil-fuel plants instead of moving Wisconsin toward cleaner electricity.
In a press release, Our Children's Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates argued that the statutes violate young people’s rights to life, liberty, and access to navigable waters under the Wisconsin Constitution. The complaint asks the court to halt enforcement of those provisions and restore the PSC’s authority to weigh greenhouse gas pollution when deciding whether new power plants get built.
Voices from the case
“The court said that harm is real, but then refused to protect us,” Dunn said in a statement released by Our Children's Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates. Nate Bellinger, supervising senior attorney with Our Children’s Trust, maintains that the political-question doctrine does not put unconstitutional laws beyond judicial review and said he was disappointed by the dismissal.
Tony Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, has framed the appeal as necessary to secure constitutional protections for children and has made it clear that the groups intend to keep pressing the case.
Climate and energy context
Coal and natural gas still supply a big share of Wisconsin’s in-state electricity, a mix the plaintiffs say is directly tied to the harms they describe. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show fossil fuels remain the dominant source of the state’s power.
Climate researchers and the Wisconsin State Climatology Office report that the state has warmed by roughly 3°F since the 1950s and that annual precipitation has increased by about 15 to 17 percent. The youth plaintiffs cite those trends as evidence that climate impacts are already concrete and personal. Their case unfolds as Wisconsin pursues a goal of carbon-free electricity by 2050, even as utilities have delayed some coal-plant retirements and invested in new natural-gas capacity to keep up with demand.
National legal backdrop
The appeal comes amid a wider national fight over climate lawsuits and who gets to set the rules. The U.S. Justice Department last year went to court to block certain state climate laws and related lawsuits, the Associated Press reported. Lawyers for the Wisconsin youths point to Montana’s youth climate rulings as an important reference point, while legal analysts note that outcomes differ from state to state and turn heavily on how courts handle standing and separation-of-powers questions, as earlier coverage of the Montana trials has underscored.
What’s next
Our Children’s Trust and Midwest Environmental Advocates have lodged the appeal on behalf of the 15 youths, asking the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to reexamine whether the political-question doctrine really blocks the case and whether the plaintiffs have alleged legally recognized harms, Urban Milwaukee reported. If the appeals court takes it up, judges will decide whether to reverse the dismissal and let the constitutional claims move forward.
Even if the youths win at that stage, the case could still land at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, extending a legal fight that may eventually help define the relationship between state energy policy and constitutional rights.
Legal implications
Judge Genovese’s 35-page order, signed April 23, 2026, sets out the court’s view that the challenged statutes raise nonjusticiable political questions and therefore require dismissal, as the Dane County Circuit Court decision shows. The opinion details the specific laws at issue and concludes that choices about energy policy fall to the Legislature and the Public Service Commission, not the judiciary.
The appellate court’s review will test whether Wisconsin judges stick with that deferential approach or move closer to Montana’s more rights-focused framework. Environmental groups, utilities, and state officials are watching closely to see whether the outcome reshapes how energy decisions are evaluated when young people claim their constitutional rights are on the line.
Whatever the final ruling, the case underscores how youth plaintiffs are increasingly turning to state courts to push for climate accountability and a say in the policies that will define the world they grow up in.
