The climate lawsuit brought by 14 Hawaii youths challenging the state Department of Transportation will get its day in court — but not until next summer.

The suit that claims the constitutional rights of the young plaintiffs have been violated by a department that has only exacerbated climate change will be heard June 24 through July 12 in the 1st Circuit’s Environmental Court in Honolulu.

Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation is set to become only the second constitutional climate case to go to trial in the U.S. The first case was tried in Montana in June, with a ruling expected soon from a judge in Lewis and Clark County District Court in Helena.

The Hawaii case, with 14 plaintiffs age 10 to 20 from Hawaii island, Oahu, Molokai, Maui and Kauai, is the first to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

In May, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued in court to maintain the case’s original September trial date after the state filed a motion to postpone the proceeding for an additional eight to 12 months.

The attorneys pointed out that the state already had nearly a year since the lawsuit was filed to prepare its defense. They also argued that it was imperative the case be heard sooner rather than later because of the urgency of the climate crisis.

During the hearing, Judge Jeffrey Crabtree granted the state’s motion to continue the trial date, saying he wanted to give the state enough time to prepare its defense to ensure both sides have a shot at a fair trial.

Crabtree did not reset the trial date, but instead opted to meet with attorneys from both parties to discuss whether he can accommodate it on his calendar before his state- mandated retirement in February.

In the end, the case ended up being transferred from Crabtree to Judge John Tonaki, who set the new trial date Thursday.

Earthjustice attorney Marti Townsend said it’s disappointing to her clients that the case won’t be heard until two years after the suit was filed in June 2022.

“It contributes to the concern by the young people of a lack of urgency on climate action,” Townsend said.

The suit contends that the DOT operates a system that emits high levels of greenhouse gasses, violating the young plaintiffs’ state constitutional rights, causing them significant harm and affecting their ability to “live healthful lives in Hawai‘i now and into the future.”

The complaint asserts that even as Hawaii has sought to be a leader in climate action, emissions from the transportation sector keep rising, with the DOT unable to hit interim benchmarks to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions since 2008.

The lawsuit, attorneys said, seeks to hold the department accountable to ensure it meets the state’s goal to decarbonize Hawaii’s transportation sector and achieve a zero- emissions economy by 2045.

“We are confident that once Judge Tonaki hears the law and facts in this case, HDOT will finally be set straight toward meeting its kuleana (responsibility) to reduce climate-killing emissions from our state transportation system,” Isaac Moriwake, managing attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice, said in a news release. “HDOT’s resistance to the real changes needed to address the climate emergency violates the constitutional rights of young people throughout the Hawaiian Islands.”

State Deputy Solicitor General Lauren Chun previously said the state stands behind its record as a national leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation and will continue to pursue its climate goals.

The young plaintiffs are represented by the Oregon law firm known as Our Children’s Trust, along with local partner Earthjustice.

The Hawaii suit is one of several youth-led constitutional climate lawsuits brought by Our Children’s Trust with local counsel. The firm also represents young plaintiffs in similar litigation in Utah, Virginia and Montana, as well as 21 youth plaintiffs in a federal constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, which is moving to trial on the question of whether the federal government’s fossil fuel-based energy system, and resulting climate destabilization, is unconstitutional.