Climate Litigation Updates (August 18, 2025)
The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation twice each month (though during July and August we will be publishing once a month). We also add these developments to our U.S. and Global climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].
HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #201
FEATURED U.S. CASE
Federal Court Said Business Groups Were Unlikely to Succeed in Facial Challenges to California’s Climate Disclosure Laws
The federal district court for the Central District of California denied business groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining California’s laws requiring certain companies to submit annual reports on their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions (SB 253) and requiring certain companies to disclose “climate-related financial risk information” (SB 261). The business groups asserted that the laws compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. As a threshold matter, the court found that the groups’ First Amendment challenge to SB 253 (unlike other claims they brought) was ripe for review even though the California Air Resources Board had yet to issue implementing regulations. Next, the court declined to alter its prior conclusion that both laws were subject to First Amendment review. The court found that both laws regulate commercial speech but applied a different level of scrutiny to each law. For SB 253, the court found that the Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 disclosure requirements required reporting only of factual, and not misleading, information. The court also found that the required factual disclosures were “uncontroversial” and therefore determined that it would apply the less stringent Zauderer review standard. For SB 261, the court concluded that the reporting requirements compel disclosure of more than factual information and are therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. Applying the Zauderer standard to SB 253, the court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial First Amendment challenge because the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State’s substantial interests in providing reliable information to investors and in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change. However, the court concluded that the State’s interests in addressing misleading speech and in providing reliable information to consumers would likely not satisfy the Zauderer standard. Applying intermediate scrutiny to SB 261, the court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because the State “made a sufficient showing as to the benefits of investors’ desire for the specific disclosures required by SB 261 to achieve the legislature’s objective in reliable information that enables investors to make informed judgments about the impact of climate-related risks on their economic choices.” The court found that the State’s interests in emissions reduction and protecting stakeholders from fraud or misrepresentation would not survive First Amendment scrutiny. The court also found that the business groups did not show irreparable harm in the absence of a First Amendment violation and that the balance of equities favored denial of the preliminary injunction. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:24-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2025)
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
South Carolina Trial Court Dismissed Charleston’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies
The South Carolina Court of Common Pleas dismissed the City of Charleston’s lawsuit seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for damages allegedly incurred as a result of the companies’ deceptive marketing of their products, which inflated consumption of fossil fuels and accelerated climate change. First, the court concluded that the structure of the U.S. Constitution precluded the City’s state law claims—which were based on tort law and the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act—because they involved interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. Second, the court held that the Clean Air Act preempted the City’s claims, analogizing to Supreme Court precedent holding that the Clean Water Act precluded application of state law against out-of-state sources. The court further held that the claims should be dismissed as a matter of state law on four grounds: (1) the political question doctrine; (2) the statute of limitations; (3) failure to adequately allege the claims; and (4) lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants. City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., No. 2020CP1003975 (S.C. Ct. Com. Aug. 6, 2025)
D.C. Circuit Said Environmental Groups Did Not Establish Standing to Challenge Permits to Drill Oil and Gas Wells in New Mexico and Wyoming
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s determination that environmental organizations did not establish standing to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of more than 4,000 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) for oil and gas wells in New Mexico and Wyoming. First, the D.C. Circuit found that the organizations’ members’ allegations that they lived, worked, and recreated in the areas encompassing all the approved APDs in each of the states were not supported by information regarding which APDs would cause the members’ harm. The court said the plaintiffs “must somehow establish an injury in fact traceable to every challenged well.” Second, the D.C. Circuit found that the organizations did not establish associational standing for Endangered Species Act (ESA) claims based on allegations that the permits would contribute to climate change and “intensify threats to listed habitats and species that they travel to observe and study.” The D.C. Circuit concluded that its precedent suggested “that environmental plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the required concrete and particularized harm to their interests only by asserting that a challenged government action will contribute to a particular harmful effect of global climate change.” The court further concluded that even if an injury resulting from climate change could support standing, the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that their injury was traceable to the challenged action and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Third, the court held that one of the organizations did not have organizational standing for its ESA claims based on allegations that the failure to conduct consultation under the ESA deprived the organization of information about the permits’ impacts on imperiled species. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 23-5308 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2025)
D.C. Circuit Rejected Challenges to EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Allocation Methodology for HFC Phasedown
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule setting an allocation methodology for hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) allowances for 2024 through 2028 as part of the cap-and-trade program to implement the HFC phasedown required by the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act). The court rejected a claim that the AIM Act unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to EPA, finding that “Congress provided ample direction to guide the EPA’s exercise of discretion” in deciding how to allocate the HFC allowances. The court also found that EPA used a reasonable allocation methodology. IGas Holdings, Inc. v. EPA, No. 23-1261 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)
D.C. Circuit Upheld Downlisting of American Burying Beetle Threatened by Higher Temperatures
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court judgment upholding a downlisting rule promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) in 2020 that changed the status of the American Burying Beetle under the Endangered Species Act from endangered to threatened. The FWS concluded that the beetle was not currently in danger of extinction because it faced “relatively low near-term risk of extinction” but that it was likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (2040–2069) throughout all of its range as a result of increasing temperatures due to climate change and land use changes. The D.C. Circuit rejected the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD’s) contention that the downlisting was at odds with the statutory definitions of “endangered” and “threatened.” In addition, the D.C. Circuit found that the FWS’s determination that the beetle was not currently in danger of extinction was grounded in the record and reasonably and adequately explained. The court also found that CBD did not have standing to seek vacatur of a Section 4(d) rule establishing protections for the beetle because vacatur of the rule would not redress CBD member’s injury. Judge Pan dissented from decision to uphold the downlisting rule; she wrote that in her view the FWS did not adequately support the conclusion that climate change did not put the beetle in danger of extinction in the near term. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 23-5285 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)
D.C. Circuit Upheld FERC Authorization of Cross-Border Natural Gas Pipeline
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) approval of a cross-border natural gas pipeline connecting the planned intrastate Saguaro Pipeline to a Mexican pipeline that would transport natural gas to an export terminal on the Gulf of California. The court rejected the petitioners’ arguments that FERC should have exercised jurisdiction over the intrastate pipeline under the Natural Gas Act and that approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious. The court also rejected the petitioners’ arguments that FERC violated NEPA. Citing the “substantial deference” owed to FERC’s choices in its NEPA review, the court found that FERC had not unreasonably constrained the alternatives it considered, had reasonably declined to consider upstream impacts of the intrastate pipeline as indirect effects of the cross-border pipeline, and was not required to conduct an environmental review of the intrastate pipeline as a “project-related nonjurisdictional facility” under FERC’s regulations. Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)
Seventh Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Chicago’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel industry appellants’ motion to stay execution of a district court order remanding the City of Chicago’s climate change case against them to state court. City of Chicago v. BP p.l.c., No. 25-1916 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)
Eighth Circuit Denied Rehearing of Conclusion that Counties’ Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Was Preempted
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for rehearing en banc and panel rehearing of its June 5, 2025 decision holding that federal and state law preempted Iowa counties’ regulation of planned pipeline for transporting carbon dioxide. Couser v. Shelby County, No. 23-3758 (8th Cir. July 28, 2025); Couser v. Story County, No. 23-3760 (8th Cir. July 28, 2025)
Ninth Circuit Upheld National Marine Fisheries Service Denial of Petition to Delist Arctic Ringed Seal Under Endangered Species Act
In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s rejection of the State of Alaska’s lawsuit challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) negative 90-day finding on a petition to delist the Arctic ringed seal as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Ninth Circuit concluded that NMFS “reasonably determined” that the petition did not present new information that indicated delisting was warranted. First, the Ninth Circuit found that NMFS reasonably determined that new climate change projections were consistent with those considered at the time of the 2012 listing decision; that NMFS had a “reasonable and scientifically supported methodology for addressing volatility in its long-term climate projections”; and that it was not arbitrary and capricious for NMFS to conclude that the lowest emissions scenario was unrealistic. Second, the Ninth Circuit found that it was reasonable to decline to rely on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 12-month findings about the Pacific walrus. Third, the court found that NMFS did not improperly disregard new information in the delisting petition about the Arctic ringed seal’s response to sea ice loss and other climate-related changes. Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 24-3148 (9th Cir. July 11, 2025)
In States’ Challenge to Termination of Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, Federal Court Temporarily Enjoined FEMA from Using Funds for Other Purposes
The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted plaintiff states’ motion for a preliminary injunction barring the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal defendants from spending funds allocated to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) pre-disaster mitigation program for non-BRIC purposes until the court renders a final judgment. The states filed a lawsuit on July 16, 2025 claiming that termination of the BRIC program and repurposing the BRIC funds violates separation of powers and is contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that withholding appropriated funds violates separation of powers, the Appropriations Clause, and the Spending Clause, and is also contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The states also challenged the authority of the acting FEMA Administrators to terminate the BRIC program. In addition, they asserted an equitable ultra vires claim. The states alleged that the shutdown of the program had forced communities across the country “to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding,” including climate resilience projects. Washington v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, No. 1:25-cv-12006 (D. Mass. Aug. 5, 2025)
S.D.N.Y. Declined to Transfer U.S.’s Challenge to New York Climate Superfund Act to N.D.N.Y.; Court Agreed to Set Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule
The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion by New York State, Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Amanda Lefton to transfer the action filed by the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York, where an earlier challenge to the law had been filed by 22 states, along with trade associations and a mining company. The district court found that the “balance of convenience” exception provided a basis for departing from the presumption that the first-filed suit should have priority, noting that “great deference” was due to the U.S.’s selection of forum since other factors did not “tip decidedly” in one direction. The court also granted the U.S.’s request that it set a schedule for summary judgment motion. United States v. New York, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025)
Texas Federal Court Allowed States to Proceed with Claims that Institutional Investors Violated Antitrust Law by Using Coal Company Stockholdings to Constrain Coal Production
The federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas denied three large institutional investors’ motion to dismiss 13 states’ federal antitrust claims alleging that the investors collectively used their shareholdings in coal producers to reduce coal output. Regarding the claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which concerned the defendants’ use and acquisition of stock, the court found that the states sufficiently alleged that the defendants “acquired significant amounts of stock in coal companies and then used their market power to pressure the companies to decrease coal production.” The court cited “dozens of specific examples” of conduct supporting this theory, including the defendants’ joining of “climate initiatives” such as the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+ that involved public commitments to using stock to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change; the affirmation of these commitments through public statements; and actions such as votes against directors at coal companies for failing to have adequate climate risk disclosures. The court further found at this state of the litigation that the defendants did not qualify for the Clayton Act’s safe harbor for passive investors. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which concerned the defendants’ alleged agreement to work together, the court found that the states’ allegations included sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest the investors’ “agreed to collectively pressure coal companies to reduce the output of coal in the relevant markets and disclose future output information.” The court cited alleged “parallel conduct” such as the joining of a climate initiative within the same time period and “plus factors suggestive of an agreement” such as the investors’ “shared moral imperative to combat climate change.” The court also found that the states sufficiently alleged anticompetitive harm with allegations that the investors’ actions decreased coal output and increased prices in certain markets between 2019 and 2022. The court also allowed consumer protection claims to proceed against one of the investors—BlackRock, Inc.—under the laws of Texas, Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska. The court dismissed claims under Louisiana’s consumer protection law and one of Nebraska’s statutes because they did not apply to marketing and sale of securities but found that claims under the other state laws were not barred on this basis. The court further found that the states plausibly alleged that BlackRock made deceptive and material statements that misrepresented certain “non-ESG funds.” Because the states plausibly alleged federal antitrust claims, the court dismissed parallel state antitrust claims. Texas v. BlackRock, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2025)
Federal Court Said Federal Energy Law Did Not Preempt New York State Prohibition on Fossil Fuel Equipment for New Buildings
The federal district court for the Northern District of New York rejected a claim that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts New York’s statutory prohibitions on fossil fuel equipment and systems in certain new buildings. EPCA preempts state regulations “concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use” of a “covered product” for which a federal energy conservation standard has been established. The New York statutes were enacted in 2023, and the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council (Code Council) had commenced a rulemaking process (subsequently completed) to amend the Energy Conservation Construction and Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Codes to implement the statutes’ prohibitions. The court first denied the motion by the New York Secretary of State (the only remaining defendant) to dismiss on standing or ripeness grounds, finding that the statutes themselves caused harm sufficient to establish an imminent and concrete injury traceable to the Secretary that was redressable by the courts. Though the amendments to the Codes had not been adopted, the court also found that since “there is no doubt that they will inevitably be adopted and contain the prohibition mandated by the statute,” the action was ripe. The court agreed with the defendants and intervenor defendants, however, that the challenged statutes are not regulations concerning “energy use” and therefore are not preempted by EPCA. The court found that the plaintiffs’ definition of “energy use” was not EPCA’s definition of the term, which is “the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use,” determined in accordance with test procedures. The court declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s interpretations of “energy use” and “point of use” in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, and instead cited the dissent’s analysis in Berkeley as well as the analysis of the federal district court for the Southern District of New York upholding New York City’s building electrification law, both of which concluded that “energy use” should be interpreted in accordance with its “specialized” meaning under EPCA. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments that this interpretation of “energy use” would render superfluous EPCA’s exception from preemption for regulations in building codes concerning energy efficiency or energy use. The court also rejected the contention that its interpretation of “energy use” would conflict with EPCA’s preemption waiver provision. The court gave the plaintiffs 21 days to show cause why the court should not grant judgment as a matter of law in the defendant’s favor. Mulhern Gas Co., Inc. v. Mosley, No. 1:23-cv-01267 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2025)
Washington Federal Court Said Organizations Could Intervene as Plaintiffs to Challenge Federal Withdrawals of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Funds
The federal district court for the Western District of Washington allowed Sierra Club and six other organizations to intervene on behalf of the plaintiff states challenging the suspension or revocation of federal approvals of State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans and the withholding or withdrawing of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program funds. The court found that four of the organizations could intervene as of right but that all seven organizations qualified for permissive intervention. The court said the organizations had shown that they would bring “a unique perspective and expertise” that would not necessarily duplicate the plaintiff states’ role. Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-00848 (W.D. Wash. July 23, 2025)
California Federal Court Found No EPCA Preemption of Zero-NOx Standard for Certain Natural Gas-Fueled Appliances
The federal district court for the Central District of California ruled that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act did not preempt the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s rule setting a zero-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission standard for certain categories of natural gas appliances. Although the court agreed with the plaintiffs that the rule would effectively ban use of covered gas-fueled boilers and water heaters, the court concluded that because the rule concerned pollution emitted by the appliances, and not how much energy they use, it was outside the scope of the Ninth Circuit’s holding that EPCA preempted the City of Berkeley’s ordinance prohibiting installation of natural gas piping in new buildings. Rinnai America Corp. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, No. 2:24-cv-10482 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2025)
Federal Court Dismissed Commodity Exchange Act Claim Against New York Mercantile Exchange in Connection with Carbon Offset Credits Contracts
The federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed plaintiff investment funds’ lawsuit against New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (NYMEX) and its operator alleging that NYMEX violated the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and asserting state law claims against both defendants in connection with positions the plaintiffs held in carbon offset credit contracts. The plaintiffs held long positions in the Global Emissions Offset Futures Contract (GEO Futures Contract) created by NYMEX and certified to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 2021. The GEO Futures Contract allowed contracts for delivery of physical carbon offset credits that met certain criteria that included eligibility for the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which the court described as requiring airline operators “to track and report carbon emissions and then demonstrate that they have met the carbon offsetting requirements for the applicable compliance period or ‘phase.’” The plaintiffs’ positions were worth less after NYMEX published a report in May 2023 stating that emissions units for physical delivery to settle the contracts were CORSIA-eligible emissions units for a “Pilot Phase (2021-2023)” and not CORSIA-eligible emissions units for a “First Phase (2024-2026).” Because the Pilot Phase credits could no longer be used by airlines to satisfy CORSIA obligations after January 1, 2024, the market value of the credits the plaintiffs would receive was diminished. The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege a “failure to enforce a rule” within the narrow private right of action created under the CEA, which the court said “permits a trader to sue only when a registered entity refuses to police third-party misconduct under an existing rule.” The court said the plaintiffs’ challenge to NYMEX’s report was instead “a type of dispute Congress consigned to exchange oversight and CFTC review, not to private litigation.” The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims, finding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead diversity of citizenship sufficient to support federal subject matter jurisdiction for the claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Global Carbon Opportunity (Cayman) Fund Ltd. v. CME Group Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04562 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2025)
Environmental Groups Filed Stipulation of Dismissal in Challenge to San Joaquin Valley Oil Wells Approved by BLM in 2023 and 2024
On July 16, 2025, Center for Biological Diversity, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and Sierra Club, along with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other federal defendants, filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice in the environmental organizations’ lawsuit challenging BLM’s approval of 10 new oil wells in the San Joaquin Valley. The parties filed the stipulation one month after the defendants sought judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing and several months after the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint with additional details regarding standing. The plaintiffs filed a related case in February 2025 challenging more recent BLM approvals of oil wells in the area. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:23-cv-00938 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2025)
California Federal Court Said Fish and Wildlife Service’s Failure to Consider Climate Change Impacts on Vernal Pool Species Violated Endangered Species Act
In a lawsuit challenging federal reviews and authorizations for a 314-acre multi-use development in the City of Chico, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to assess best scientific data and incorporate climate change into its analysis of impacts on vernal pool species. The court allowed the plaintiffs to introduce extra-record studies for the purpose of demonstrating “that there was a contemporary body of scientific data discussing climate change and its impact on vernal pool species.” The court said that “general references to threats” such as changes in hydrologic patterns and habitat loss that “may, but not necessarily, implicate climate change” was insufficient to satisfy FWS’s obligations. The court also rejected FWS’s argument that its biological opinion expressly incorporated other documents that expressly discussed climate change’s impacts on ESA-listed vernal pool species. The court ruled for the federal defendants on NEPA and Clean Water Act claims, as well as on all but one other ESA claim. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 2:21-cv-01527 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2025)
D.C. Federal Court Said Decision Not to Designate Critical Habitat for Marsh Bird Violated Endangered Species Act
The federal district court for the District of Columbia vacated and remanded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to designate critical habitat for the eastern black rail, a marsh bird that the FWS listed as threatened in 2020 under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS identified habitat and fragmentation, sea level rise and tidal flooding, land management practices, and stochastic events such as extreme flooding and hurricanes as the primary threats to the species. The FWS concluded that it would not be prudent to designate critical habitat because designation could reasonably be expected to increase threats from “overzealous birders.” The court found that the FWS violated the ESA by failing to consider whether critical habitat designation would provide a net benefit to the eastern black rail before determining that designation would not be prudent. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:22-cv-01877 (D.D.C. July 11, 2025)
Montana Coal Mine Owner Dismissed Lawsuit Alleging Violation of NEPA Deadlines After Interior Department Issued Final EIS and Record of Decision for Mining Plan Modification
On July 1, 2025, the owner and operator of Bull Mountains Mine No. 1—an underground coal mine in Montana—and the U.S. Department of the Interior and other defendants stipulated to the dismissal of the owner-operator’s action asserting that the defendants had violated NEPA’s two-year deadline for preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) in the review of a mining plan modification. The stipulation stated that the Department of Interior had approved use of alternative NEPA procedures on May 12, 2025 and had issued its final EIS and Record of Decision on June 6, 2025. In light of the completion of the NEPA process, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the case. On July 3, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed the action without prejudice in light of the parties’ joint stipulation. Signal Peak Energy, LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:24-cv-00366 (D.D.C. July 3, 2025)
National Marine Fisheries Service Agreed to Schedule for 12-Month Finding on Olympic Peninsula Steelhead
Two nonprofit organizations focused on the preservation and restoration of fish species in the Pacific Northwest reached a settlement in their lawsuit seeking to compel the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to make a 12-month finding under the Endangered Species Act on whether to list Olympic Peninsula steelhead as a threatened or endangered species. The organizations submitted a listing petition to the NMFS in August 2022. The complaint alleged that factors that have depleted Olympic Peninsula steelhead include climate change impacts on freshwater and marine conditions. The settlement provided that the NMFS would submit a 12-month finding for publication in the Federal Register by December 1, 2025. Wild Salmon Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 2:25-cv-00116 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2025)
Hawai‘i Appellate Court Affirmed Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss in Honolulu Climate Case
The Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a special motion by Chevron Corporation and Chevron USA Inc. (together, Chevron) to strike or dismiss the City and County of Honolulu and Honolulu Board of Water Supply’s lawsuit alleging that Chevron and other defendants misled the public about the climate change dangers of their products and contributed to climate change injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. Chevron asserted that California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law should apply and bar the plaintiffs’ claims. The appellate court found that the Circuit Court correctly concluded that the California anti-SLAPP law did not apply. City & County of Honolulu v. Chevron Corp., No. CAAP-22-0000135 (Haw. Ct. App. July 29, 2025)
Nebraska and Trade Groups and Heavy-Duty Truck and Engine Manufacturers Agreed to Dismissal of Lawsuit Alleging Anticompetitive Conduct to Phase Out Internal Combustion Engine; Manufacturers Filed Suit in California Federal Court to Enjoin Enforcement of California Vehicle Standards
The State of Nebraska and two trade associations, along with four manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks and engines and their trade group filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by Nebraska and the two trade associations asserting that the manufacturers and their trade group engaged in anticompetitive conduct to phase out internal combustion engine medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The complaint alleged that the conspiracy was memorialized in the 2023 Clean Truck Partnership (CTP) between the manufacturers and the California Air Resources Board. The stipulation of dismissal stated that the parties agreed that joint resolutions of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional Review Act had rendered California’s Advanced Clean Trucks and Omnibus Low NOx regulations preempted by federal law and unenforceable and that the CTP could not be enforced. The defendants also contended that the disapproved regulations, not the CTP, had imposed obligations on them. Nebraska v. Daimler Truck North America, No. D15CI240000570 (Neb. Dist. Ct. Aug. 11, 2025)
On the same day that they filed the stipulation of dismissal, the four heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers filed an action asking the federal district court for the Eastern District of California to enjoin CARB from enforcing certain vehicle standards without a Clean Air Act preemption waiver from EPA. The manufacturers alleged that they had been “caught in the crossfire” between California’s demands that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) follow requirements for which EPA preemption waivers had not been obtained or had been disapproved pursuant to the Congressional Review Act and the United States’ orders directing OEMs to disregard the California requirements. The standards the plaintiffs sought to enjoin included the Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Advanced Clean Cars II, Heavy-Duty On-Board Diagnostic, and Omnibus Low NOx, and Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas standards. They also sought to enjoin CARB from enforcing the 2023 Clean Trust Partnership, which the manufacturers said was intended to harmonize compliance with state and federal law. The manufacturers also sought to enjoin a May 23, 2025 directive by CARB that manufacturers must continue to follow CARB standards and an executive order issued by Governor Gavin Newsom in June 2025 directing continued implementation of the Clean Truck Partnership. The manufacturers asserted claims of Clean Air Act preemption, a claim that the defendants violated the manufacturers’ First Amendment rights as well as their rights under the California’s counterpart to the First Amendment, and claims under the California Administrative Procedure Act. Daimler Truck North America LLC v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:25-cv-02255 (E.D. Cal., filed Aug. 11, 2025)
Vermont Court Dismissed Lawsuit Seeking to Compel Adoption of State Regulations to Achieve Global Warming Solutions Act Goals
The Vermont Superior Court granted the State of Vermont’s motion to dismiss Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) lawsuit seeking to compel the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to update its rules implementing the Vermont Climate Action Plan to meet the goals of the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020 (the Act). CLF alleged that ANR did not conduct a proper review to support its July 2024 determination not to update the rules. The court concluded that the type of citizen suit CLF brought under the Act was a deadline suit focused on whether ANR met statutory deadlines for adopting or updating rules and did not authorize review of the substance of rules. The court ruled that there was no statutory basis to compel ANR to adopt or update its rules. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Moore, No. 24-CV-03770 (Vt. Super. Ct. July 11, 2025)
D.C. Superior Court Denied Reconsideration and Interlocutory Appeal of Denials of Fossil Fuel Companies’ Motions to Dismiss District’ Consumer Protection Action
The District of Columbia Superior Court denied fossil fuel companies’ motions for reconsideration of the court’s April 21, 2025 orders denying their motions to dismiss the District of Columbia’s lawsuit alleging that they violated D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by misleading consumers regarding the role of their products in causing climate change. First, the court rejected the arguments of the Shell, Exxon, and Chevron defendants that allegedly misleading statements they made about their products’ environmental benefits were indistinguishable from statements made by the BP defendants that the court found to be inactionable under the CPPA. Second, the court denied reconsideration to the Chevron defendants as to their argument that statements about a fuel additive that they stopped selling in the District more than 15 years earlier were immaterial as a matter of law. Third, the court rejected the BP defendants’ contention that the court erroneously concluded that natural gas was a good BP sold to D.C. consumers; the court said that even if it had conflated the direct sale of gasoline to D.C. consumers with sale of natural gas in D.C., the District of Columbia had sufficiently alleged “that BP paints itself as an environmental steward in order to sell goods” to those consumers. The court said its finding that the CPPA’s “goods and services” requirement was satisfied was not dependent on D.C. consumers’ purchase of natural gas.
The court also denied the companies’ joint motion to certify the denials of the motions to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. The companies asked the court to certify three questions for appeal: (1) whether they could be held liable for the speech of trade associations under the CPPA and the First Amendment; (2) whether the First Amendment protected statements made as part of an alleged “campaign of denial”; and (3) whether they could be held liable under the CPPA for speech that does not concern consumer goods or services. The court said these questions did not present controlling questions of law but instead presented fact-intensive questions. The court also said that the defendants consistently misrepresented the court’s findings regarding the motions to dismiss because it had not reached legal conclusions but had merely found that the District’s allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The court also found that judicial economy was not a sufficient justification for interlocutory appeal. District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2020 CA 002892 B (D.C. Super. Ct. July 10, 2025)
Port of Stockton Agreed to Rescind Approvals for Hydrogen Production and Dispensing Facility
Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity reached a settlement agreement with the Port of Stockton and its Board of Port Commissioners (together, the Port) and the developer of a proposed hydrogen production and dispensing facility that the Port approved in August 2024. The Port agreed to rescind project approvals, to decertify the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act prior to any continuation or initiation of the project or of any project proposed by the developer that would propose producing or dispensing hydrogen derived from methane on Port of Stockton property. Sierra Club v. Port of Stockton, No. STK-CV-UWM-2024-0012095 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 9, 2025)
Delaware Chancery Court Blocked Emergency Arbitration of Dispute Over Carbon Credit Fund
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted a motion by an investor in a pooled fund to generate carbon credits for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the defendants from participating in emergency arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce while the Delaware Superior Court adjudicates the defendants’ motion to dismiss the investor’s lawsuit seeking to vindicate its termination of its agreement with the defendants after the pooled fund failed to generate carbon credits.
In the Superior Court complaint, the investor alleged that the defendants, who operated the pool, “had cultivated a reputation as a leading adviser and developer of nature-based carbon projects across the global south,” and had pitched the pool in 2022 as “a vehicle to ‘buy into’ its advanced pipeline of dozens of prospective carbon credit projects, including at least half a dozen projects that credibly stood to generate credits shortly following an investment.” The investor alleged that the majority of the projects in the pipeline were REDD+ forestry projects across South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. The investor further alleged that in early 2023 “media exposés and studies” revealed that many carbon credit projects, and especially REDD+ projects similar to those in the pool’s pipeline, “over-credited emissions reductions or failed to deliver meaningful climate benefits,” leading to “large-scale retroactive cancellations” of Verified Emission Reduction and/or Removal Units (VERR Units) associated with the projects. The investor alleged that the voluntary carbon market had corrected and shifted so that consumer demand was now concentrated not on “traditional” REDD+ VERR Units from projects such as those pursued by the defendants to “high-integrity, more measurable, removal-based, and co-benefit-rich VERR Units that are backed by state-of-the-art verification technology.” The investor contended that “the pool has failed,” alleging that it “has not generated even one carbon credit, and is far from doing so,” “has purported to enter only one project, and the pipeline is in shambles.” The investor asserted that the defendants failed to act as a “reasonable and prudent operator” as required by the agreement and were in material breach of their duties, justifying the investor’s termination of the agreement. The investor filed its lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court after the defendants rejected the termination and asserted their entitlement to cure and demanded payment of $30 million. The investor sought a declaratory judgment that its termination of the agreement was effective and that it had no further obligations and that the defendants breached the agreement and owed damages to the investor.
The operators moved to dismiss the Superior Court action on May 20, 2025, asserting that an arbitration clause covered the investor’s claims, and then sought emergency arbitration on July 3, 2025 while the motion to dismiss was pending.
In granting the TRO blocking arbitration, the Chancery Court found that the primary factor of imminent and irreparable harm was present because being compelled to arbitrate absent an agreement to do so is an irreparable injury. Although the defendants argued that an ongoing and anticipated project would suffer immediate harm absent the investor’s capital, the Chancery Court stated that it was “dubious” that harm was imminent, particularly with regard to the anticipated project, and also that the defendants did not explain why monetary damages would be insufficient to remedy any harm to the defendants. The Chancery Court therefore found that the balance of equities favored granting the TRO. The court also found that the investor cleared the “low threshold” of asserting a “colorable claim” that the dispute was not subject to arbitration. Anew Ventures II, LLC v. Terra Global Investment Management, LLC, No. 2025-0774 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2025)
NEW CASES AND FILINGS
Fossil Fuel Companies Asked U.S. Supreme Court to Review Colorado Supreme Court Decision Allowing Boulder State-Law Climate Claims to Proceed
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s May 2025 opinion holding that federal law did not preempt state law claims brought by the City of Boulder and the County Commissioners of Boulder County seeking to hold the companies liable for climate change-related injuries. The petition presented the question of “[w]hether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The companies argued that the Colorado Supreme Court decision had deepened a “clear conflict” on the question, citing the Second Circuit Court of Appeals 2021 decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. and decisions by the Seventh and Fourth Circuits in cases concerning interstate pollution. The companies also argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to the views of the United States, as expressed in an amicus brief filed in the Maryland Supreme Court in July 2025 in Baltimore’s, Annapolis’s, and Anne Arundel County’s appeals of the dismissals of their climate lawsuits. In addition, the companies argued that Supreme Court review was warranted because of the “enormous legal and practical importance” of the case; they contended that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision “perpetuates an unsustainable and chaotic patchwork of regulation of interstate and international emissions” and thereby “threatens one of this Nation’s most critical industries.” Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. _ (U.S. Aug. 8, 2025)
Electric Vehicle Trade Association Challenged NHTSA’s Adoption of Rule Reinterpreting Authority to Issue Fuel Economy and Efficiency Standards
Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)—“an association of over three dozen companies committed to advocating for the advancement of the electric vehicle supply chain”—filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) interpretive rule on “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program.” ZETA’s petition stated that the rule introduced a new interpretation of NHTSA’s authority to set fuel economy standards for new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and fuel-efficiency standards and compliance and enforcement protocols for new commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks. ZETA also alleged that NHTSA had cited the rule as justification for refusing to issue compliance notifications to manufacturers, which prevented NHTSA from transferring credits earned by vehicles that exceed fuel efficiency standards to other vehicle manufacturers. ZETA asserted that the rule was contrary to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Energy Independence and Security Act, and other applicable law, and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. On August 11, 2025, ZETA filed a motion to transfer the petition for review to the First Circuit Court of Appeals where states and cities led by California had filed a challenge, and where the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation had consolidated a petition for review originally filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups in the D.C. Circuit. Zero Emission Transportation Association v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, No. 25-1167 (D.C. Cir., filed Aug. 6, 2025)
Challenges Filed to EPA’s Extension of Deadlines for Oil and Natural Gas Sector Regulations
Ten environmental organizations led by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA’s rule extending certain deadlines for standards of performance and emissions guidelines for sources in the oil and natural gas sector promulgated in March 2024. A separate petition for review filed by Center for Biological Diversity was consolidated with the EDF-led challenge. Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 25-1164 (D.C. Cir., filed July 31, 2025)
Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nonprofit Organizations Challenged Federal Order Preventing Retirement of Coal-Fired Plant
Three petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Secretary of Energy’s May 23, 2025 order pursuant to the Federal Power Act determining that an emergency existed in the Midwest region of the United States due to a shortage of electric energy, shortage of electric energy generation facilities, and other causes, and directing that the Campbell coal-fired power plant in West Olive, Michigan be available to operate for the duration of the order. The plant had been scheduled to cease operations on May 31, 2025. The petitions for review were filed by the People of the State of Michigan, Sierra Club and eight other organizations, and the States of Minnesota and Illinois. People of the State of Michigan v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 25-1159 (D.C. Cir., filed July 24, 2025); Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 25-1160 (D.C. Cir., filed July 24, 2025); Minnesota v. Wright, No. 25-1162 (D.C. Cir., filed July 25, 2025)
SEC Asked Eighth Circuit to Proceed with Decision on Climate Change Disclosure Rules
On July 23, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a status report in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals proceedings challenging the SEC’s 2024 climate change disclosure rules. In response to questions posed by the court in an April 24, 2025 order regarding the SEC’s intentions with respect to the rules, the SEC said it did not intend to review or reconsider the rules “at this time” and requested that the Eighth Circuit end the abeyance and decide the case. The SEC stated that if the court upheld the rules, “any reconsideration of them would be subject to Commission deliberation and vote of its members, and the Commission cannot prejudge that action.” (The SEC also stated that prejudging “would not be appropriate.”) In addition, the SEC stated that because the court’s decision “would inform the scope and need for such action,” a decision by the court would “promote an efficient resolution to the dispute between the parties.” The SEC contended that a decision by the court would not be advisory because “[a]n important, live controversy of national policy with critical economic and policy ramifications” remained and that the court’s decision could “conclusively resolve the dispute about the Commission’s power to adopt the mandatory disclosure obligations on climate risk in the Rules.” On July 30, state intervenors filed a response asking that the Eighth Circuit continue to hold the case in abeyance until the SEC “clearly indicates what it intends to do with the Rules, including whether it will rescind the Rules if the Court upholds them.” Iowa v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 24-1522 (8th Cir.)
Lawsuit Alleged that EPA and Department of Energy Utilized an Unlawful Advisory Committee to Justify Proposed Rescission of Endangerment Finding
After EPA proposed to rescind its 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA, and the Climate Working Group asserting that the establishment and utilization of the Climate Working Group to “produce a report for DOE and EPA that would provide justification for their predetermined goal of rescinding the Endangerment Finding” was unlawful. The complaint, filed in the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts, alleged that Secretary Wright “quietly arranged for five hand-picked skeptics of the effects of climate change” to form the Climate Working Group and tasked them to “provide ‘balance’ against the consensus views of climate scientists and ‘cut against the prevailing narrative that climate change is an existential threat.’” The plaintiffs asserted that the Climate Working Group was an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and that because it had not been established in accordance with the requirements of FACA, its implementing regulations, and the DOE Manual, actions utilizing the Climate Working Group were unlawful and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the complaint asserted a failure to comply with advisory committee meeting and records requirements. The plaintiffs also asserted that the members of the Climate Working Group were not “fairly balanced” as required by FACA. Alternatively, the court asserted a nonstatutory review and ultra vires actions count. The plaintiffs requested declaratory relief, as well as postponement of the effective dates and vacatur of actions taken by the Climate Working Group or utilizing the Climate Working Group. In addition, the plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, including an injunction requiring disclosure of committee records and minutes and requiring that the public comment period on the proposed rescissions of the Endangerment Finding and related rescission of vehicle emissions standards be kept open for at least 45 days from the date records and minutes are released. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass., filed Aug. 12, 2025)
Proxy Advisors Filed Lawsuit Challenging Texas Law Imposing Requirements for Advice Based on “Nonfinancial Factors”
Two proxy advisors (Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (Glass Lewis) filed lawsuits in the federal district court for the Western District of Texas challenging a Texas law (S.B. 2337) that requires that a proxy advisor disclose to its clients and the subject company and publish statements on its website if its advice is “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” This requirement applies to advice that is “wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors,” including, among other factors, environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goals, factors, or investment principles and “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Glass Lewis asserted that S.B. 2337 violated the First Amendment and was void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violated the dormant Commerce Clause. ISS asserted that the law violated the First Amendment and was void for vagueness, violated the Contracts Clause, and was preempted by the federal Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01160 (W.D. Tex., filed July 24, 2025); Glass, Lewis & Co. v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01153 (W.D. Tex., filed July 24, 2025)
Washington State Challenged Federal Termination of Awards for Climate Resilience Programs
The State of Washington filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) termination of two awards of funding that the State alleged it was “relying on to help communities disproportionately exposed to the adverse effects of climate change become more resilient.” One award was for $250,000 under the Coastal Zone Management Act for a proposal titled “Advancing an Equitable Framework for Coastal Resilience in Washington State.” The other award was for $9,257,231 under the Inflation Reduction Act and National Sea Grant College Act for a proposal titled “Tribal Stewards: Cultivating Tribal Leadership and Equity in Natural Resource Stewardship & Climate Resilience.” The State asserted that the terminations of the awards violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the terminations were not in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance for administration of awards and were done without observance of procedures required by law. The State also asserted that termination of the awards was arbitrary and capricious, that the terminations violated the Appointments Clause because neither a NOAA nor a Department of Commerce employee determined the awards should be terminated, and that they violated the Spending Clause and separation of powers doctrine. Washington also asserted an equitable ultra vires claim. Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 2:25-cv-01507 (W.D. Wash., filed Aug. 8, 2025)
Trade Association Challenged Colorado Law Requiring Disclosures for Gas Stoves
On August 6, 2025, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers—a trade association with members that manufacture gas and electric cooking products and other appliances—filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Colorado challenging a Colorado law requiring dissemination of what the plaintiff alleged was “a non-consensus, scientifically controversial, and factually misleading government-mandated message about the purported ‘health impacts’ of gas stoves that is contrary to the view of the World Health Organization, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and federal agencies responsible for ensuring the health and safety of American consumers.” The plaintiff alleged that the law’s disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment because they are content- and viewpoint-based. The plaintiff also alleged that the law violated its members’ First Amendment rights because the legislative record showed that the legislation was not driven by purported health impacts “but instead by the unrelated policy debate on climate change and decarbonization.” On August 11, the court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction due to its failure to comply with the court’s requirements; the court “strongly” encouraged the State defendants “to consider the propriety of a stay of enforcement” of the law pending resolution of a renewed motion for injunctive relief. On August 13, the parties filed a stipulation in which the Colorado Attorney General agreed not to initiate enforcement actions under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for alleged violations of the labeling law until at least 14 days after the court issues a ruling on the plaintiff’s forthcoming renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Ryan, No. 1:25-cv-02417 (D. Colo., filed Aug. 6, 2025)
Lawsuit Challenged NEPA Compliance for Potash Mining Project
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Utah challenging BLM’s 2019 approval of a 125,000-acre potash mining project in Utah’s West Desert and BLM’s 2025 decision to approve a modification of the project. The complaint alleged that BLM violated NEPA by using a Determination of NEPA Adequacy that concluded the 2019 analysis of the project sufficiently analyzed the modified project. The complaint’s allegations included that BLM failed to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on resources that included climate. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 2:25-cv-00657 (D. Utah, filed Aug. 7, 2025)
Lawsuit Challenged Termination of Inflation Reduction Act Program for Reducing Embodied Carbon Emissions in Construction Materials
A nonprofit organization that received a grant from EPA under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Reducing Embodied GHG Emissions for Construction Materials and Products Program filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia challenging the termination of the program. The plaintiff asserted claims that the termination violated separation of powers, the Presentment Clauses, and was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiff asked the court for a declaratory judgment that the termination violated the Constitution and the statutory provisions enacting and appropriating funds to the program, as well as injunctive relief barring termination of the program and reinstating the plaintiff’s grant award. Building Materials Re-use Association v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-02493 (D.D.C., filed July 31, 2025)
Lawsuit Alleged Decision Not to List Red Tree Vole Distinct Population Segment Under Endangered Species Act Downplayed Wildfire Risk
Center for Biological Diversity and three other organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Oregon challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s February 2024 determination that the north Oregon coast distinct population segment (DPS) of red tree vole did not warrant protection as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that the determination ignored key findings of peer-reviewed studies and downplayed risks, including wildfire risk. The complaint alleged that the FWS had acknowledged that climate change was expected to increase the risk of large-scale wildfires but had concluded that the risk of catastrophic fire were “relatively low” and that tree voles could recolonize burned areas as they had in the past. The complaint asserted that the determination that listing was not warranted was arbitrary and capricious, that FWS ignored best available science when analyzing the DPS’s connectivity to other population areas, arbitrarily downplayed the risk of wildfire, and arbitrarily concluded the DPS was not threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 3:25-cv-01259 (D. Or., filed July 17, 2025)
Lawsuit Challenged Termination of $4 Billion in Federal Funding for California High-Speed Rail
The California High-Speed Rail Authority brought a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration and the heads of those agencies in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California challenging the termination of more than $4 billion in federal grant funding for the California high-speed rail program, which the complaint described as “a crucial part of California’s long-term strategic planning, not only to address critical transportation needs, but also greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, as well as to spur economic growth in California’s Central Valley and across the State.” The complaint asserted that termination of the Cooperative Agreements pursuant to which funding was awarded and de-obligation of funds awarded under them was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. On July 22, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation in which the federal defendants agreed that the de-obligated funding would not be re-obligated, transferred, or awarded to any other program or recipient except through a new notice of funding opportunity pursuant to applicable requirements and for “purposes authorized by the applicable appropriation that funded the Cooperative Agreements.” California High-Speed Rail Authority v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02004 (E.D. Cal., filed July 17, 2025)
Amazon Sought Dismissal of Greenwashing Case Concerning Paper Products
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) moved to dismiss a greenwashing class action alleging that the company misled consumers by not disclosing that Amazon Private Brand Paper Products “are composed of wood pulp sourced from harvests that rely on harmful logging practices such as clear-cutting and burning Canada’s boreal forest.” Amazon argued that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly and specifically allege unfair or deceptive conduct under the Washington Consumer Protection Act or fraudulent concealment. In addition, Amazon argued that plaintiffs should not be allowed to toll the statute of limitations for any surviving claims. Amazon also asked the court to strike putative class claims and allegations. Ramos v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00465 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2025)
Lawsuit Challenged Export-Import Bank’s Approval of Loan for Mozambique LNG Project
A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenged the Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (EXIM’s) approval of a $4.7 billion loan to subsidize construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique. The complaint alleged that EXIM previously approved a loan for the program in 2019 and 2020 but that new approval was required because the company leading the project, TotalEnergies SE, had declared force majeure in 2021 when insurgents attacked a nearby town, reportedly killing hundreds of residents, including project contractors. The complaint asserted that EXIM’s 2025 approval of the loan violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including because EXIM’s “acting” Board exceeded its authority and also because the loan approval violated Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (Bank Act) limits on over-subsidization and because EXIM did not complete necessary due diligence required by the Bank Act and set out in EXIM’s Environmental and Social Procedures. In addition, the complaint asserted that EXIM violated NEPA and the APA by failing to consider the project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions and impact on the global climate. Friends of the Earth U.S. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States, No. 1:25-cv-02235 (D.D.C., filed July 14, 2025)
Challenge to Atlantic Shores South Offshore Wind Project Included Allegation of Failure to Consider Climate Impacts
Save Long Beach Island, Inc. and individual and business plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging federal authorizations for the Atlantic Shores South offshore wind project. The plaintiffs asserted violations of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The NEPA claims included allegations that the final EIS failed to provide information necessary for reasoned decision-making, including information about the project’s effect on climate change. Save Long Beach Island, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 1:25-cv-02211 (D.D.C. July 11, 2025)
Lawsuit Filed to Compel Response on Endangered Species Act Listing Petition for Rare Wildflower
Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Nevada seeking to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a 12-month finding on a September 2023 petition to list Tecopa bird’s beak as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint described Tecopa bird’s beak as “a rare wildflower with limited distribution which grows in alkali wetlands in western Nevada and eastern California.” The complaint alleged that the plant is threatened by overconsumption of groundwater related to agriculture, geothermal energy development, mining, utility-scale solar development, and residential sprawl, and that other threats include livestock grazing, impacts from off-highway vehicles, invasive species, and climate change. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 2:25-cv-001174 (D. Nev., filed July 1, 2025)
Delaware Filed Amended Complaint Against Fossil Fuel Industry Defendants in Climate Case
On July 28, 2025, the State of Delaware filed an amended complaint in its lawsuit seeking to impose liability on fossil fuel industry defendants for climate change-related harms in Delaware attributable to the defendants’ “successful climate deception campaign.” The amended complaint added allegations regarding the defendants’ contacts with the State as well as new allegations about the defendants’ knowledge of the climate change risks posed by their products and their alleged concealment of those harms from the public, including allegations of more recent greenwashing campaigns. The amended complaint also included additional allegations regarding harmful climate change impacts in Delaware. The complaint added new allegations to its existing causes of action for negligence, trespass, nuisance, and violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, as well as a new cause of action for civil conspiracy. State of Delaware v. BP America Inc., No. N20C-09-097 (Del. Super. Ct. July 28, 2025)
Lawsuit Charged that California Low Carbon Fuel Standard Amendments Undermined Program’s Goals
Four organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the California Air Resources Board’s amendments to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard. They alleged that adoption of the amendments exceeded CARB’s statutory authority under the Global Warming Solutions Act and that the amendments were arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The organizations alleged that the amendments increased incentives for factory farms to produce biogas to generate LCFS credits, which would increase environmental and public health harms caused by larger and more concentrated factory farms. In addition, the organizations alleged that the amendments would result in double counting of methane emissions reductions by allowing claimed emissions reductions from methane capture at California dairy operations to be used as LCFS credits in the transportation sector by regulated parties to meet compliance obligations while also being counted towards the dairy and livestock sectors’ required methane reductions under the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act. Defensores del Valle Central para el Aire y Agua Límpio v. California Air Resources Board, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed July 25, 2025)
Energy Transfer Asked North Dakota Court to Block Greenpeace International’s Dutch Lawsuit
Energy Transfer LP, Energy Transfer Operating, L.P., and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer) filed an emergency motion for anti-suit injunction in North Dakota District Court asking the court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with a lawsuit in the Netherlands in which GPI seeks an order declaring Energy Transfer’s North Dakota suit against GPI meritless and requiring Energy Transfer to pay damages. In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota suit found GPI and other Greenpeace entities liable to Energy Transfer for $667 million in connection with protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the emergency motion, Energy Transfer argued that the threshold requirements for an anti-suit injunction were met because the parties and issues were functionally identical. Energy Transfer further argued that discretionary factors weighed in favor of an injunction. Energy Transfer contended that the Dutch action frustrated State of North Dakota policy interests, that the Dutch action was “vexatious,” and that it would result in unnecessary expense and duplicative efforts and was filed for the express purpose of gaining an inconsistent ruling and an improper “race to judgment.” Energy Transfer also contended that an injunction would not have an adverse impact on international comity. The North Dakota Monitor reported that the North Dakota court would hear arguments on the motion on August 20. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct. July 22, 2025)
HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART
HIGHLIGHTED CASE
International Court of Justice: Court publishes advisory opinion on climate change
On March 29, 2023, the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the resolution A/77/L.58, requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States with respect to climate change. The resolution was adopted by consensus. This initiative was largely led by the Government of Vanuatu, which worked with other countries to prepare a draft resolution through internal negotiations and several rounds of informal consultations with the wider UN membership. In accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, the UNGA requests the ICJ to render an advisory opinion on the following questions:
“Having particular regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment,
(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;
(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:
(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?
(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?”
On July 23, 2025, the ICJ delivered the advisory opinion. The Court found that States are obligated to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic GHG emissions, based on multiple legal sources including the UN Charter, climate treaties (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement), customary international law, environmental treaties, and international human rights law. These obligations include mitigation, adaptation, and cooperation duties, guided by principles such as sustainable development, precaution, and intergenerational equity. The Court affirmed that the duty to prevent significant harm and the duty to cooperate apply to all States, with due diligence as the governing standard. It also concluded that when States breach these obligations, they incur legal consequences under the customary international law of State responsibility, including duties to cease the harmful conduct, guarantee non-repetition, and provide reparation. The opinion emphasized that obligations related to climate protection are owed erga omnes and apply equally to harm caused to other States, vulnerable populations, and future generations.
Request for an advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change (International Court of Justice)
Italy: Supreme Court Confirms Civil Courts’ Jurisdiction in Landmark Climate Case Against ENI
On May 9, 2023, twelve Italian citizens and two NGOs, Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, brought a civil action against ENI S.p.A., the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (CDP) before the Civil Court of Rome. They alleged that ENI’s decarbonization strategy was inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and international climate science, causing harm to rights protected by the Constitution and human rights law. MEF and CDP were accused of failing to use their controlling shareholdings to steer ENI toward compliance. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of joint liability and an order to reduce ENI’s emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2020 levels, with an astreinte for non-compliance.
The defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction, citing the 2024 A Sud ruling that dismissed a similar climate case against the State. The plaintiffs requested a regolamento di giurisdizione from the Supreme Court of Cassation.
On July 21, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming that Italian civil courts have jurisdiction to hear climate cases against private companies and controlling shareholders where harm to fundamental rights is alleged. The Court distinguished the claim from A Sud, emphasizing that it did not intrude into legislative or political functions but concerned extra-contractual liability. It held that damage was suffered in Italy where the plaintiffs reside, even if emissions occurred partly abroad, and that ENI could be held responsible for group-wide strategies contributing to climate harm. While the Court did not address liability or remedies, its ruling removes the main procedural obstacle to such cases in Italy, paving the way for the Civil Court of Rome to examine claims for injunctive relief, damages, and potentially reparations for climate-related harm. The case now returns to the Civil Court of Rome for a merits hearing. Greenpeace Italy et. Al. v. ENI S.p.A., the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (Italy, Supreme Court of Cassation)
Denmark: Court applies the necessity of defense in case against climate protester
Environmental protester, Ida Nicolaisen, was charged with 11 offenses under the Danish Penal Code (straffeloven), the Road Traffic Act (færdselsloven) and the Public Order Regulation (ordensbekendtgørelsen) for participating in non-violent environmental protests in Copenhagen. Nicolaisen pleaded not guilty and invoked the necessity defense under § 14 of the Danish Penal Code, citing the urgency of preventing environmental harm.
The District Court of Copenhagen rendered its judgment in April 2025. While the court rejected the necessity defense in most instances, it accepted the defense in relation to two incidents relating to a construction project in Amager Fælled taking place in January 2022. Amager Fælled is an urban area in Copenhagen known for its ecological significance. In the first incident, Nicolaisen positioned herself against a fence to obstruct construction. This resulted in a charge under the Public Order Regulation §18(1). The second incident concerned her participation in a follow-up meeting with local politicians at City Hall, where she refused to leave and was charged with unlawful presence on private property under § 264(1)(3) of the Danish Penal Code. Nicolaisen pleaded not guilty and invoked the necessity defense under The Danish Penal Code § 14, citing the urgency of preventing environmental harm.
The court emphasized that the area in question is a registered habitat for the great crested newt, a species subject to special protection under both EU and Danish law. It further noted that the clearing of the area occurred during the newt's hibernation period, when the species typically resides underground in the affected area. Expert evidence indicated that the planned construction posed an immediate and irreversible threat to the species' habitat and the area's ecological function.
The court highlighted that the acts took place in a particularly sensitive natural area, that there was a concrete threat toward a protected habitat and that the actions were motivated by a concrete and urgent concern for preventing environmental damage. Notably, the court expanded the interpretation of the term 'property' in § 14 of the Penal Code to encompass ecological values, specifically EU-protected habits. It held that the necessity defense applied and acquitted Nicolaisen of two charges under the Public Order Regulation § 18(1) and Penal Code §264(1)(3). For the remaining offenses, Nicolaisen was issued a fine. The Prosecuter v. Ida Nicolaisen (Denmark)
Italy: Court Annuls Authorization for Offshore Gas Project Near Po Delta Over Environmental Assessment Failures, Climate Impacts Alleged
On July 27, 2021, Italian NGOs — including Legambiente, LIPU-BirdLife Italy, WWF Italy, and Greenpeace Italy — challenged a ministerial decree authorizing the Teodorico gas field development, located off the Po Delta in the Adriatic Sea. The project, promoted by Po Valley Operations Pty Ltd, involved the installation of a platform and drilling operations adjacent to a newly designated marine site of Community importance, an area considered crucial for species such as the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). The area also lies near the Po Delta, recognized in 2015 as a UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserve. In a separate but connected proceeding, the Veneto Po Delta Regional Park Authority, the Province of Rovigo, and several municipalities also contested the decree.
The plaintiffs argued that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was inadequate and failed to account for the establishment of the marine protected area, the potential harm to protected species and habitats, the risks of subsidence linked to gas extraction, and the impacts on local fisheries. They further claimed that the assessment omitted consideration of the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and its inconsistency with Italy’s climate objectives.
On November 27, 2024, the TAR Lazio annulled the ministerial authorization in both proceedings. The court found that the authorities had violated Article 5 of D.P.R. 357/1997 and Article 6 of the Habitats Directive by not conducting a proper “appropriate assessment” of the project’s effects on a proposed site of Community importance, despite the fact that the Italian government had already formally transmitted the site designation to the European Commission prior to issuing the authorization. EU and national law require such assessments to cover both formally designated sites and those proposed for designation. The court did not rule on the remaining claims, including those related to climate impacts, as the annulment on procedural and habitat protection grounds was sufficient to dispose of the case. Legambiente et al. v. Ministry of Ecological Transition et al.; Veneto Po Delta Regional Park Authority et al. v. Ministry of Ecological Transition et al. (Italy, Regional Administrative Tribunal in Lazio)
Poland: Polish Constitutional Tribunal Limits EU Climate Competence in Energy Mix Ruling
In August 2023, under the Law and Justice (PiS) government, Poland filed four annulment actions at the EU Court of Justice challenging elements of the EU’s Fit for 55 climate package, including the phase-out of combustion engine vehicles and related energy measures. Poland argued these measures exceeded EU competences, breached the principle of subsidiarity, and imposed disproportionate burdens on energy-intensive industries.
Following the October 2023 election of the Civic Coalition, led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Poland reversed its position on EU climate policy and formally withdrew the lawsuits in February 2024.
Despite this change in government policy, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal issued a judgment on 10 June 2025 in case K 10/24. The Tribunal ruled—by majority—that the interpretation of Article 192(1) in conjunction with Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, as developed by the CJEU, was incompatible with Articles 2, 4(1), 7, 8(1) and 90(1) of the Polish Constitution. In particular, the Court found that narrowing the unanimity requirement in the Council to only those EU environmental measures whose primary intended effect is to significantly influence a Member State’s energy mix undermines Polish sovereignty and circumvents the constitutional procedure for transferring competences.
The Tribunal discontinued review of other claims—concerning alleged disproportionate obligations under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and impacts on economic freedom—on procedural grounds. It stressed that the ruling does not invalidate the relevant TFEU provisions themselves, but declares unconstitutional the manner in which they have been interpreted and applied, with potential implications for Poland’s future compliance with EU climate and energy legislation. Group of Members of the Sejm v. European Union environmental and energy competences (K 10/24) (European Court of Justice)
Pakistan: Supreme Court orders the federal government to establish the Climate Change Authority and Climate Fund
On March 31, 2017, Pakistan’s Climate Change Act was promulgated. The Act mandated the establishment of a Climate Change Authority and a Climate Fund, but neither has been established. As a result, in December 2022, the Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan (PILAP) filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court challenging the government’s failure to implement the 2017 Act.
On May 11, 2024, following the federal government's inactionable efforts to begin establishing the fund and authority, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to establish the Climate Change Authority within 14 days, and to complete establishing the Climate Fund. Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (Pakistan, Supreme Court)
Australia: Northern Territory Supreme Court dismisses case challenging failure to analyze climate impacts during exploratory phase
In January 2023, the Northern Territory Environment Minister, Lauren Moss, approved Tamboran Resources’ Environment Management Plan (EMP). The EMP allowed the company to carry out exploratory drilling and fracking of 12 wells in the Beetaloo Basin.
On February 6, 2023, the Central Australian Frack Free Alliance (CAFFA) filed an application for judicial review in the Northern Territory Supreme Court. CAFFA, represented by the Environmental Defenders Office, challenged the lawfulness of the minister’s approval of the project, alleging that the minister failed to consider the environmental and future climate impacts from potential gas production.
The Court heard the case in November 2023. The Environmental Defenders Office largely grounded its argument in climate impacts, stating that the minister's assessment should have considered the downstream climate impacts of potential gas production that could arise from initial explorations.
On September 18, 2024, the Court dismissed the case, stating that the minister was not legally required to consider climate impacts from hypothetical production scenarios, as the approval of the project was only for the exploratory stage. Central Australian Frack Free Alliance v Minister for Environment (Australia, Supreme Court of the Northern Territory)
Brazil: Court rejects climate damages in case related to illegal wood storage
In December 2018, Brazil’s Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA) filed a public civil action (environmental class-action) against Madeireira Madevi Ltda. seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infringement notice for illegal wood storage without an environmental license. This public civil action is part of a set of 9 lawsuits brought by IBAMA on the same grounds, but against different defendants, to question illegal wood deposits and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of wood without a proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks reparation for environmental damages provoked by it, including (i) the damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. As for the climate damage, it claims that the unlawful conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere.
The plaintiff seeks redress through the determination of (i) an obligation to restore the vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of logs seized, amounting to 29.57 hectares, ideally in an area of the same biome in Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project and (ii) an obligation to pay the climate damage based on the Carbon Social Cost (CSC) in the amount of R$ 2,871,48947. It claims, based on the polluter pays principle, that the climate damage represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal deforestation, leaving it to society. It also argues that climate damage can be quantified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions of the activity by the CSC. In this case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, summing up to 10,852.19 tons of carbon.
The plaintiff requests, as an injunction: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines by the offender, (ii) unavailability of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation of the vegetation restorage and the obligation to compensate the climate damage, and (iii) judicial restraint order of the illicit polluting activity. On the merits, it requests the defendant's conviction in the obligation to do - to recover an area equivalent to that deforested - and the obligation to pay - in the amount related to the social cost of carbon.
In March 2025, a judgment of partial upholding was handed down, condemning the defendant for the environmental damage resulting from the irregular deposit of wood, without proper proof of legal origin. The conviction was based on strict liability, imposing on the polluter the obligation to repair the damage caused to the environment, regardless of fault. It was proven that the wood was acquired illegally, through the improper use of forestry credits in the traceability system, without proof of the origin of the forestry product, characterizing an environmental violation. The obligation to recover the degraded area was ordered to be converted into monetary compensation, under established technical parameters. The imposition of loss and suspension of tax incentives, as well as a ban on participation in public financing lines until the environmental liabilities are regularized. The request for compensation for climate damage was rejected due to the lack of technical reports or studies to support the amount to be charged. Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA) v. Madeireira Madevi Ltda. (Brazil, Pará Federal Court)
Brazil: Court dismisses case against petroleum agency challenging oil and gas block offers
On December 12, 2023, the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture filed an Autonomous Action for the Anticipated Production of Evidence against the National Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency (ANP) and the Federal Union, with the aim of having them clarify the climate impact of their offers of blocks for oil and gas exploration. The plaintiff argues that the emissions associated with the ANP's offers of blocks for oil and gas exploration could compromise compliance with the targets set by Brazil under the Paris Agreement, which have been internalized in the Brazilian legal system with supra-legal status. Also, it is argued that oil and gas exploration contradicts the national energy policy's objectives, which include protecting the environment and mitigating GHG emissions. The plaintiff states there is no transparency about the calculations or emission estimates associated with the ANP's offers of blocks for oil and gas exploration or mitigation plans. He, therefore, seeks to provide the information needed to assess these impacts and possibly avoid the need for subsequent legal action to correct the country's energy policies. Specifically, the aim is to clarify whether the federal government (i) estimates the GHG emissions potentially generated by the offer of oil and gas exploration blocks in ANP auctions at the time of or before the publicity of the offer notice; (ii) calculates how the emissions that will result from the oil and gas exploration of the blocks offered, if they are acquired, may affect compliance with the Brazilian NDC and the Paris Agreement; (iii) has some kind of calculation or analysis of how emissions from burning Brazilian oil exported to other countries affect the global climate system; (iv) has a plan for mitigating emissions from oil and gas exploration in the blocks offered by the ANP; and (v) takes these emissions into account when establishing the country's energy policy.
On July 4, 2024, ANP filed its defense and argued that energy sources in the future will still include oil and natural gas. It said that ANP only implements public policies in the energy sector and is not responsible for formulating them and, therefore, the requests in the lawsuit should be addressed to the body that formulates the policy, the National Energy Policy Council (CNPE). Finally, it argued that the offer of blocks for the exploration and production of oil and natural gas, in itself, does not have the effect of emitting GHGs since there is no guarantee of the occurrence of deposits in these regions and, therefore, it would not be possible to estimate in advance the result of emissions from eventual production in the auctioned block.
On July 18, 2024, the Federal Union filed its defense and made the following responses: (i) GHG emissions are calculated indirectly, based on existing activities and historical data, and the assessment of an oil or natural gas discovery takes place only in an area under an exploration and production contract; (ii) the official means of verifying the national target is the National Inventory of GHG Emissions and Removals, which is submitted periodically to the UNFCCC; (iii) calculations of national GHG emissions from the energy sector do not account for emissions from the future use of exported oil, as these emissions are accounted for by the countries that import the oil; (iv) Brazil has established projects, activities, programmes and policy measures to monitor and mitigate its emissions, monitor impacts and adapt to climate change; (v) the deliberations of the CNPE, the body responsible for formulating energy policies and guidelines, are based on studies, assessments and technical documents from government bodies and entities in the energy sector, and these documents do not include data on potential emissions. A request was made for the case to be dismissed without a decision on the merits and, alternatively, for the procedure to be recognized as exhausted given the information presented in the Information Note.
In March 2025, after the information provided by the defendants had been submitted and the plaintiff had requested that the case be dismissed, the judge approved the request to withdraw and dismissed the case without a decision on the merits. The parties were summoned and the case was dismissed, with no appeal being possible. Arayara Institute vs. ANP and Federal Union (Anticipated Production of Evidence on oil and gas auctions) (Brazil, Federal District Federal Court)
Brazil: Court dismisses case related to mandatory percentage of biodiesel in diesel oil
This Popular Action with a request for an injunction was filed by two individuals against the President of the Republic, the President of the National Energy Policy Council (CNPE), and the Federal Union. The plaintiffs seek to annul CNPE Resolution 25/2021, which—by presidential order—reduced the mandatory biodiesel content in diesel to 10% (“B10”) for all of 2022, instead of following the schedule in CNPE Resolution 16/2018 that would have required 13% (“B13”) in January–February 2022 and 14% (“B14”) from March 2022 onward.
The plaintiffs argue that:
- The reduction undermines environmental protection, administrative morality, and public assets, and is unconstitutional and illegal.
- The act lacked proper justification and bypassed procedural requirements, including omitting the 8th Extraordinary Meeting of the CNPE.
- Lowering the blend violates Brazil’s domestic and international climate commitments under the Federal Constitution, RenovaBio Law (Law 13.576/2017), National Policy on Climate Change (Law 12.187/2009), and the Paris Agreement (Decree 9.073/2017), as well as Brazil’s NDCs.
- The measure harms the biodiesel production chain, reduces market predictability promised under RenovaBio, and lessens demand for domestically produced biodiesel.
Relief sought
- Preliminary injunction to suspend the contested act and require compliance with CNPE Resolution 16/2018, restoring the B13/B14 schedule, or at least maintaining it until a technical study on blending is concluded.
- Final judgment annulling CNPE Resolution 25/2021, confirming the injunction, and ordering compliance with the original blending schedule.
In its decision on the preliminary injunction, the court did not accept the defendants' preliminary lack of cause of action. With regard to the challenge to the value of the case, it ruled that it should be decided only after the plaintiffs had made their case. It admitted the participation of the National Transportation Confederation (CNT) as amicus curiae. On the merits, it held that the contested act falls within the scope of the technical-administrative discretion of the Public Authority and that it was duly justified in the public interest. Federal Law 13.033/2014 determines that the mandatory minimum percentage is 6% and, as the reduction had been to 10%, it considered that there had been no violation of legality or damage to administrative morality. He also pointed out that the Ministry of the Environment, which sits on the CNPE, had not objected to the proposal to reduce the biodiesel content. He concluded that the Judiciary should not interfere with the Public Administration, under penalty of violating the separation of powers. He therefore dismissed the request for an injunction.
A judgment was subsequently handed down dismissing the Popular Action. The court reiterated the grounds presented in the preliminary injunction and added that, after this initial rejection, no other evidence was presented that could alter the judgment on the facts alleged in the initial decision. The case was referred to the TRF-4 for analysis, but no judgment has yet been handed down. According to the court, the necessary remittance was not granted because the defendants acted in compliance with the technical-administrative discretion that the law granted them, according to their criteria of convenience and opportunity, based on the data and studies. The case was closed. Lucas Martins and Paulo Henrique Nagelstein v. the President of the Republic, the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Federal Government (Reduction in the percentage of biodiesel blended with fossil diesel) (Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul Federal Court)
European Court of Human Rights: Court dismisses case brought by Italian youth
On March 3, 2021, Italian youth filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 33 countries. The applicant is an 18-year-old woman living in a small town in southern Italy (Matera) which is prone to floods. She claims to suffer from allergies (skin rash) and psychological distress due to global warming (states of anxiety caused by the inability to go out during the day and, more generally, by concerns about the future and the possibility of continuing to live there due to global warming), which is to be manifested in extraordinarily high temperatures in summer and severe flooding. She lives in a flood zone (Matera).
Relying on Articles 2, 8, 13 and 14, she complains that the 33 States parties to the Convention which are also parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement (including Turkey, Switzerland, Portugal, Austria, Norway and France) have not taken sufficient measures to implement the latter. She complains about a violation: (i) of the positive obligations of States under Articles 2 and 8 to protect the environment; (ii) of Article 14, since the harmful effects of global warming would hit the younger generations harder; (iii) of article 13, alleging that the domestic remedies would not be effective since she would be forced to lodge a complaint in the courts of 33 States, a burden which it would be impossible for her to bear because of her young age and limited financial resources.
The case is similar to Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States. The case is brought against the Member States of the EU (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) as well as Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. The complainants allege that the respondents have fallen short of their human rights obligations by failing to agree to emissions reductions that will keep temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as envisioned by the Paris Agreement.
The Court unanimously ruled the case inadmissible in its decision of 7 May 2025. Confirming its previously established case law from the Duarte Agostinho case, the Court held that the applicant was under Italy's territorial jurisdiction and that there was no basis to find that the other respondent states had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction. It underlined that the applicant did not submit any specific arguments on the subject of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The complaint against all states other than Italy was therefore declared inadmissible based on lack of jurisdiction.
With respect to the complaint against Italy, the Court reiterated the relevant principles on victim status in the climate-change context established in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case, which had established a high threshold for victim status. As the applicant had not submitted any medical documentation, the Court could not conclude whether she was subject to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change or whether there had been a pressing need to ensure her individual protection from the harm which the effects of climate change may have had on the enjoyment of her human rights. Therefore, the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention was declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Her complaint under Article 2 was declared inadmissible for the same reason due to a lack of substantiation. In relation to the applicant's other complaints, the Court held that these complaints either did not meet the admissibility criteria or did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. Uricchio v. Italy and 32 other States (International Courts & Tribunals, European Court of Human Rights)
European Court of Human Rights: Court dismisses case brought by Italian youth
On March 3, 2021, Italian youth filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 33 countries. The applicant, a 20-year-old woman living in a small town in northern Italy, near the Dolomites mountains, claims she has suffered from psychological disorders from an early age. She submits that global warming showed its effects in her living area in October 2018 through "Storm Vaia," an unusually severe wind and rainstorm that felled around 20 million trees. The applicant also refers to forest fires and heat waves as climate impacts which affect her. She maintains that the distress linked to global warming has worsened her psychological state. Relying on Articles 2, 8, 13 and 14, she complains that the 33 States parties to the Convention which are also parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement (including Turkey, Switzerland, Portugal, Austria, Norway and France) have not taken sufficient measures to implement the latter. She complains about a violation (i) of the positive obligations of States under Articles 2 and 8 to protect the environment; (ii) of Article 14, since the harmful effects of global warming would hit the younger generations harder; (iii) of article 13, alleging that the domestic remedies would not be effective since she would be forced to lodge a complaint in the courts of 33 States, a burden which it would be impossible for her to bear because of her young age and limited financial resources.
The complaint alleges that the respondents have violated human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change, and seeks an order requiring them to take more ambitious action. The case is similar to Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States.
The Court unanimously ruled the case inadmissible in its decision of 7 May 2025. Confirming its previously established case law from the Duarte Agostinho case, the Court held that the applicant was under Italy's territorial jurisdiction and that there was no basis to find that the other respondent states had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction. It underlined that the applicant did not submit any specific arguments on the subject of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The complaint against all states other than Italy was therefore declared inadmissible based on lack of jurisdiction.
With respect to the complaint against Italy, the Court reiterated the relevant principles on victim status in the climate-change context established in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case, which had established a high threshold for victim status. As the medical certificates submitted by the applicant did not suggest that her medical conditions could be linked to her exposure to the adverse effects of climate change and none of the documents mentioned states of severe anxiety, the Court could not conclude whether she was subject to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change or whether there had been a pressing need to ensure her individual protection from the harm which the effects of climate change may have had on the enjoyment of her human rights. There had been insufficient substantiation in respect of her allegations. Therefore, the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention was declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Her complaint under Article 2 was declared inadmissible for the same reason due to a lack of substantiation. In relation to the applicant's other complaints, the Court held that these complaints either did not meet the admissibility criteria or did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. De Conto v. Italy and 32 other States (International Courts & Tribunals, European Court of Human Rights)
ICSID: Arbitral Tribunal dismisses case against Romania
Background:
Gabriel Resources Ltd (Canada) and its subsidiary Gabriel Jersey held a majority stake in Roşia Montană Gold Corporation (RMGC), a Romanian joint venture co-owned with a state entity. The venture aimed to develop a large-scale open-pit gold mine in Roşia Montană, requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and a final environmental permit before exploitation could begin. The project, while economically significant, became the subject of intense public opposition due to environmental and cultural heritage concerns. Gabriel alleged that Romania’s failure to approve the EIA and issue the necessary permits, alongside subsequent heritage protection measures, unlawfully frustrated the investment.
Merits:
Gabriel Resources submitted that the state’s acts and omissions formed a politically motivated repudiation of the project, violating fair and equitable treatment (FET), full protection and security (FPS), non-discrimination, and the umbrella clause. Further, Gabriel argued that Romania politicised and obstructed the EIA process from 2011 onwards, delaying decisions, failing to correct administrative errors, and ultimately submitting the matter to Parliament through a proposed “Special Law,” which was rejected following mass public protests. Romania’s later designation of Roşia Montană as a historical monument and its support for UNESCO World Heritage status effectively barred any future mining activity. Gabriel contended these acts were part of a broader pattern of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. However, the tribunal found no bad faith, abuse of process, or improper linkage between permitting and political considerations.
The environmental dimension was central to Romania’s regulatory approach and to the outcome of the dispute. The tribunal found that Romania’s refusal to approve the EIA and grant the environmental permit was not arbitrary but rather reflected the political sensitivity and public resistance surrounding the environmental and cultural risks of the mining project. The listing of Roşia Montană as a protected historical site and its eventual inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List were viewed as legitimate sovereign acts. The tribunal concluded that such measures did not amount to disguised expropriation or violate treaty standards, particularly where no assurances or binding commitments had been made to guarantee project approval. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled that Romania's conduct, including the heritage measures, fell within its regulatory discretion and did not breach the BITs.
Decision:
By majority, the tribunal dismissed all of Gabriel’s claims, holding that Romania had not breached its obligations under either BIT. The tribunal emphasized that while a state must not treat investors arbitrarily or unfairly, it retains the right to regulate for environmental and cultural preservation purposes. Gabriel’s argument that a composite act of obstruction had deprived it of legal protections was rejected on the facts. One arbitrator dissented, finding that the rejection of the Special Law and Romania’s subsequent conduct amounted to a denial of FET.
Follow up Annulment proceedings:
Gabriel Resources has since initiated annulment proceedings and served a new notice of dispute over the refusal to renew its operating license. The annulment proceedings are still pending, however, on April 25, 2025, the ad hoc Committee confirmed the termination of the stay of enforcement of the award. Gabriel Resources Ltd. and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) v. Romania (ICSID)
Brazil: Case extinguished after the company withdrew from project
On March 11, 2020, the NGO Instituto Internacional Arayara and the Fishermen's Colony Z-5 filed a Public Civil Action (environmental class-action) against Copelmi Mineração Ltda., a mining company, and FEPAM (the state environmental agency). The plaintiffs asked the court to suspend and cancel the environmental permitting process for the Guaíba Mine Project, led by Copelmi, considered the largest open-pit coal project in the country. The project is to be installed in areas inhabited by traditional communities, such as the Z-5 Fishermen's Colony and indigenous territories. It relates to the State Coal Policy and the Carbochemical Pole of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) - created by State Law 15.047/2017—which the plaintiffs claim was instituted without popular consultation. They argue that more public hearings for the project were requested by affected communities, but the requests were ignored. In addition, they point out that there was no prior, free and informed consultation with the fishermen of Colony Z-5, a traditional community. They claim that the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA/RIMA) for the project has many gaps, since it ignored the area of influence of the Atlantic Forest biome and the rights of the affected communities. They argue the permitting process violated the Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Federal Constitution and the State Environmental Code of Rio Grande do Sul, and must be declared null as it also contradicts the fight against climate change determined by the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187 / 2009).
In its defense, FEPAM, among other arguments, states that: (i) the plaintiff presents no grounds for the request to suspend the project and affirms the violation of the National Policy on Climate Change without giving further reasoning; (ii) the Judiciary cannot evaluate the
environmental feasibility of the project, especially its compatibility with the National Policy on Climate Change; (iii) the permitting process was regular, since public hearings were held and no obstacle was found to the participation of the fishermen of Colony Z-5, also alleging that the EIA does not need to be exhaustive, being possible to carry out supplementations after the environmental license is granted.
Copelmi also filed a defense, claiming among other points that: (i) the requests for prohibition of the project in relation to the violation of the National Policy on Climate Change lacks a cause of action; (ii) the environmental permitting procedure included public hearings in the
municipalities that make up its area of direct influence, in compliance with environmental regulations; (iii) the issues raised by the plaintiffs were duly analyzed in the EIA/RIMA; (iv) ILO Convention 169 does not apply to artisanal fishermen in the Jacuí Delta region, as they do not
qualify as tribal people; and (v) the Guaíba Mine Project will not have a direct impact on fishermen.
Subsequently, there was a decision determining the suspension of this process for six months, considering that the permitting procedure for the Guaíba Mine project was declared null and void in the scope of the case “Arayara Association of Education and Culture and others v.
FUNAI, Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM (Mina Guaíba Project and affected indigenous communities)." The suspension was determined in order to await the exhaustion of the appeal phase and the confirmation or not of the decision of that lawsuit.
In March 2025, Copelmi informed the court that it was withdrawing from the Guaíba Mine Project and requested that the environmental licensing process be closed. As a result, the judge recognized the loss of purpose and extinguished the case without resolving the merits. Instituto Internacional Arayara and Fishermen’s Colony Z-5 v. Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM (Mina Guaíba Project and affected communities) (Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul State Court)
New Zealand: High Court Rulings on Interlocutory Applications filed in Smith v. Fonterra
The case was initiated by Michael John Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu), climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs’ Forum, against seven major New Zealand companies in the agriculture and energy sectors—Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd, Genesis Energy Ltd, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel Ltd, Z Energy Ltd, Channel Infrastructure NZ Ltd, and BT Mining Ltd. Mr Smith alleged that the defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions constituted public nuisance, negligence, and breach of a novel duty to cease contributing to climate change. In 2020, the High Court struck out the public nuisance and negligence claims but allowed the novel duty claim to proceed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed all three causes of action, finding tort law unsuitable for addressing climate change. In February 2024, however, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Smith’s appeal, reinstating all claims and holding that orthodox strike-out principles required the matter to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court concluded that neither the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor the Resource Management Act 1991 displaced the common law, and that public nuisance, negligence, and the proposed climate duty should be tested at trial, including in light of tikanga Māori. The matter was remitted to the High Court, with a 15-week trial scheduled for April 2027.
On 16 April 2025, the High Court considered two significant interlocutory applications. The first, brought by the first to third defendants, sought to join overseas commercial emitters, overseas government emitters, and overseas non-profit emitters as third parties to the proceedings. The Court declined this “Third Party Application,” finding that such joinder would be inconsistent with the objective of the High Court Rules—to ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding—and contrary to the fundamental principle of access to justice. In the Court’s view, adding these parties would inevitably create substantial complexity, expense, and delay, with a very high likelihood of jeopardizing the April 2027 trial date.
The second application, brought by the first to fifth defendants, asked the Court to declare the proceedings a “universal representative proceeding.” This would have allowed the defendants to be sued on behalf of all New Zealand entities engaged in profit-making activities that produce or supply products resulting in greenhouse gas emissions significantly above those of the average citizen. The Court refused this “Universal Representative Application,” noting that the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision had clearly anticipated Mr Smith proceeding against the named defendants only. Granting the application would, in effect, relitigate the same issue. The Court also determined that such a representative order would not enhance access to justice.
On 17 June 2025, the High Court issued a further decision on interlocutory applications brought by BT Mining (the sixth defendant) and Mr Smith. BT Mining sought to have two questions determined before the substantive trial, arguing that it was uniquely situated as the only defendant alleged to have engaged in no direct greenhouse gas–emitting activity in New Zealand, with the emissions at issue occurring in another jurisdiction. The Court declined this request, finding no clear demarcation between the claims against BT Mining and those against the other defendants. BT Mining also sought security for costs of NZD 150,000 from Mr Smith, but this application was likewise declined.
Mr Smith applied to split the trial into two phases, with the first addressing liability and the second addressing relief. The Court declined to adopt this approach at the present stage but left open the possibility of revisiting it later. He also sought protective costs orders (PCOs) for all parties, including “Pure Funders” such as charities with environmental purposes that would not financially benefit from or control the litigation. While the Court acknowledged the fundamental importance of access to justice in a case of this complexity—particularly given the scheduled 15-week hearing—it held that, without naming the funder and providing sufficient detail, it could not assess whether any such funder met the “pure” standard. The application was therefore declined without prejudice to a renewed application supported by specific information.
Finally, Mr Smith sought a PCO for himself personally. The Court found that the threshold of necessity and exceptional circumstances was not met, as Mr Smith had indicated he would continue with the litigation regardless of whether the order was granted. The Court emphasized, however, that the refusal of the PCO applications was without prejudice to further applications relating to identified third-party funders. Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited (New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand)
European Court of Justice: Ireland Referred to EU Court over Peat Bog Protection Failures
Beginning in January 2011, the European Commission sent Ireland a formal notice under the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), citing failures to protect Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated for raised bog and blanket bog habitats. The Commission stated that turf cutting on these bogs, combined with drainage activities, was degrading priority habitats that are critical for biodiversity and serve as significant carbon sinks. These habitats host important insect and bird species and, when healthy, contribute to climate change mitigation by sequestering carbon.
In June 2011, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion, escalating the infringement procedure and highlighting Ireland’s continued degradation of bog habitats. While Ireland began restoration work on raised bog SACs and curtailed turf cutting at many sites between 2011 and 2021, turf cutting persisted in other areas. In 2019, the National Parks & Wildlife Service assessed blanket bogs as being in “bad status.” No effective regulatory regime was put in place to protect blanket bog sites.
In September 2022, the Commission issued an additional reasoned opinion, noting insufficient progress. Despite some restoration measures, many sites remained degraded, and mechanical turf cutting continued to undermine restoration potential. In March 2024, citing these ongoing shortcomings, the Commission referred Ireland to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The referral emphasized that the protection and restoration of peat bogs are key to achieving the goals of the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, both of which require halting biodiversity loss and restoring ecosystems. The Commission also referenced a UN report estimating that Ireland’s degraded peatlands emit 21.5 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent annually. The Commission formally filed its application with the Court in March 2024. European Commission v. Ireland (European Court of Justice)
Taiwan: Youth Petition Challenges Absence of Binding 2030 Climate Target Before Constitutional Court
On June 5, 2024, a group of 30 petitioners—primarily youth climate activists, academics, and environmental advocates—filed a petition with the Taiwan Constitutional Court seeking a declaration that the central government’s failure to adopt a clear and legally binding 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target violates constitutional rights and obligations. The petition is supported by Greenpeace Taiwan and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
The challenge targets the Executive Yuan’s “2050 Net-Zero Emissions Target and Twelve Key Strategies,” arguing that the government’s climate roadmap lacks enforceability, scientific rigor, and intermediate milestones. The petitioners allege that this policy vacuum undermines Taiwan’s obligations under the Climate Change Response Act and infringes on constitutional rights including the rights to life, health, work, equality, dignity, and intergenerational equity, as protected under Articles 7, 10, 15, 18, and 23 of the Constitution, as well as constitutional provisions on social justice and environmental protection (Articles 147–153, 171–172).
The April 2024 supplementary brief strengthens the petitioners’ claims by integrating updated scientific evidence from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report and modeling from Climate Action Tracker and Climate Analytics, showing that Taiwan’s policies are inconsistent with a 1.5°C-aligned trajectory. It emphasizes the urgent need for a 43% reduction by 2030 relative to 2005 levels and situates Taiwan’s responsibility within its high per capita emissions and industrial profile. The brief draws on comparative case law from Germany (Neubauer), the Netherlands (Urgenda), Pakistan (Leghari), and others, arguing that constitutional courts elsewhere have recognized that climate inaction violates fundamental rights and that Taiwanese courts must follow suit.
The May 2024 brief further responds to anticipated governmental defenses by rejecting the idea that administrative discretion or legislative delay can excuse omissions that result in structural violations of rights. It offers a detailed interpretation of the Climate Change Response Act, asserting that the statute implicitly requires not only a 2050 goal but also enforceable near-term measures. The brief also introduces evidence from the 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report to demonstrate the inadequacy of deferring meaningful action until mid-century.
The petitioners ask the Court to declare the current lack of a binding 2030 target unconstitutional and to direct the government to establish scientifically and legally robust reduction pathways consistent with Taiwan’s fair share of global climate action. They argue that delay will irreversibly undermine the possibility of meeting the 2050 net-zero target, with especially severe consequences for younger and future generations.
The case invites the Taiwan Constitutional Court to join a growing transnational jurisprudence recognizing the duty of states to act decisively on climate change to protect human rights and uphold constitutional commitments to sustainability and justice. Youth Petitioners et al. v. Executive Yuan [Constitutional Climate Case] (Taiwan, Constitutional Court)
Taiwan: Youth File Administrative Lawsuit Challenging 2030 Climate Target as Inadequate
On June 26, 2024, a group of Taiwanese youth climate activists, represented by the legal team at Taipei’s Environmental Jurists Association, filed an administrative complaint before the Taipei High Administrative Court challenging Taiwan’s national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for 2030. The plaintiffs are the same youth claimants who had previously petitioned the Constitutional Court in a related case contesting the constitutionality and adequacy of Taiwan’s climate targets. Following the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the GHG targets must meet minimum constitutional and human rights thresholds, the plaintiffs have now turned to the administrative courts to directly challenge the specific regulatory action through which the government adopted its Phase 3 reduction goals.
The administrative complaint targets the 2023 decision by the Executive Yuan’s Ministry of Environment to adopt Taiwan’s “Phase 3 Emission Control Targets,” which set an absolute GHG reduction goal of 18.9% below 2005 levels by 2030. The plaintiffs allege that this decision violates the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act and the Constitution of the Republic of China, including Articles 7 (equality), 15 (right to life), and 22 (unenumerated freedoms). They further invoke principles of intergenerational equity and the government’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.
The plaintiffs argue that the Phase 3 target is neither scientifically adequate nor aligned with Taiwan’s stated goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. They allege that the Ministry’s decision failed to incorporate the best available scientific evidence, did not meaningfully engage with public consultation obligations under the GHG Act, and disregarded expert opinions recommending more ambitious targets. The complaint also asserts that the Ministry did not adequately explain how the selected target would ensure Taiwan’s fair share contribution to global mitigation efforts.
The case draws heavily on climate science, including IPCC pathways consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and argues that the existing 2030 target would allow emissions to continue at unsustainable levels incompatible with Taiwan’s long-term climate commitments. The plaintiffs request that the court revoke the administrative order enacting the Phase 3 targets and order the Ministry to reissue a scientifically and legally adequate emissions reduction target. Youth Climate Activists v. Ministry of Environment (Administrative Case) (Taiwan, Taipei High Administrative Court)
New Zealand: Case Challenges Forestry Offsets in Emissions Plan
On June 10, 2025, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. and the Environmental Law Initiative filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court of New Zealand against the Minister of Climate Change, challenging the lawfulness of New Zealand’s first and second emissions reduction plans (ERP1 and ERP2) under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA). The case marks the first legal challenge to emissions reduction plans under the CCRA and, according to the applicants, the first case globally to challenge a government’s heavy reliance on forestry offsets to meet national climate targets.
The applicants claim the Minister acted unlawfully both in failing to maintain the integrity of ERP1 and in adopting ERP2. With respect to ERP1 (2021–2025), they argue that after the 2023 change in government, key policies were cancelled or postponed without timely amendment of the plan or adequate consultation, violating the statutory requirement that the plan remain current and consistent. The applicants also argue that the December 2024 amendments to ERP1 were procedurally improper, lacking meaningful consultation and resulting in an incoherent plan split across multiple documents, contrary to the CCRA’s objectives of policy clarity and predictability.
The second limb of the challenge concerns ERP2, covering the 2026–2030 budget period and published in December 2024. The applicants contend that ERP2 fails to meet the legal requirements of section 5ZG of the CCRA because it does not set out a coherent and credible plan of policies and strategies likely to meet the emissions budget. They highlight that 95% of the projected emissions reductions are attributed not to ERP2-specific policies but to pre-existing trends assumed in baseline modelling. ERP2 also relies heavily on forestry offsets, based on the “offset equivalence assumption” that removals via exotic afforestation are fungible with reductions in gross emissions at source. The applicants argue this assumption constitutes a fundamental error of fact and is inconsistent with the best available climate science and New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.
They further allege that ERP2’s reliance on an “adaptive management approach” is an inadequate risk management strategy, lacking specific measures to be implemented if the plan veers off track. The applicants cite advice from the Climate Change Commission and government officials warning that reliance on offsets and the ETS alone is insufficient and risky, particularly given the climate vulnerability of forests and the time lag associated with implementing new policies.
The claimants seek a series of declarations, including that ERP1 and ERP2 are unlawful, that the Minister failed to comply with legal consultation and procedural requirements, and that ERP2 should be quashed and remade in accordance with the Act. They also seek clarification from the Court on the proper interpretation of the Minister’s legal duties when developing and amending emissions reduction plans.
As of August 2025, the High Court has not yet set a hearing date. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. and Environmental Law Initiative v. Minister of Climate Change (New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand)
EU: NGOs Challenge Taxonomy Rules for Aviation and Shipping
Dryade VZW, a Belgian environmental NGO, together with Stichting ter bevordering van de Fossielvrij-beweging (Fossielfrij NL) from the Netherlands and Protect Our Winters Austria – Verein für Klimabildung und nachhaltigen Wintertourismus, filed an action before the General Court of the European Union against the European Commission. The applicants challenged the Commission’s decision of 17 June 2024 rejecting their request for internal review under Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation. The request sought review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2485 of 27 June 2023, which amended Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 by establishing additional technical screening criteria (TSC) under the Taxonomy Regulation for determining whether certain economic activities, particularly in the aviation and shipping sectors, substantially contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation and do not significantly harm other environmental objectives.
The applicants seek annulment of the Commission’s decision and an order for costs, advancing five pleas in law. First, they argue that the Commission committed errors of law regarding its competence to adopt the TSC, including misinterpretations of “conclusive scientific evidence” under Article 19(1) of the Taxonomy Regulation, misapplication of the precautionary principle, unlawful balancing of mandatory criteria, presumptions about the compatibility of existing EU legislation, and acceptance of lower standards through later amendments. Second, they allege that the Commission erred in law by finding that the “replacement ratio” in the aviation TSC satisfied Article 19(1)(k), despite its complexity and lack of verifiability. Third, they claim manifest errors of assessment in determining substantial contribution to climate mitigation, classification of aircraft activities as transitional, treatment of global fleet growth, sustainable aviation fuel thresholds, and failure to consider modal shifts to rail and non-CO₂ effects. Fourth, they contend that the Commission lacked competence to adopt TSC for shipping and erred in refusing to review that part of the Delegated Act. Fifth, they allege manifest error in concluding that there was conclusive scientific evidence that the energy efficiency design index TSC makes a substantial contribution to climate mitigation, even under the Commission’s own evidentiary standard. Dryade VZW and Others v. European Commission (European Union, General Court)
Permanent Court of Arbitration: Azerbaijan initiates arbitration against Armenia for limiting access to climate opportunities
Beginning on February 27, 2023, Azerbaijan initiated inter-state arbitration against Armenia with a Notice of Arbitration under Articles 18 and 7 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The claim alleged that Armenia, in its nearly 30-year occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories, violated Azerbaijan’s sovereign rights over its energy resources through illegal exploitation and denial of access. The proceedings are administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague.
Azerbaijan specifically alleged that Armenia breached provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) by denying Azerbaijan access to its energy resources in the Garabagh region, exploiting energy resources for its own benefits, and preventing Azerbaijan from accessing the opportunity to further develop its energy infrastructure under its national energy policy and climate commitments. The Garabagh region was an especially critical area for hydroelectric power resources, as it contains 25% of Azerbaijan’s internal water resources.
The proceedings are still ongoing, as Azerbaijan seeks reparations and accountability for Armenia’s interference in the development of clean energy infrastructure. In February 2025, the tribunal issued a decision granting Armenia’s request for Bifurcation, in an attempt to address Armenia's jurisdictional and admissibility objections. Republic of Azerbaijan v. Republic of Armenia (Permanent Court of Arbitration)
Australia: Greenpeace files a complaint against an oil and gas company for climate-washing
On December 13, 2023, Greenpeace Australian Pacific Limited, represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), filed a complaint in the Federal Court of Australia against Woodside Energy Group Ltd. The plaintiff alleges that Woodside, which is Australia’s largest oil and gas company, mislead the public when stating that it “set targets to reduce its net equity Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 15% by 2025 and 30% by 2030 below its gross annual average equity emissions in the period 2016-2020”, that “its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in 2022 were 11% lower than the starting base”, and that “its Emissions Reduction Targets are science-based and consistent with Paris-aligned pathways and scenarios.”
Greenpeace contends that this reduction in emissions was solely due to carbon offset purchases (retiring 754,000 tCO2e credits), despite actual emissions rising by approximately 3.4%. Greenpeace further contends that Woodside's displaying of a “Net zero by 2050” aspiration on its website excludes Scope 3 emissions, which account for over 90% of Woodside’s emissions. Greenpeace alleges that the exclusion of Scope 3 emissions deems the “science-based” statements claiming to be aligned with Paris Agreement goals as a misleading, greenwashing claim.
Greenpeace asserts that Woodside’s statements are deceptive under s18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, s12DA(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, and s1041H(1) of the Corporations Act. As a result, Greenpeace seeks declarations that the claims are misleading, injunctions to prevent future misconduct, orders for corrective advertising, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
As of February 2024, the Court scheduled the first directions hearing, but no further hearings or substantive rulings have been reported. Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited v Woodside Energy Group Ltd (Australia, Federal Court)
Canada: Saskatchewan residents challenge provincial government’s decision to expand gas energy
On March 31, 2023, Climate Justice Saskatoon and seven Saskatchewan residents, aged between 15 and 80, filed an originating application in the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench against the Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower), the Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan, and the Government of Saskatchewan. The applicants, represented collectively as Dykstra et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation et al., challenged the provincial government’s decision to expand natural gas–fired electricity generation, alleging that it violates their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The claim focuses on the construction of a new natural gas plant near Moose Jaw and plans for another near Lanigan. The applicants contend that these projects, along with the provincial Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Regulations permitting SaskPower to increase its emissions, will exacerbate dangerous climate change. Saskatchewan has the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita in Canada. The applicants argue that the resulting impacts infringe Section 7 rights to life and security of the person, and Section 15 equality rights, particularly for youth, who face disproportionate climate impacts. They seek declarations that these actions are unconstitutional and an order requiring SaskPower to adopt a reasonable target to decarbonize and achieve net-zero emissions as soon as possible.
The application is supported by expert evidence from climate scientists and policy specialists, including Dr. James E. Hansen, who has also testified before the International Court of Justice in its climate change advisory proceedings. The applicants draw on both domestic and international developments, noting parallels with other constitutional climate cases in Canada (such as Mathur and La Rose) and abroad (such as Held v. Montana).
Procedurally, the case has faced preliminary challenges. The Saskatchewan Environmental Society sought leave to intervene but was denied in August 2024, with the possibility to reapply if the main claim survives preliminary motions. Both the Government of Saskatchewan and SaskPower filed applications in September 2023 to strike the pleadings. The applicants amended their originating application on May 31, 2024, to further articulate their Section 7 claims and alleged infringements of the principles of fundamental justice. A special hearing on the strike applications took place on October 4, 2024, and Justice Kuski Basset reserved her decision. As of December 2024, no ruling has been issued. Dykstra et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation et al. (Canada, Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench)
Brazil: Indigenous association claims lack of regulation on pesticides is a constitutional omission
In April 2025, the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO) before the Federal Supreme Court seeking the recognition that the lack of specific federal regulation on the aerial spraying of pesticides constitutes a normative omission incompatible with the 1988 Federal Constitution. APIB argues that the absence of clear and protective rules regarding this practice violates fundamental rights, particularly those related to health, adequate food, the preservation of a balanced environment, and the safeguarding of indigenous lands and ways of life. The petition explicitly emphasizes issues linked to the climate crisis and environmental preservation, highlighting that aerial spraying intensifies ecosystem degradation, threatens biodiversity, and directly compromises the territorial and cultural integrity of indigenous communities, which provide essential environmental services for climate regulation. Brazil ranks among the top users of pesticides globally, with aerial application being one of the primary sources of soil, water, and air pollution, exacerbating socio-environmental inequalities and risks. Given this scenario, as a precautionary measure, APIB requests the immediate suspension of aerial pesticide spraying across the entire national territory.
As final requests, APIB asks the Federal Supreme Court to:
Declare the unconstitutionality by omission of federal administrative regulations on pesticide spraying (as established by Decree-Law No. 917 of October 7, 1969; Decree No. 86,765 of December 22, 1981; Normative Instruction MAPA No. 2 of January 3, 2008; and Ordinance GM/MAPA No. 298 of September 22, 2021) due to insufficient protection of constitutional rights.
Order the Federal Executive Branch to issue administrative measures prohibiting the aerial spraying of pesticides nationwide, whether by manned or unmanned aircraft.
Alternatively, as a subsidiary request, APIB demands that the Federal Executive Branch be obligated, within a maximum period of sixty days, to issue regulations establishing exclusion zones or pesticide-free areas (both aerial and ground spraying) around indigenous lands, along with the imposition of daily fines for non-compliance. Aerial Spraying of Pesticides and Normative Omission (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)
Brazil: New case challenges carbon credits from REDD+
In June 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Government, the State of Pará, and Companhia de Ativos Ambientais e Participações do Pará S.A. (CAAP) in defense of the interests of traditional peoples and communities, due to the signing of an international Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA). The ERPA agreement was signed in 2024 between the State of Pará, represented by Companhia de Ativos Ambientais e Participações do Pará S.A. (CAAPP) and the LEAF Coalition, composed of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Republic of Korea, and large global corporations, for the sale of carbon credits or verified emission reductions through the jurisdictional REDD+ system in Pará, which is still under construction. It is alleged that the contract is illegal and null and void in its conception, as it contains provisions contrary to the provisions of the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System Law - SBCE (Federal Law 15.042/2024); it was signed without free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous and traditional communities; and it interferes with the process of building the jurisdictional REDD+ system in Pará, also to the detriment of these communities.
The MPF requested as an injuction (i) the immediate suspension of the effects of the Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement; (ii) the temporary suspension of the State of Pará's eligibility for access to payments under the REDD+ system until the REDD+ Jurisdictional System is approved and brought into line with the SBCE Law; and (iii) that the Federal Government refrain from authorizing the direct participation of the State of Pará before the international certifier ART-TREES, as long as the Jurisdictional System does not comply with the SBCE Law. As final requests, MPF requests (i) confirmation of the injunction; (ii) declaration of nullity of the ERPA contract; (iii) that the Union revoke CONAREDD+ Resolution 10/2022, removing the eligibility of the state of Pará to receive REDD+ payments until the system is adapted to the SBCE Law; (iv) that the Federal Government refrain from granting a letter of authorization for Pará's direct participation before an international certifier if its jurisdictional system does not comply with the SBCE Law; and (v) that Pará be ordered to pay collective moral damages of R$200,000,000.00.
The court denied the injunction because the arguments presented by the plaintiff were generic and abstract and did not justify granting the preliminary injunction; furthermore, the interests of traditional peoples and communities were protected by the provisions of the contract. Federal Public Prosecutor's Office vs. Federal Government, State of Pará, and CAAP (International carbon credit contract in Pará and illegalities) (Brazil, Pará Federal Court)