Climate Litigation Updates (December 9, 2025)

Margaret Barry and Maria Antonia Tigre

December 09, 2025

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation once or twice each month. We also add these developments to The Climate Litigation Database on an ongoing basis. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE LITIGATION DATABASE FOR UPDATE #206

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Connecticut Trial Court Denied Motion to Strike State’s Claims that Exxon’s Climate Change-Related Statements Violated Unfair Trade Practices Act

A Connecticut Superior Court denied Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to strike the State of Connecticut’s claims that Exxon violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by engaging in a decades-long “systematic campaign of deception” regarding the connection between its products and climate change and by more recently engaging in a “greenwashing” campaign regarding the environmental benefits of its activities. First, the court concluded that federal law did not preclude Connecticut’s claims. Although the court adopted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. that federal common law or the Clean Air Act would continue to govern regulation of interstate and international emissions, and therefore the production, sale, and use of fossil fuel products, the court found that Connecticut’s complaint did not seek that type of regulation but instead “seeks to regulate only the defendant’s marketing conduct related to those products.” Second, the court found that the complaint stated legally sufficient claims of unfair and deceptive actions or practices under CUTPA. The court noted that the law regarding the geographic reach of CUTPA was “unsettled” but concluded that it was not necessary to resolve the issue at this stage of the litigation because the complaint sufficiently alleged that some of the alleged tortious conduct (such as Exxon’s publication of “advertorials”) occurred in Connecticut. In addition, the court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Exxon’s statements “were intended to and did promote the sale of [its] products” and therefore were made “in the conduct of any trade or commerce” under CUTPA. The court also found that additional development of the factual record was required to determine certain issues relevant to whether Exxon’s statements fell within CUTPA’s scope. For example, the court found that “[a]dditional context” was needed to determine whether Exxon’s statements regarding climate change and fossil fuels’ role in producing climate change could be interpreted as statements of fact. Other issues that the court said it could not resolve on a motion to strike included (1) whether the complaint’s allegations were sufficient to give rise to a duty for Exxon to disclose information regarding aspects of its business that ran counter to statements it made about its efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and (2) whether the alleged greenwashing statements were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Third, the court found that it could not determine at this stage of the litigation whether Exxon’s statements constituted commercial speech or protected noncommercial speech under the First Amendment or whether some or all of Exxon’s alleged misconduct constituted protected petitioning activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Fourth, the court rejected Exxon’s contention that Connecticut’s request for an order requiring Exxon to fund a “corrective education campaign” to remedy alleged disinformation violated the First Amendment. The court also found that additional development of the factual record would be necessary to support Exxon’s argument that allowing Connecticut to pursue civil penalties and disgorgement of profits for more than five decades of allegedly unlawful conduct would violate due process. State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. HHDCV206132568S (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2025)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Ninth Circuit Granted Injunction Pending Appeal for California Climate Risk Disclosure Law but Not Emissions Disclosure Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a motion by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other appellants for an injunction pending appeal as to enforcement of California’s Senate Bill 261, which requires large companies doing business in California to make climate-related financial risk disclosures. The law required submission of a report by January 1, 2026. The Ninth Circuit denied the appellants’ motion as to enforcement of Senate Bill 253, which requires large companies to disclose certain information regarding their greenhouse gas emissions. After the Ninth Circuit granted the injunction, the appellants withdrew their application to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Sanchez, No. 25-5327 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2025)

Connecticut Federal Court Denied Former Owner’s Request to Dismiss Climate Adaptation Suit Regarding Bulk Petroleum Storage Terminal in New Haven

The federal district court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion by the former owner and operator of a bulk petroleum storage terminal in New Haven to dismiss a second amended complaint filed by Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) in a citizen suit alleging that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act by failing to account for the effects of climate change in its operation of the terminal. CLF filed the second amended complaint after the defendant sold the terminal to a nonparty. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the case was moot, finding that the defendant failed to submit any evidence “to sustain its heavy burden of establishing that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur” and therefore failed to demonstrate mootness with respect to CLF’s request for declaratory relief. The court further concluded that CLF’s request for civil penalties prevented the case from being moot. The court also concluded that CLF had constitutional standing. In addition, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments that CLF failed to state a claim for relief. Although the court questioned whether CLF acted in good faith in alleging “ongoing and continuous” violations at the time it filed its second amended complaint, the court found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged such a violation because it related back to the original complaint’s adequate allegations. The court declined to rule at this stage of the litigation on whether the “best management practices” provision of the terminal’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit could be construed to impose climate change-related requirements. The court concluded that a fuller factual record was required to determine the scope of the operative permit, despite the defendant’s argument that the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection’s inclusion, for the first time, of “resilience measures” in a 2024 draft and 2025 final version of a NPDES General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activities suggested that such measures were not required by the terminal’s operative permit. The court also rejected the defendant’s contention that any such requirements in the permit would render the operative permit impermissibly vague. In addition, the court found that CLF’s allegations that the defendant violated the NPDES permit’s best management practices provision were sufficient to proceed and concluded that the record was not sufficiently developed for it to address whether CLF’s citizen suit impermissibly sought to enforce state standards that exceeded federal standards. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Pike Fuels LP, No. 3:21-cv-00932 (D. Conn. Nov. 21, 2025)

Environmental Working Group and Tyson Foods Settled Climate Washing Claims

Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Tyson Foods, Inc. (Tyson) entered into a settlement agreement to resolve EWG’s lawsuit asserting that Tyson violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by making false and misleading statements regarding Tyson’s “Climate-Smart Beef Program” and its ambition to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Tyson denied EWG’s allegations but agreed not to make new claims or repeat old claims regarding any net-zero greenhouse gas emissions ambition “unless and until an expert mutually agreed upon by the Parties … verifies that each such claim(s) has been substantiated and is valid.” In addition, Tyson agreed not to make new claims or repeat old claims regarding any “Climate-Smart” beef program and not to market, sell, or promote beef products described as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States until the expert verifies that such claims can be substantiated and are valid. Tyson’s obligations run for five years. The parties agreed to negotiate in good faith to agree upon the expert; EWG is to pay the expert and Tyson is to reimburse EWG within 30 days of the expert’s report. The settlement agreement also referred to a confidential addendum and provided that the parties must “keep strictly confidential the amount of attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and consideration paid to EWG as set forth” in the addendum. Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2024- CAB-005935 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2025)

Second Circuit Denied Rehearing en Banc for Fees Award to New York City After Fossil Fuel Companies’ Unsuccessful Removal of Climate Case

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s decision affirming the awarding of attorneys’ fees and costs to New York City related to five of the companies’ six unsuccessful grounds for removing to federal court the City’s suit alleging the companies violated the City’s Consumer Protection Law by misleading consumers about the climate change risks of their products and their commitments to renewable and alternative energy sources. City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-1568 (2d Cir. Nov. 10, 2025)

Hawaii Federal Court Declined to Enter Judgment Allowing Insurer to Appeal Duty to Defend Ruling for Local Government Climate Cases

The federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied an insurer’s motion for entry of judgment on the court’s February 2025 ruling that the insurer had a duty to defendant plaintiff Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. (Aloha) in underlying climate change-related lawsuits brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. Aloha and the insurer conferred after that ruling but were unable to resolve “significant disputes regarding the nature and scope” of the duty to defend. In denying the request for entry of judgment, the court found that there were still matters to resolve regarding the duty to defend claims, including the insurer’s obligation for fees incurred by Aloha’s parent company and the reasonableness of hourly rates. The court also could not conclude that there was “no just reason for delay.” On November 24, Aloha filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the insurer’s specific obligations. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 1:22-cv-00372 (D. Haw. Nov. 5, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Unsealed Decision Denying Preliminary Injunction on Export-Import Bank Loan for Mozambique LNG Project

On November 4, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to unseal the opinion issued on October 10 that denied environmental organizations’ motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) from disbursing loan funds for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique. The environmental organizations appealed the denial on October 30. In the unsealed opinion, the court concluded that the organizations showed a substantial likelihood that they had standing for some claims based on an informational injury resulting from EXIM’s alleged failure to share certain information prior to approving a 2025 extension of the 2019 loan after work on the LNG project was halted in 2021 after insurgents attacked a nearby town. The court concluded, however, that the organizations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims, including a claim under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Regarding that claim, the court found that the organizations failed to establish that EXIM’s decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement was arbitrary or contrary to law. The court was not persuaded that EXIM exercised the degree of control necessary to make its loan for the project a “major Federal action” under the NEPA. The court also concluded that the allegations regarding the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in Mozambique that would result from the project was “insufficient, on its own, to establish that it will have effects ‘within the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Although the court found that the irreparable harm factor marginally favored the organizations and that the balance of the equities “is in relative equipoise,” the court concluded the organizations’ showing on these factors was not strong enough in the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits. Friends of the Earth U.S. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States, No. 1:25-cv-02235 (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 2025)

Idaho Supreme Court Upheld Determination that Gas Power Plant Owner Could Not Recoup Washington Climate Law Compliance Costs from Idaho Customers

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s denial of a request by the owner-operator of a natural gas power plant in Washington to recoup from Idaho customers the compliance costs associated with Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which requires greenhouse gas emitters to purchase allowances when their emissions in Washington exceed certain limits. The court found that the Commission had “regularly pursued its authority” and acted within its statutory powers when it determined that allowing the owner-operator to recover CCA compliance costs would be contrary to the Commission’s statutory mandate to determine “just, reasonable or sufficient rates.” The Commission concluded that because the CCA allocated no-cost allowances that only benefitted the power plant’s Washington customers, allowing the owner-operator to recover CCA compliance costs from Idaho customers would create discriminatory customer classes. The court found that this determination was “based on the Commission’s careful evaluation of the provisions and impact of Washington’s CCA” and that it was “precisely the type of judgment call entrusted to the Commission. The court did not address the Commission’s second basis for the denial, which was that Washington would be required to bear the costs under the terms of a 2020 protocol between the owner-operator and six states where the owner-operator provides services. PacifiCorp v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, No. 52508 (Idaho Nov. 19, 2025)

California Appellate Court Said Allegedly New Information About Sea Level Rise Did Not Require Supplemental EIR

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment denying a challenge to the City of Richmond’s 2020 approval of a mixed-use development project on a shoreline property formerly used as a chemical manufacturing and research facility. The arguments rejected by the appellate court included contentions that the trial court erred when it rejected the petitioners’ argument that the City should have prepared a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to address allegedly new information regarding an increased rate of sea level rise. The appellate court found that this argument failed for multiple reasons, including because sea level rise was not an impact caused by the project, because the City’s responses to potential environmental conditions decades in the future could not be considered part of the project, and because the range of sea level rise projections would warrant different responses that the City did not have to analyze as part of this project. The appellate court further concluded that “to the extent plaintiffs contend that the City was required to consider sea level rise as a factor that may exacerbate the project’s impacts or to consider how to manage or mitigate the effects of sea level rise, the administrative record amply demonstrates that the City did so in the EIR.” The appellate court also rejected the argument that supplemental review was required because the original EIR did not consider vulnerability to sea level rise affecting exposure to hazardous substances. Richmond Shoreline Alliance v. City of Richmond, No. A166004 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025)

Delaware Court Concluded that Carbon Credit Investment Dispute Was Subject to Arbitration

A Delaware Superior Court ruled that parties to litigation regarding a failed carbon credit investment venture were bound by an arbitration clause. The court therefore dismissed the complaint filed by an investor in a pooled fund to generate carbon credits against the operators of the pool. The court concluded that the defendants were not bound by the forum selection clause in a Securities Purchase Agreement to which their parent company was a party and that the arbitration clause in a separate Acquisition and Management Agreement (AMA) was controlling. The court further concluded that the parties intended for the arbitrator to determine issues of substantive arbitrability for disputes arising out of the AMA. Anew Ventures II, LLC v. Terra Global Investment Management, LLC, No. N25C-05-094 MAA CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2025)

New York Court Rejected Claims that New York City’s Environmental Review of Zoning Amendments Was Insufficient

A New York trial court dismissed a petition alleging that New York City violated State Environmental Quality Review Act/City Environmental Quality Review requirements when it approved “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” amendments to the Zoning Resolution. Among the arguments rejected by the court was a contention that the City improperly segmented its review of the Housing Opportunity amendments from its review of separate proposals for “City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality” and “City of Yes for Economic Opportunity” amendments. The Carbon Neutrality amendments were intended to facilitate decarbonization and enable compliance with State and City mandates to reduce emissions; the court described the amendments as including “changes to better accommodate rooftop solar equipment, mechanical equipment in open spaces/yards and the use of [energy storage systems (ESSs)] of limited sizes in residential districts.” The court concluded that the Carbon Neutrality amendments “stand on their own and are not contingent upon expansions of commercial uses or increases to residential densities”—which were functions of the Economic Opportunity and Housing Opportunity amendments—“to be effective.” The court further found that the environmental impact statement for the Housing Opportunity amendments addressed the impacts of Carbon Neutrality features to the extent they were incorporated in expanded residential uses. In addition, the court said the petitioners did not present “a cogent argument” in support of their position that segmentation of the review “hid or diluted” any impact associated with ESSs. The court said that any challenge to conclusions regarding impacts of ESSs in residential districts was “more properly classified” as a challenge to the earlier-passed Carbon Neutrality amendments and was therefore untimely. Old Town Civic Association v. City of New York, No. 85065/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 12, 2025)

NEW U.S. CASES AND FILINGS

Briefing Completed on Fossil Fuel Companies’ Certiorari Petition in Boulder Climate Case

On November 25, 2025, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation filed their reply brief in support of their request for U.S. Supreme Court review of 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 companies argued that the question presented—whether federal law precludes the plaintiffs’ state-law claims—“cries out for the Court’s resolution.” The companies contended that the court had constitutional and statutory jurisdiction, that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was incorrect and deepened a conflict on the question presented, and that “further percolation” of similar cases in state courts “would provide no benefit.” The case was distributed for the Court’s December 12 conference. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (U.S.)

Youth Plaintiffs Filed State Constitutional Challenge to Utah’s Issuance of Permits for Fossil Fuel Development

Ten youth plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Utah District Court asserting that the Utah Department of Natural Resources Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining; the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; and the Division’s director violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Utah Constitution by issuing permits for oil, gas, and coal development. The complaint alleged that many of the plaintiffs in this case previously sued State defendants asserting that the State’s energy policies and practices violated fundamental rights to life and health and that the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in that case—Natalie R. v. State—affirmed dismissal of the case “but reversed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, opening the door for Plaintiffs to challenge ‘the constitutionality of any specific state action, such as a granted permit or other regulatory decision.” The complaint alleged that since the Supreme Court’s decision, the State defendants had issued 364 permits for new oil and gas wells and 1 permit for coal development. They contended that issuance of the permits “will worsen Utah’s localized air pollution and add more climate pollution to the atmosphere that lasts for hundreds of years, substantially harming Plaintiffs’ health and safety and significantly diminishing their lifespans.” The complaint further alleged that the permits were not necessary because non-fossil fuel energy sources were available at lower cost and with greater reliability. The complaint asserted violations of the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights to life and liberty under Article I, Sections 1 and 7 of the Utah Constitution. It also asserted that issuance of the permits without consideration of pollution emissions, harms to health and safety, and the availability of other means of meeting energy needs violated the plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights under Article I, Section 7. The plaintiffs asked the court to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, including ordering review of all challenged permits and revocation of permits and other actions “as necessary to ensure that fossil fuel development permitted by Defendants is narrowly tailored to meet energy needs and avoid harm to Plaintiffs.” The plaintiffs also requested attorneys’ fees and costs. Roberts v. Department of Natural Resources, Board of Oil, Gas, & Mining, No. _ (Utah Dist. Ct., filed Dec. 1, 2025)

Environmental Groups Challenged EPA’s Compliance Deadline Extensions for Oil and Gas Sector Emissions Standards and Guidelines

Environmental Defense Fund and 10 other environmental organizations filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) extension of deadlines for standards of performance for new, reconstructed, and modified sources in the oil and natural gas sector and emissions guidelines for existing sources. The challenged rule extended certain compliance deadlines for a March 8, 2024 final rule that regulates greenhouse gas and volatile organic compound emissions. EPA previously published an interim final rule extending the deadlines. The challenged rule reaffirmed that the revisions to the deadlines were “necessary, appropriate, and consistent with the purposes of the 2024 final rule and the [Clean Air Act].” EPA described the deadline extensions as “timely, targeted changes to certain compliance and implementation dates that had created unintended compliance difficulties for regulated entities.” The final rule said that EPA found that there were “legitimate barriers to compliance and/or questions as to whether certain regulatory provisions were practically and logistically achievable as promulgated in the timeframes allowed by the 2024 final rule.” Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 25-1275 (D.C. Cir., filed Dec. 3, 2025)

Energy Service Company Customer Said Company Made Misleading Claims Regarding Clean Energy

A customer of the independent energy service company CleanChoice Energy, Inc. filed a proposed class action in the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the company misrepresents how its electricity rates are calculated and “takes advantage of environmentally conscious consumers by promising to provide ‘pollution free’ electricity sourced from local renewable sources when it does no such thing.” The complaint alleged that the company made false and deceptive statements about the source of energy it supplied, including by describing electricity sold by the company as “produced from wind and solar sources” that “do not produce carbon dioxide or contribute to air pollution.” The complaint alleged that the only difference between the energy provided by the company and the “brown” energy provided by customers’ existing utilities was that the company purported to purchase renewable energy credits to offset the “brown” energy’s emissions. The plaintiff asserted that the company violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and also asserted breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff sought compensatory, statutory, punitive, and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Ware v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-13623 (D. Mass., filed Dec. 1, 2025)

Lawsuit Alleged that California Refiners Made Gasoline Consumers Pay for Inflated Low Carbon Fuel Standard Compliance Costs

California citizens who purchased gasoline between January 1 and May 31, 2025 filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California alleging that the five largest oil refiners in the state violated antitrust and California consumer protection law by inflating reported compliance costs for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program and passing the inflated costs on to California gasoline consumers. The complaint described the LCFS program as “one of the most important regulatory tools in California’s fight for a clean environment” and alleged that its success in encouraging use of low-carbon transportation fuels was reliant on “accurate cost accounting” in order to provide undistorted market signals. The complaint stated that “misreporting LCFS costs harms California consumers, hinders California’s climate strategy, and interferes with California’s global leadership on carbon regulation.” The plaintiffs alleged that starting January 1, 2025 the five refiners embedded future projected compliance costs into gasoline prices months before new LCFS regulations took effect, which the plaintiffs said provided the refiners “with a statewide windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars over the five-month overcharge period.” The complaint asserted violations of the federal Sherman Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Cartwright Act (California’s principal antitrust statute). The relief sought included restitution and disgorgement, antitrust damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Herold v. Chevron Corp., No. 3:25-cv-10282 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 26, 2025)

Washington Homeowners’ Class Action Lawsuit Alleged that Climate Change Misinformation Campaign by Fossil Fuel Defendants Caused Significant Increase in Insurance Premiums

Two Washington residents filed a proposed class action in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants accountable for “a multi-billion dollar increase in the premiums ordinary homeowners are being forced to pay” as a result of an increasing number of climate change-related disaster events. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ “coordinated and deliberate scheme to hide the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossils” caused this increase in home insurance costs by sustaining demand for fossil fuels and forestalling efforts to shift to other sources of energy, which resulted in “atmospheric CO₂ levels sufficient to cause the very ‘catastrophic’ climate consequences the Defendants themselves foresaw.” The plaintiffs asserted Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons who have purchased or will purchase homeowner’s insurance for property in the United States after 2017; they asserted other claims on behalf of persons who have purchased or will purchase homeowner’s insurance for property in the State of Washington after 2017. The claims on behalf of the Washington subclass were causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and nuisance. The relief sought included compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of revenues or profits, and treble damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Kennedy v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2:25-cv-02378 (W.D. Wash., filed Nov. 25, 2025)

Community Solar Project Sponsors Challenged Maine Law that They Alleged Threatened Projects’ Viability

Sponsors of community solar projects in Maine filed a constitutional challenge to a law enacted in June 2025 (LD 1777) that they alleged threatened “the continued viability of Plaintiffs’ community solar projects” and would “upend Maine’s progress toward achieving its sustainability goals.” The complaint alleged that LD 1777 “effectively ends” the addition of new community solar projects to Maine’s “net energy billing” program, which the plaintiffs alleged was created by a 2019 law to induce renewable energy investment by allowing project sponsors to recover project costs through long-term contracts with residential, commercial, and industrial consumers. In addition, the complaint alleged that LD 1777 imposed a new charge for some existing projects and changed the rate structure for other current projects, “thereby pulling the rug out from under the solar projects that Maine now enjoys.” The plaintiffs asserted that LD 1777’s imposition of a new charge constituted an unconstitutional per se taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that LD 1777’s changes to the net energy billing program constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking and an impairment of lawful contracts in violation of the Contracts Clause. Gray Yarmouth Road Solar LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, No. 1:25-cv-00952 (D. Me., filed Nov. 24, 2025)

Conservation Groups Alleged Failure to Assess Climate Impacts in Challenge to Federal Funding for Releases of Hatchery Fish in Lower Columbia River Basin

Two conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Oregon challenging federal defendants’ funding of the release of hatchery fish into the Lower Columbia River Basin in a manner that they allege jeopardizes the continued existence of threatened and endangered species in violation of Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The organizations also challenged two biological opinions prepared under the ESA by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The complaint’s allegations include that the biological opinions failed to “failed to fully and adequately assess the predicted impacts to ESA-listed species from climate change and determine whether the hatchery programs will jeopardize those species under predicted climate change scenarios.” In addition, the plaintiffs allege that NMFS failed to comply with NEPA when it adopted a biological opinion in 2024 for its hatcheries funding under the Mitchell Act (a 1938 law concerning conservation of Columbia River fishery resources). The complaint alleged that there were substantial changes and substantial new circumstances, science, and information (including information on climate change and how it would impact species and their ecosystems) since NMFS issued an environmental impact statement in 2014 for funding of Mitchell Act hatchery programs. Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:25-cv-02163 (D. Or., filed Nov. 21, 2025)

Center for Biological Diversity Asked Federal Court to Compel Final Determination of Listing of California Spotted Owl

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California asking the court to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to make a final determination on the proposed listing of two distinct population segments (DPSs) of the California spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act. CBD alleged that FWS proposed to list the Sierra Nevada DPS as threatened and the Coastal-Southern California DPS as endangered in February 2023 in compliance with a settlement in an earlier case and failed to publish a final rule or withdraw the proposed rule by February 2024, in violation of the ESA. CBD alleged that it first submitted a petition to list the California spotted owl in April 2000, which FWS denied despite recognizing threats to the species from habitat modification and potential future threats from climate change and drought. CBD alleged that in the February 2023 proposed rule FWS cited threats from high-severity fire, tree mortality, drought, barred owls, and habitat fragmentation as a basis for listing. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 5:25-cv-09943 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 19, 2025)

Lawsuit Said BOEM Failed to Comply with NEPA for Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Lease Sale

Environmental organizations filed a lawsuit asking the federal district court for the District of Columbia to vacate the final notice of sale for the first of 30 oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico required by the July 4, 2025 Reconciliation Act (also referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act). The organizations asserted that the federal defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); the organizations contended that nothing in the Reconciliation Act exempted the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) from NEPA obligations. The complaint alleged that the BOEM failed to take a hard look at the environmental effects of the lease sale and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. To the extent BOEM relied on a programmatic EIS released in August 2025, the organizations contended the analysis was inadequate. In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that defendants’ actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law due to the “extensive involvement” of BOEM’s acting director whose participation was prohibited by ethics rule and direction from the Department of the Interior Ethics Office. Healthy Gulf v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-04016 (D.D.C., filed Nov. 18, 2025)

Lawsuit Challenging Grazing Authorizations in Grasshopper Watershed Alleged Failure to Consider Climate Change Impacts

Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) authorizations of grazing in the Grasshopper Watershed in Montana. The plaintiffs asserted that BLM and other federal defendants violated NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, including by failing to take a hard look at the project’s climate impacts. In particular, the complaint alleged that BLM did not analyze how climate change has affected baseline conditions and “resource issues” such as sage grouse and sage grouse habitat. In addition, the complaint alleged that BLM disregarded the project’s negative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions while focusing on the project’s benefits to greenhouse gas sequestration and also excluded climate change from its discussion of cumulative effects analysis. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James, No. 2:25-cv-00104 (D. Mont., filed Nov. 17, 2025)

Lawsuit in Alaska Federal Court Challenged Land Exchange Agreement for Road Through Wildlife Refuge

Three Native Villages and Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWs) challenging an October 2025 land exchange agreement that would facilitate construction of a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The complaint asserted that the defendants violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants did not complete an EIS or otherwise comply with NEPA’s mandates, noting that the decision document stated that a NEPA analysis was not required or necessary but that the Secretary had nevertheless reviewed information from a 2024 draft supplemental EIS. Regarding the Endangered Species Act, they alleged that the biological opinion for the land exchange failed to employ the proper jeopardy analysis for Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders and the southwest Alaska distinct population segment of northern sea otter, including because the analysis failed to add the road’s direct and indirect effects “to all other activities and influences that affect the species, including effects from climate change and development outside of Izembek.” The complaint’s allegations included statements regarding climate change-related stressors to these species. Native Village of Hooper Bay v. Burgum, No. 3:25-cv-00316 (D. Alaska, filed Nov. 12, 2025)

Environmental Groups Sought Leave to File Updated Challenge to Oil and Gas Drilling in Powder River Basin

Two environmental groups filed a motion in the federal district court for the District of Columbia for leave to file a second amended and supplemental complaint challenging recent U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decisions reaffirming a 2020 final EIS for the Converse County Oil and Gas Project in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin and authorizing new Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) oil and gas wells. The plaintiffs alleged that the new APD decisions were “closely related factually, legally, and procedurally” to challenges already before the court, including because the NEPA analysis for the new decisions relied on supplemental groundwater analysis conducted by BLM in response to the court’s 2024 decision finding that earlier analysis was deficient. The plaintiffs asserted that BLM violated NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs’ NEPA allegations included that the final EIS did not adequately analyze the project’s cumulative impacts with other oil and gas development or greenhouse gas emissions of other reasonably foreseeable future projects and also that the analysis failed to consider reasonable alternatives that would reduce key impacts such as greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants erroneously claimed that BLM did not have legal authority to require mitigation of air pollution emissions. Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:22-cv-02696 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 2025)

After Budget Law Terminated Pennsylvania’s RGGI Participation, State Sought to Discontinue Appeal of Ruling that RGGI Regulations Constituted Impermissible Tax

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) filed an application in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to discontinue its appeal of a Commonwealth Court ruling that concluded that regulations implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in Pennsylvania constituted an unconstitutional tax. PADEP sought to discontinue the appeal after Governor Josh Shapiro signed a 2025-2026 budget law that included a provision abrogating the regulations. Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, No. 106 MAP 2023 (Pa. Nov. 13, 2025); Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 107 MAP 2023 (Pa. Nov. 13, 2025).

North Dakota Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on December 18 Regarding Whether Greenpeace International May Pursue Dutch Anti-SLAPP Action Against Dakota Access Pipeline Developer

The North Dakota Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for December 18, 2025 on the Dakota Access Pipeline developers’ petition requesting that the court issue a supervisory writ and instruct the district court to block Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with its lawsuit in the Netherlands seeking to hold the pipeline’s developer liable under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive and Dutch civil law. A North Dakota trial court denied the developers’ request for an injunction prohibiting GPI from proceeding with the action in September 2025. A jury found in March 2025 that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers for actions related to DAPL protests; in October, the court reduced the damages awarded to approximately $345 million. Energy Transfer LP v. Gion, No. 20250341 (N.D.)

New York State Appealed Court’s Order Setting Deadline for Regulations to Implement Climate Law

On November 25, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) filed a notice of its appeal of a trial court’s order and judgment finding that DEC had failed to comply with the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s mandate to issue regulations to ensure compliance with the law’s emissions reductions mandates. Service of the notice of appeal stays enforcement of the trial court’s decision. DEC also filed a motion to renew and reargue, arguing that the February 6, 2026 deadline set by the court for promulgation of regulations would be impossible to meet. DEC argued that even if the court adhered to its determination that DEC’s obligation to promulgate the regulations was ministerial, “it should nonetheless not have set a deadline that inherently truncates vital analysis and forecloses the [DEC’s] ability to consider new information and changed circumstances.” Citizen Action of New York v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 903160-25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 25, 2025)

Louisiana State Court Lawsuit Challenged Constitutionality of Laws Authorizing Eminent Domain for Transport and Injection of Carbon Dioxide

Louisiana residents and landowners and the organization Save My Louisiana, Inc. filed a lawsuit in Louisiana District Court charging that Louisiana laws providing for “eminent domain and expropriation of private property” for carbon dioxide pipelines and wells for carbon dioxide injection violated the Louisiana and U.S. Constitutions. The six laws challenged in the suit were enacted between 2008 and 2024. The plaintiffs asserted that the laws constituted unconstitutional takings, unconstitutional delegations of authority, and due process violations, and also improperly granted special privileges and immunities to carbon storage operators. Save My Louisiana, Inc. v. State, No. C-770744 27 (La. Dist. Ct., filed Nov. 20, 2025)

Florida Attorney General Filed Suit Against Proxy Advisers for Allegedly Pushing “Dogmatic Agenda”

The Florida Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Florida Circuit Court against the proxy advisers Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co. LLC (Glass Lewis) to enjoin alleged violations of the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Attorney General’s complaint alleged that the ISS and Glass Lewis “dominate” the industry of advising institutional investors on how individual shareholders should vote and that they use that influence “to push their own dogmatic agenda,” which the complaint alleges includes “an insistence that concerns about global climate change should influence every company’s decision-making.” The complaint asserted that the defendants deceived and misled Florida consumers, that their activities constituted “unfair practices,” and that they engaged in conduct constituting a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade within Florida. The Attorney General requested declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and actual and treble damages. Office of the Attorney General v. Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., No. 236237226 (Fla. Cir. Ct., filed Nov. 20, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION ADDITIONS TO THE DATABASE

FEATURED GLOBAL CASE

Brazil: Federal Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) brings environmental public civil actions against various corporations and individuals for illegal deforestation

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) of Brazil filed 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) as part of the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber. The project, among other objectives, aims to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon. Defendants of the lawsuit include individuals and legal entities responsible, based on satellite monitoring, for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. The MPF seeks to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas.

The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. The MPF’s petition explicitly refers to the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from illegal deforestation.

Among the final requests, the MPF seeks: i) an order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation; ii) an order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂; iii) an order requiring payment for collective moral damages; iv) restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of use to allow natural regeneration and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); and v) allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.

110 cases listed below are published in the database so far, and the remaining ones will be included by the end of the month:

Cases filed in the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judicial Section of the State of Amazonas:

Cases filed in the 5th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of Rondônia:

Cases filed in the Amazonas Federal Court (First Instance)

Cases filed in the Pará Federal Court

Cases filed in the Mato Grosso Federal Court

NEW CASES

Australia: Misleading-advertising suit filed against a gas distributor, alleging that its “love gas” campaign falsely claimed household gas would become renewable within a generation in violation of the Australian Consumer Law

On June 26, 2025, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a case against gas distributor Australian Gas Networks Limited (AGN). ACCC alleged that AGN’s “love gas” advertisement misled consumers, violating §§ 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The advertisement, which ran on open-air TV, YouTube, and other streaming services between March 20, 2022, and October 2, 2022, and again between August 1, 2023, and October 15, 2023, stated that their gas will become renewable, controllable, and reliable within a generation. The ACCC contended these statements were misleading because they overstated the likelihood of overcoming the significant technical and economic barriers in distributing renewable gas to households within a generation. Climate groups, in private interviews, illustrated that they hope to ban the use of the term “renewable gas” when referring to a mix of hydrogen gas and fossil fuels through litigation like this. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Gas Networks Limited (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

Mexico: Amparo lawsuit brought against Mexican authorities alleging that a power plant’s pollution violated their rights to a healthy environment, health, and access to environmental information, and that the plant’s operation failed to meet Mexico’s climate commitments

In August 2024, a group of fisherwomen, together with the organization Tsikini A.C. residents from the state of Colima, filed an amparo lawsuit asking for legal protection against various authorities, including the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), from the damage caused by the Manzanillo Thermoelectric Power Plant (the second largest thermoelectric plant in Mexico, which uses fuel oil and gas), citing the violation of the human right to a healthy environment and health, and the failure to comply with climate commitments.

The lawsuit alleged, among others, lack of access to information on pollutants or data on emissions from the thermoelectric plant and/or their effects; failure to measure hidden externalities, such as human, environmental, and climate health, which are currently causing serious damage; lack of mitigation measures and compliance with environmental and climate laws; destruction of the Cuyutlán lagoon, the fourth most important wetland on the Mexican Pacific coast, and failure to comply with climate commitments resulting from the operation of the thermoelectric plant.

The lawsuit emphasizes the underlying climate implications of the thermoelectric plant’s operation, as its operation represents a failure to comply with the Mexican government’s climate policy (targets committed to under the Paris Agreement) and questions the energy transition model followed in the country to date.

On March 2025, the District Court granted an injunction, ordering that the authorities, within the scope of their duties and authority, take the necessary actions to safeguard the complainants’ right to a healthy environment and: i) immediately monitor the natural water reservoir known as Laguna de Cuyutlán and verify whether actions are being taken to protect the ecosystem that comprises it; (ii) examine whether the Thermoelectric Plant located in that locality is complying with environmental regulations and with the process of electricity generation and fuel gas storage, in order to prevent contamination of the water and air in the area covered by the plant; (iii) if they notice that activities are being carried out that are harmful to the environment, they shall issue measures to prevent pollution and achieve the remediation of the lagoon; that is, they must take the necessary measures to control and limit pollutants in the process of storing fuel gas, as well as in the process of generating electricity at the thermoelectric power plant; (iv) grant access to information on pollutants and their impact in a manner accessible to the population of Cuyutlán, which must be done twice a year, so that the appropriate preventive measures can be taken to safeguard their physical integrity. This information must be published in the media or on the website used for this purpose; and (v) provide medical care to the local population who suffer any health problems as a result of the environmental pollution generated by the thermoelectric plant.

The case is pending before the District Court. Fishing Communities v. the Mexican Government (Mexico, District Court)

European Court of Human Rights: Complaint filed alleging the UK’s climate-change adaptation policies breach their right to life, to respect for private and family life, and to protection of property

In July 2025, after having exhausted the available domestic remedies, Friends of the Earth Limited (“FOE”), and two individual applicants, Mr Kevin Jordan and Mr Doug Paulley, filed a complaint against the UK’s adaptation policies with the ECtHR. This case is fundamentally about whether the UK government’s adaptation policies are in breach of its human rights obligations.

Mr Jordan lost his home to coastal erosion. Mr Paulley lives in a care home, whose common areas are subject to high temperatures, and has multiple conditions and disabilities which make him particularly vulnerable to heat.

Building on the ECtHR’s Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland ruling, the three applicants allege that by failing to address the effects of climate change, including heatwaves and coastal erosion and/or even to adopt a proper process for doing so, the UK breached their right to life (article 2 ECHR), their right to respect for private and family life (article 8 ECHR) and their right to protection of property in conjunction with the prohibition of discrimination (article 1 of Protocol 1 read with article 14 ECHR). Friends of the Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom (International Courts & Tribunals, European Court of Human Rights)

European Court of Human Rights: Case filed alleging Russia’s inadequate greenhouse-gas mitigation policies violate their rights under Articles 2, 3, 8, and 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

In 2023, Russian environmental group Ecodefense and 18 individuals filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that Russia’s climate change policies are in breach of their human rights. This came after the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation denied the domestic application. In the domestic challenge, the applicants argued that Russia’s current actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change are clearly insufficient and in breach of the positive obligations set out in Art. 2 (right to life), Art. 3 (prohibition of torture), Art. 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Art. 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR (protection of property), as the domestic climate policies do not set sufficient targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to comply with international law obligations. Ecodefense & Others v. Russia (International Courts & Tribunals, European Court of Human Rights)

Brazil: Public Civil Action filed alleging a highway’s construction project violate fundamental rights to housing, work, and food

In July, 2025, the Public Defender’s Office of the State of Pará filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the state of Pará, the Pará State Institute for Forestry and Biodiversity Development (IDEFLOR-BIO), and the company Terra Meio Ambiente. The aim is to protect the right to land tenure and agricultural activities of the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes traditional community and other traditional riverside communities that make up the Belém Metropolitan Region Environmental Protection Area (APA Belém). It is alleged that these communities are being illegally impacted by the state’s public works for the construction of Avenida Liberdade, known as Estrada da COP. It is alleged that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA) prepared by the company Terra Meio Ambiente indicated that the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community would be impacted by the road construction, but failed to include preventive and mitigating measures to ensure land tenure and the community’s agroextractive activities. It is alleged that the project’s environmental permits were issued without due free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected communities, and that the ongoing construction work is affecting families’ livelihoods. The Public Defender’s Office points out that the communities suffered property damage, as their fundamental rights to housing, work, and food were violated. It also points out that the construction work caused environmental and climate damage, demonstrating the State of Pará’s lack of concern for the ecologically balanced environment and social well-being of the area, despite promoting sustainability in light of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 30) taking place there. The Public Defender’s Office found that the road construction resulted in the removal of six hectares of vegetation in the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community, generating the emission of 2,235.03 tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, resulting in R$63,251,349 in climate damages. Despite this, the licensing process lacks an emissions impact study or mitigation measures, as established in the National Policy on Climate Change, the State Policy on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Paris Agreement. The request for provisional relief is (i) recognition of the residents’ collective ownership; (ii) the obligation not to carry out the works until there has been prior, free, and informed consultation with the community, in accordance with ILO Convention 169; and (iii) the submission of a plan for the land regularization of the area held by the communities by the State of Pará and IDEFLOR-BIO within 30 days. The following are requested, in a definitive manner: (i) confirmation of the requests made in provisional relief; (ii) the order that the State of Pará pay the losses and damages and lost profits generated by the families of the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community; and (iii) the order that the State of Pará mitigate and repair climate damage through vegetation restoration and extractive projects in the affected community. Defensoria Pública do Estado do Pará vs. Estado do Pará, Instituto de Desenvolvimento Florestal e da Biodiversidade do Estado do Pará (IDEFLOR-BIO) e Terra Meio Ambiente (COP Road) (Brazil, Pará State Court)

Brazil: Public Civil Action filed alleging unlawful licensing of the Emiliano Paraty Hotel Spa for lack of an Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIA-RIMA), proper consultation of affected traditional communities, and structural measures to correct systemic licensing failures

In July, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA, the Municipality of Paraty, the National Institute of Historical and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN), and the State of Rio de Janeiro, alleging irregularities in the licensing process for the Emiliano Paraty Hotel Spa. The hotel, to be built on Itatinga Farm, would be located within the Cairuçu Environmental Protection Area (APA) in Paraty, Rio de Janeiro, and owned by J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA. The aim is to compel the licensing agencies to require an Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIA-RIMA), including the climate variable in the project’s licensing process, to annul the Installation License (LI) issued by the municipal entity, and to order the defendants to conduct a free, prior, and informed consultation (CPLI) pursuant to ILO Convention 169, as well as to pay collective moral damages. The petition emphasizes that Caiçara, Indigenous, and Quilombola communities are directly and indirectly influenced by the project, which is also located within a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a federal conservation unit, and is located near archaeological sites and ruins recognized by IPHAN. Due to the scope of the impacts, the non-compliance with the APA zoning, and the failure to comply with the conditions imposed by ICMBIO, the MPF argues for the need to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA-RIMA) and for the transfer of jurisdiction to the state entity. The petition argues that climate impact assessments should be incorporated into environmental licensing processes, based on the finding that, to date, there are no specific requirements from environmental agencies within the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Municipality of Paraty to enforce the duties already imposed by current legislation to guide the monitoring and assessment of the climate impacts of activities and projects in environmental licensing processes. It is stated that the climate variable in licensing must ensure (a) assessment the impacts caused by the implementation, operation, and decommissioning of activities and projects on the climate—whether due to GHG emissions or the impact on local ecosystem services important for climate regulation—as well as the potential impacts of climate change on projects—from the perspective of adaptation; (b) the analysis of locational and technological alternatives; and (c) the adoption of mitigation and compensation measures at all phases of the project. Among the measures addressed, the plaintiff points out that solid waste and sewage treatment, water reuse, and solar energy generation should be considered, including as possible conditions for providing these same mechanisms to surrounding communities. For all these reasons, the MPF identifies a patently unlawful state of affairs, which is why it requests that the action be treated as a structural proceeding, since it seeks to restructure the defendants’ activities. As a preliminary injunction, the following is requested: (i) the immediate suspension of the effects of Installation License No. 001/25, issued by the Municipality of Paraty, and that the company refrain from initiating works or interventions with the objective of constructing the project; (ii) that all defendants refrain from granting licenses, authorizations, or other acts that allow the execution of the project until the technical documents from ICMBio are analyzed, a reevaluation is carried out by IPHAN, and the CPLI is conducted; (iii) that the court establish a Judicial Monitoring Committee to adopt the necessary structural measures and prepare a definitive restructuring plan; (iv) that the EIA-RIMA be submitted and that the relevant agencies express their opinion on the licensing process and meet the conditions presented. In the final instance, among others, the following are requested: (i) confirmation of the requests submitted in urgent relief and that (ii) it be determined that the environmental licensing be carried out by the State of Rio de Janeiro or, subsidiarily, the Municipality of Paraty; (iii) that the licensing entity be obliged to carry out the CPLI observing the consultation protocols of the affected communities, paid for by the entrepreneur and (iv) to include the climate variable in the environmental licensing process, finally, (v) the defendants be ordered to pay collective moral damages. A preliminary decision was issued that partially granted the urgent requests to determine the suspension of the effects of the Installation License issued by the municipality of Paraty and the refrain from granting licenses, authorizations or other acts that allow the execution of the “Hotel Spa Emiliano” project until the due prior, free and informed consultation is carried out in accordance with ILO Convention No. 169 or until a new judicial determination, and, specifically, J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA, which refrains from starting works or interventions at Fazenda Itatinga with the objective of building the “Hotel Spa Emiliano” project. Ministério Público Federal vs. J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA, Município de Paraty, Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional, Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Licensing of the Emiliano SPA Hotel) (Brazil, Rio de Janeiro Federal Court)

Brazil: Public Civil Action filed against landowners alleging large-scale illegal deforestation and seeking urgent measures to halt further exploitation, freeze assets, and ultimately require full restoration of the area along with damages for environmental, climate, and collective moral harms

In October, 2024, the Federal Government and the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, against João Pereira Lisboa, Almiro Liberato de Moura Junior, Heleno Ferreira de Araujo, and Vanderlei Fiau Pimentel, who, according to data from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), own an area in the municipality of Lábrea, Amazonas, that was illegally deforested. The action stems from the work of the AGU-Recupera Environmental Strategic Group, an initiative of the Attorney General’s Office, which seeks to act in the legal viability of climate and environmental policies. The case is based on administrative process 02005.002218/2007-69, which investigates the deforestation of 2,623.713 hectares of native Amazon rainforest without authorization or prior license from the competent environmental agency. It is noteworthy that the municipality of Lábrea is the first in order of priority in the Amazon for combating deforestation and the propter rem nature of environmental damage reparation. According to remote sensing images, carried out by the National Center for Environmental Monitoring and Information (CENIMA), the plaintiffs allege that the area continues to be exploited, even though it has been embargoed by IBAMA, without any regeneration measures having been adopted. It is alleged that the defendants caused in-kind environmental damage, interim and residual environmental damage, and collective moral damage, in addition to having incurred unjust enrichment as a result of the damage. As a preliminary measure, it is requested (i) a prohibition on exploiting the deforested area in any way during the course of the proceedings; (ii) the suspension of tax incentives or benefits; (iii) the suspension of access to credit lines granted with public funds; (iv) the freezing of the defendants’ movable and immovable assets; and (v) the registration of the existence of the Public Civil Action in the margin of the property registration. Ultimately, the plaintiffs request that the defendants be ordered to: (i) perform an obligation to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area; (ii) pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 16,344,934.50 (sixteen million, three hundred and forty-four thousand, nine hundred and thirty-four reais and fifty cents); (iii) pay for the temporary and residual damages caused to the ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for the illicitly obtained economic benefit, the value of which will be determined in the settlement of the judgment; and (iv) register the legal reserve of the property. The amounts corresponding to the indemnities must be reverted to the Fund for the Restoration of Damaged Assets.

In the preliminary decision, the court partially granted the requests for urgent relief, ordering: (i) the prohibition of the defendants from exploiting, in any way, the area that is the subject of the action; (ii) the suspension of tax incentives and/or benefits and access to credit lines granted by the Public Authorities; and (iii) the unavailability of movable and immovable property of the defendants, in the amount of R$ 49,034,803.51 (forty-nine million, thirty-four thousand, eight hundred and three reais and fifty-one cents). It acknowledged that this is large-scale deforestation, which entails “severe forest damage, such as loss of flora biodiversity, loss of carbon stocks, illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions, disruption of the Amazon rainforest’s hydrological cycles, loss of habitat for various fauna species, among other damages to ecosystem elements and services, in addition to harming public natural assets for carbon credit trading” and damaging the climate and the people of the region. It emphasized that the triple environmental crisis (climate, biodiversity loss, and pollution) makes it essential to preserve the integrity of the Amazon, recalling the commitments made by Brazil under the Paris Agreement. IBAMA e União Federal vs. João Pereira Lisboa e outros (Illegal deforestation in Lábrea) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)

DECIDED CASES

Australia: Tribunal refuses housing development proposals on the grounds that the sites’ suitability for residential use does not outweigh flood risks which will worsen by climate change

Two separate applicants each brought a case against the Frankston City Council, opposing the Council’s decision not to grant construction projects. Both construction projects were intended to build several dwellings, each in different central accessways of Seaford. The cases were heard and determined together, although the proceedings remained separate. On September 19, 2024, Tribunal Member Christopher Harty decided to uphold the City Council’s decisions, refusing to grant the proposals.

The proposals were originally referred to Melbourne Water by the City Council because the proposed building sites are affected by the Special Building Overlay (SBO)—meaning that the sites are prone to overland flooding. Melbourne Water objected to both projects, citing unacceptable flood risks that would affect access and egress from the sites. More specifically, Melbourne Water explained that its decisions were based on the following findings: (i) Because the developments do not assist in the protection of life and property from overland flows, they do not uphold the objectives of Floodplains of the Frankston Planning Scheme (the “Scheme”) Clause 13.03-1S; (ii) The development is contrary to the decision guidelines Clause 65.01; (iii) The development does not suit Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 due to the effects the environment may have on the development; and (iv) The development does not adequately address the objectives of Part 8 of the Guidelines for Development in Flood Affected Areas. On the other hand, the applicants argued that the proposals are consistent with the policy directions for housing in the Frankston Planning Scheme, based on the sites’ proximity to the Frankston Metropolitan Activity Centre, where medium-density residential development has occurred, and because they deemed the risk to the development and future occupants as reasonable and acceptable.

The Tribunal considered three separate issues before concluding that it would reject the applications. First of all, dwellings were found to be suitable for the site. Strategic policy and the established residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood supported the use of the sites for housing. Second, similarly, the plans were found to respect the neighborhood character. Third, however, the Member concluded that the risk associated with the flood is too great for the permit to be granted. He concluded that although the court must consider the inefficiency of leaving empty a site with a high housing demand, it is unreasonable to require occupants to be isolated in their houses for 10~12 hours during a flood. Moreover, the court acknowledged that it has an obligation, under the Planning Scheme, to consider the effect of climate change on floods, which only heightens the risks associated with them. In its conclusion, the Tribunal, while rejecting the applications, urged Melbourne Water, the City Council, and the State Government to urgently address the issue of inadequate stormwater drainage. 6C RAZ Pty Ltd v Frankston City Council (Australia, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal)

Australia: Court grants injunction and monetary damages for nighttime turbine noise found as a substantial nuisance

Two individuals, Noel Uren and John Zakula, brought a nuisance claim against Bald Hills Wind Farm PTY LTD (“Wind Farm”) seeking remedies, primarily an injunction. On March 25, 2022, Justice Richards of the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the claim, granting sums of $92,000 and $168,000 for each plaintiff and restraining the Wind Farm from continuing the nuisance.

The nuisance claim was based on the noise created by the wind turbines. Since the Wind Farm first started operation in 2015, the Wind Farm has consistently received noise complaints from neighbors, including Mr. Uren and Mr. Zakula. However, the Wind Farm took no remedial action for the defendants, based on their investigation, which showed a noise level below the permit. While many individuals have also requested the local council to solve the nuisance in 2016, this only resulted in private settlements after the Council acknowledged the existence of only intermittent nuisance. This case was brought in 2017 by ten individuals, after the ownership and management of the Wind Farm changed. Eight of the individuals resolved their claims before the trial.

The Court, after reviewing the facts, concluded that the noise from the wind turbines caused a substantial interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land during the nighttime, based on the inability to sleep in their own houses. The court also found that, although not dispositive, the Wind Farm failed to establish that the noise levels at the plaintiffs’ homes were below what the permit granted. In reaching this conclusion, the court explained that while wind farms can be beneficial to the environment, that “there is not a binary choice to be made between the generation of clean energy by the wind farm, and a good night’s sleep for its neighbours. It should be possible to achieve both.” As some possible precautions to reduce the noise levels, the court pointed out that the defendant could have implemented selective noise optimisation of nearby turbines or remedied the identified gearbox tonality issue.

Based on the finding of nuisance, the court granted the primary remedy sought, an injunction. The terms specified that the injunction will be stayed for three months. Additionally, while damages based on alleged decline in value of the property were not granted, damages based on past loss of distress, inconvenience, and annoyance, and aggravated damages were granted. Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd (Australia, Supreme Court of Victoria)

Australia: Commission authorises the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute Limited to engage in discussions and arrangements to advance sustainable finance and regulatory reforms until August 2030

On 26 November 2024, the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute Limited (ASFI) lodged an application with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) seeking authorisation to engage in discussions and to enter into, make, or give effect to limited contracts, arrangements, or understandings for the next five years. The ASFI consists of representatives of the Australian financial sector, civil society, academia, and financial regulators. Seeking the application for itself, its members, other participants, and government bodies, the ASFI explained that it aims to achieve the followings through the application: (i) Improve the integration of natural capital data into financial decision-making; (ii) Co-design and test market appetite for sustainable finance solutions that contribute to the energy transition or other environmental and/or social objectives; and (iii) Identify and propose reforms to regulatory impediments to sustainable finance and investment. ASFI also requested an interim authorisation at the time of lodging its application.

On 7 March 2025, the ACCC first granted the interim authorisation with conditions. The interim authorisation limited ASFI and its member banks to only discuss and exchange information for the purpose of developing proposals for reform to submit to the government, to address constraints on sustainable finance and investment, only in relation to regulatory capital requirements in Australia.

On 10 July 2025, the ACCC issued its final determination, granting authorisation until 1 August 2030. This authorisation was also conditioned on (i) the ASFI maintaining a list on its website a list of non-ASFI members participating in the conduct; (ii) the authorised conduct being generally non-exclusive; and (iii) the agreements made under the authorised conduct being made solely at authorised working group meetings, which must be recorded and not endure beyond the proposed co-design process or authorisation. ACCC also attached a detailed competition protocol that all parties participating in the authorised conduct must follow. ACCC Authorisation of Australian Sustainable Finance Institute Limited Collaboration Conduct (Australia, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)

Australia: Court rules conservation groups have standing to bring civil enforcement proceedings, ruling that private persons or entities with a special interest can enforce obligations (here, seeking protection for threatened glider species) under an integrated forestry operations approval

This case was brought by the South East Forest Rescue (SEFR) against Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (FCNSW) on January 15, 2024. SEFR sought an order restraining FCNSW from conducting any forestry operation unless “broad area habitat searches” are conducted in a manner that includes particular searches for “nest, roost or den trees.” The conditions sought by the SEFR aimed to protect the endangered species of Petauroides volans (the Southern Greater Glider) and the vulnerable species of Petaurus australis (the Yellow-bellied Glider) and Petaurus norfolcensis (the Squirrel Glider). FCNSW argued that the SEFR does not have common law standing to bring civil enforcement proceedings, in seeking to enforce compliance with the requirements of an integrated forestry operation approval under Part 5B of the Forestry Act.

On February 7, 2024, Justice Pritchard of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court concluded that the SEFR did not have standing. The court explained that it was undisputed that the SEFR sought to enforce compliance with the requirements of the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval, which makes the case a civil enforcement proceeding. Based on precedents, the purpose of the Forestry Act, the context and language of §§ 69SB and 69ZA, and the principle of legality, the trial court held that a private person or entity can have standing at common law to bring proceedings to enforce compliance with an integrated forestry operations approval, notwithstanding the allegedly conflicting language of § 69ZA, if the person or entity has a “special interest” in the subject matter of the proceedings. Yet, the Court found no standing of the SEFR because: it sought relief in relation to operations outside its usual geographical area of concern; it was deemed to be formed for the basis of ending native logging, not the protection of gliders; the evidence was unclear as to the nature, activities, knowledge and experience of its members in their pursuit of SEFR’s objects; and its concern for gliders was deemed only to have been recently manifested.

On May 16, 2024, the Judges of Appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal—Justice Griffiths, joined by Justices Adamson and Basten—overturned the decision of Justice Pritchard. In interpreting the language of §§ 69SB and 69ZA of the Forestry Act and §§ 13.14 and 13.14A of the Biodiversity Conservation Act, the court found that the provisions do not preclude private persons or entities from bringing civil enforcement proceedings in relation to integrated forestry operations. The court explained that a clearer language manifesting the legislature’s intent is necessary to oust common law standing, which will abrogate or curtail fundamental rights. The court further found that a special interest to demonstrate common law standing in the absence of some private right or special damage is available in this case. Explaining that whether particular steps or activities are sufficient to demonstrate a special interest are fact and context specific, the court found the SEFR as having a special interest based on its long history of taking active steps and concrete action in relation to its beliefs and concerns, namely a deep concern regarding logging and its effects on the welfare of forest-dependent threatened species, including the Greater Glider.

On April 9, 2025, Justice Gageler, joined by justices Edelman, Steward, Jagot, and Beech-Jones, of the High Court of Australia, upheld the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeals. The court held that persons or entities with a special interest can enforce duties and obligations imposed by an integrated forestry operations approval granted under Part 5B of the Forestry Act, notwithstanding the individual not being a government entity. South East Forest Rescue Inc v Forestry Corp of New South Wales (Australia, High Court of Australia) — not decided on merits yet.

Portugal: Court found that CCDR Norte breached obligation to prepare the Regional Climate Action Plan under Portuguese Climate Law

The Plaintiff claims that the CCDR Norte failed to fulfill its legal obligation to prepare the Regional Climate Action Plan (PRAC) and did not undertake any public consultation or participatory measures. Law No. 98/2021 (the Portuguese Climate Law) requires these regional entities to prepare these plans within 24 months of the law’s entry into force (1 February 2022), i.e., by February 2024, which was not met. The Court acknowledged that there was a breach of the legal duty to develop the PRAC, but clarified that the plan does not constitute an administrative act, as it is general and abstract, nor is it an administrative regulation, since it lacks normative character. However, it was considered a means for horizontal and vertical coordination of climate strategies and a legal obligation assigned to the Administration, which was breached. The Plaintiff also requested that the Court ordered CCDR Norte to take specific actions. The Court, citing the separation of powers doctrine, ruled that it cannot dictate how the administration should conduct these procedures. Nevertheless, the Court found the administrative action justified and ordered the defendant to take the necessary steps to prepare the Regional Climate Action Plan. Regional Climate Plan - North (Portugal, Administrative and Tax Court of Braga)

Brazil: Court partially grants political party’s precautionary measures to order the Federal and State Governments to present detailed reports and implement measures to prevent and combat wildfires in São Paulo in 2025, recognizing the urgent need to protect the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes

In December, 2024, the Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (PSOL) political party filed a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for preliminary injunction against the Federal Government and the State of São Paulo, due to acts of commission and omission by these entities regarding the duty to protect the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes, in view of the fires that occurred in São Paulo in 2024. It is alleged that there is a dismantling of environmental conservation policy, inertia and inefficiency of the Public Authorities in adequately protecting these biomes, with the state in a forest and climate crisis neglected by the competent authorities. São Paulo has one of the worst air qualities in the country, mainly due to the fires, and, in contrast, has promoted the dismantling of environmental management, including the reduction of funds allocated to fighting fires. Furthermore, most municipalities in the state do not have civil defense structures or a disaster response plan. The crucial role of the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest in supplying water to Brazil and South America is highlighted, and their destruction increases the country’s climate risk. The actions of the authorities imply a violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment, the precautionary principle due to the lack of preservation of natural resources, the principle of non-regression, commitments made internationally, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), fundamental rights such as life, health and physical integrity, and guiding principles of public administration. In summary, as a precautionary measure, it is requested that the Federal and State Governments be ordered to present detailed administrative and scientific reports; and to implement economic and administrative measures for the prevention and control of wildfires in the state in 2025 and for the structuring of environmental management in São Paulo. As final requests, it is requested that the violation of fundamental precepts be recognized in order to deem the action admissible, with the recognition of the unconstitutionality of environmental management in the state of São Paulo, especially in the omissions perpetrated in the face of major incidents of biome devastation, confirming all precautionary requests. In a single-judge decision, Justice Flávio Dino partially granted the precautionary measures. He highlighted that it is undeniable that the climate emergency is an unprecedented global threat that generates several alarming consequences, and that the data presented by the plaintiffs demonstrate the configuration of a scenario of environmental vulnerability in São Paulo, with impacts on the biomes and the local population. He understood that it is essential for the defendants to reinforce environmental monitoring and control in order to reduce new outbreaks of fire. He determined, in a decision later confirmed by a panel, the presentation of detailed reports and the implementation of measures for the prevention and combating of wildfires in the year 2025. ADPF 1201 (Fires in the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest) (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

United Kingdom: Advertising Standards Authority rules that two cruise lines’ “eco-friendly” claims were misleading

On September 3, 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld two complaints by climate change NGO Opportunity Green concerning environmental claims made by cruise travel agents Seascanner and Cruise Circle, about liquified natural gas (fossil LNG). The adverts touted environmental claims about MSC Cruises’ LNG-powered ships: MSC World Europa and MSC Euribia. References were made to the ships being “eco-friendly” and fossil LNG being “the world’s cleanest marine fuel”. The ASA found that the adverts breached several provisions of the UK non-broadcast advertising code (CAP code) and were likely to mislead. In reaching its decision on Seascanner, the ASA explained that LNG was a fossil fuel that primarily comprised methane. The ruling stated that whilst fossil LNG produces lower levels of CO2, sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide than traditional marine fuel, its production and use had other potentially negative environmental impacts. In particular, methane slip and leakage, which is the emission of unburned methane into the atmosphere, at all stages of the fuel’s life cycle, make a substantial contribution to climate change. The ASA added that fossil LNG produces reduced, but still significant, CO2 emissions over its full lifecycle, which was not explained in the ad. The ruling on Seascanner also highlighted other environmental impacts of cruising that could harm marine life and ecosystems, such as water discharges. As the advert had not given information to put the impact of LNG or ‘environmental technology’ into context, the ASA concluded that the environmental impact of the advertised cruise ship had not been adequately explained. Similar findings on the lifecycle impacts of fossil LNG were made in the ruling on Cruise Circle, making it unacceptable to make an absolute claim such as “eco-friendly”. The ASA also stated that evidence did not demonstrate that LNG was the least-polluting marine fuel globally. It said that advertisers must robustly substantiate the full lifecycle emissions of a cruise to support an environmental claim. ASA complaint on cruise travel agents by Opportunity Green (United Kingdom, Advertising Standards Authority (ASA))

New Zealand: Court rules that the expert consenting panel’s approval of a hydrogen project was lawful and that its decision was consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi and the objectives of the Fast-Track Consenting Act

Hiringa Energy Ltd and Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd, the respondents, proposed to construct a hydrogen plant in Taranaki. The hydrogen produced will initially be used as feedstock for synthetic nitrogen (urea) fertiliser, at an existing production facility (the Ballance Plant), before transitioning over a five-year period to supply hydrogen fuel for commercial and heavy transport (the Project). A resource consent for the Project was granted under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-Track Consenting) Act 2020 (FTCA) by an expert consenting panel. The intended transition to supplying hydrogen fuel for commercial and heavy transport was the key reason the consent was granted, as it would help to reduce GHG emissions associated with road transport. The decision of the expert consenting panel was appealed to the High Court on a question of law by Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust (Te Korowai), supported by four hapū (Ngā Hapū), primarily contenting that in granting the consent, the Panel had failed to act in a manner consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi as required by the FTCA. Greenpeace Aotearoa was also an interested party in the High Court appeal, with its primary concern being the proposed transition from hydrogen for fertiliser to its intended use as fuel for commercial and heavy road transport. Greenpeace considered that the Panel failed to include any condition requiring the transition actually to occur, and that this was an error of law. In the High Court, Grice J dismissed the appeal. Greenpeace appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, Greenpeace contended that the Panel failed to include any condition requiring the transition actually to occur and this was (1) an error of law, or meant that the Panel erred in assessing the environmental effects of the Project on the basis that the transition would occur; (2) meant that the issue of transition was left to be addressed by the relevant local authority (South Taranaki District Council) and that this was an unlawful abdication of that Panel’s decision-making function under the FTCA; and (3) the Panel failed to actively protect Māori interests because it left a crucial decision about the Project to be made by a decision-maker who, unlike the Panel, was not required to act consistently with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Project was not referred to the Panel under the FTCA because it would certainly make a successful transition to utilising the hydrogen for transportation. Instead, it was referred to the Panel in part because, if the intended transition to hydrogen fuel were successful, it would assist New Zealand’s efforts to mitigate climate change and transition to a low-emissions economy more quickly. The conditions of the consent reflected this intention, but did not require a successful transition, as that could not be assured. The conditions of the consent properly matched the justification for the Project’s referral to the Panel. The Court also found the decision to be consistent with the principles of the Treaty. Greenpeace Aotearoa Inc v Hiringa Energy Limited and Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited (New Zealand, Court of Appeal)

Brazil: Court dismisses request for a precautionary measure to remedy alleged unconstitutional actions and inactions perpetrated by the federal government that paralyze and hinder the implementation of the policy on paving a highway

In April, 2025, the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) filed a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) with a request for a precautionary measure to remedy alleged unconstitutional actions and inactions perpetrated by the federal government that paralyze and hinder the implementation of the policy on paving the BR-319 highway, located in the northern region of the country. The party defends the importance of the highway for national integration and the economic and social development of the region. It alleges that the failure to pave the BR-319 represents a failure of the State to guarantee minimum infrastructure, which violates the rights of the Amazonian population, such as human dignity, access to education and health services, the right to come and go, the exercise of citizenship, the right to movement, and the principles of equality and efficiency. The PSDB argues that it is possible to align economic development with sustainable development, presenting the BR-319 as a viable and environmentally safe alternative to solve the Amazon’s isolation and guarantee the social and economic rights of its residents. It emphasizes that the isolation imposed by the lack of a highway disproportionately affects indigenous, riverside, and traditional communities, which face difficulties accessing essential public services. The party argues that the region relies primarily on river transportation for connection with other areas, which is exacerbated during dry months, when navigation can become unfeasible. It points out that droughts are worsening due to climate change, putting the population at risk of total isolation, highlighting the need for paving the highway. It argues that a paved highway would ensure the continued flow of goods and essential services and would be a strategic route for responding to environmental, health, or climate crises. The plaintiff emphasizes that all concerns should have been overcome after three decades of technical studies presented on the highway’s construction and operation. It argues that one of the reasons hindering paving is the existence of conflicting decisions in legal proceedings. As an example, it presents Public Civil Action 1001856-77.2024.4.01.3200, which challenges Preliminary License 672/2022 issued by IBAMA authorizing the paving of the highway. It questions it based on flaws in environmental governance, the lack of a climate impact study, and the lack of prior consultation with communities. As a precautionary measure, it requests that the Supreme Federal Court ensure the effectiveness and full effect of Preliminary License No. 672/2022 issued by IBAMA. On the merits, it requests recognition of the violation and threat to fundamental precepts of the Federal Constitution, in order to promote sustainable regional development and the integration of the Amazon region; and a declaration that it is the duty of the Government to ensure the regular, expeditious, and constitutional continuation of all stages of environmental licensing and the implementation of state public policies that guarantee the complete paving of Highway BR-319. Reporting Justice Luiz Fux denied the action due to the inadequacy of the chosen avenue. The reasoning emphasized that an ADPF (Advanced Process of Legislative Action) was not admissible for analyzing the specific situation, and that it could be challenged through ordinary channels. A procedural appeal was filed against the decision, but was dismissed. The final decision became final and binding. ADPF 1215 (Paving of BR-319) (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

Climate Litigation Updates (December 9, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (December 9, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (November 17, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (October 23, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (October 3, 2025)

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law & UNEP Release a New Climate Litigation Report