Climate Litigation Updates (January 30, 2026)

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 #208

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Fourth Circuit Vacated Injunctions on Federal Government Terminations of Funding Under Inflation Reduction Act and Other Laws

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court’s injunctions that enjoined federal defendants from freezing or terminating funding awarded to plaintiffs under the Inflation Reduction Act and other laws. Regarding the permanent injunction granted on the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims were essential contractual in nature and subject matter jurisdiction therefore was vested exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. The Fourth Circuit found “no meaningful difference” between the district court’s order and the district court’s order in Department of Education v. California, in which the Supreme Court stayed the district court order pending appeal, finding that the federal government was likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin termination of federal grants because the APA’s “limited waiver of immunity” did not extend to enforcing contractual obligations to pay money. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association “further confirmed” the conclusion that the district court in this case lacked jurisdiction. Regarding the plaintiffs’ claims that the federal defendants’ actions violated separation of powers and the Presentment Clauses of the Constitution and were ultra vires, the Fourth Circuit found that the constitutional claims were merely statutory claims “recast” as constitutional claims and therefore were not reviewable. The Fourth Circuit further found that because the plaintiffs failed to identify a specific prohibition on the freezing or termination of their grants, their ultra vires claim did not fall within “the painstakingly delineated procedural boundaries” of nonstatutory ultra vires review. Because the district court had focused on the freezing and termination of the plaintiffs’ particular grants, the Fourth Circuit did not express a view on the merits of the plaintiffs’ “program cancellation” theory, which alleged that the defendants effectively terminated entire programs that were statutorily mandated. The Fourth Circuit indicated the district court could consider this theory on remand. Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 25-1575 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Appellate Court Affirmed Denial of Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Bids to Dismiss State of Minnesota’s Climate Deception Suit

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of fossil fuel industry defendants’ motions to dismiss the State of Minnesota’s lawsuit alleging that the defendants engaged in a campaign to deceive Minnesota consumers and the public about fossil fuels and climate change. First, the appellate court found that the district court’s exercise of consent jurisdiction under the Minnesota Foreign Corporation Act (MCPA) did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause or dormant Commerce Clause. Regarding the Due Process Clause, the appellate court rejected contentions that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents called into question the exercise of consent jurisdiction. Regarding the dormant Commerce Clause, the appellate court found that the defendants failed to show that the MCFA favored in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests or expressly provided for differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. Second, the appellate court concluded that Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statutes did not apply because the State’s lawsuit sought equitable remedies and not damages and therefore did not fall within the anti-SLAPP statutes’ definition of “judicial claim.” Because there was no judicial claim, an anti-SLAPP motion could not be filed. State v. American Petroleum Institute, No. A25-0407, A25-0408, A25-0410 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2026)

Michigan Federal District Court Dismissed U.S. Action to Block State of Michigan Climate Suit

One day after the Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit alleging that energy industry defendants engaged in a conspiracy to delay the transition to low-carbon transportation and energy (see below under “New Cases and Filings”), the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the United States’ lawsuit seeking to block the State of Michigan from filing a lawsuit seeking damages from fossil fuel companies for climate change harms. The court ruled that at the time the U.S.’s amended complaint was filed, the case was not ripe for judicial review and the United States did not have standing. Regarding ripeness, the court found that the case turned on “contingent future events” and that deferring review would not “impose significant practical harm” on the United States. With respect to standing, the court found that the federal government failed to establish an “existing” or “certainly impending” injury and, moreover, that the U.S. failed to establish a causal connection between its alleged injuries and the State of Michigan’s alleged conduct. United States v. Michigan, No. 1:25-cv-00496 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2026)

Washington Federal Court Ruled that Federal Freeze on Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Funding Was Unlawful

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington vacated and set aside federal actions that froze funding for states National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Under IIJA, the Federal Highway Administration first issued guidance in 2022 for states and localities to deploy electric vehicle infrastructure and states submitted State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans describing how they intended to use NEVI Formula Program funds. The court declared that the rescission of the NEVI Formula Program guidance and suspension of state plans in February 2025 exceeded the federal defendants’ statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, and was done without observance of proper procedure in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Because it had ruled for the plaintiff states and plaintiff-intervenor organizations on their APA claims, the court did not consider their constitutional or ultra vires claims. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs’ claims were moot because FHWA had issued new NEVI Formula Program guidance in August 2025 and resumed the program. The court found that the “consequences and effects of the funding freeze still linger” and that funds remained at risk of not being disbursed. In addition to vacating and setting aside the federal actions and declaring the federal actions unlawful, the court found that the plaintiff states established entitlement to injunctive relief and that the intervenor organizations established the need for injunctive relief in all NEVI jurisdictions. Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-00848 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2026)

Federal District Courts Block Enforcement of Federal Orders Suspending Activities at Offshore Wind Projects

In cases related to four offshore wind projects, federal district courts granted preliminary relief to parties challenging orders issued on December 22, 2025 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) directing that activities be suspended at the offshore wind facilities “for reasons of national security.” 

• On January 12, 2026, a federal district court in the District of Columbia granted motions by the developer of the Revolution Wind offshore wind project and the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut for a stay and preliminary injunction of BOEM’s. The court enjoined enforcement of the stop-work order, finding, for reasons stated in court, that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that they were likely to suffer irreparable injury without an injunction, that the balance of equities was in their favor, and that maintaining the status quo was in the public interest. Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-02999 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2026)
• On January 15, 2026, a federal district court in the District of Columbia granted from the bench a motion by the developer of the Empire Wind offshore wind project for a stay and preliminary injunction of BOEM’s order after hearing oral arguments the previous day. Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00004 (D.D.C. Jan. 15, 2026)
• On January 16, 2026, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted from the bench Dominion Energy Virginia’s request for a preliminary injunction of BOEM’s order regarding the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project. Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. (E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 2026)
• In addition, a new lawsuit challenging the BOEM order was filed on January 15 by the developer of the Vineyard Wind project offshore of Massachusetts. The complaint asserted violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process requirements of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On January 27, the court stayed the BOEM order. Vineyard Wind 1 LLC v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:26-cv-10156 (D. Mass., filed Jan. 15, 2026)

Court of Federal Claims Stayed Proceedings in States’ Solar for All Breach of Contract Action

The Court of Federal Claims granted the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings in a breach of contract action brought by state recipients of grants under the Solar for All program after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) termination of the program. The United States argued in its motion to stay that principles of judicial economy favored a stay because “a virtually identical group” of state plaintiffs had filed a case in federal district court in Washington seeking a declaration that termination of the Solar for All grants was unlawful. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, contending that the United States was attempting to “have it both ways” by seeking the stay while simultaneously telling the district court that only the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court of Federal Claims granted the U.S.’s motion from the bench after oral argument on January 21, 2026 and imposed the stay until April 21, 2026. The court directed the parties to file a status report by April 13 addressing progress in the district court litigation and steps the Court of Federal Claims must take in this case. Maryland Clean Energy Center v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-01738 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 21, 2026)

Washington District Court Denied Federal Government’s Motion to Transfer Challenge to Solar for All Termination

In the case challenging the termination of the Solar for All program in federal district court for the Western District of Washington, the court denied the federal defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the federal district court for the District of Columbia where an earlier lawsuit had been filed by Harris County, Texas. The court found that “first-to-file” factors weighed against transfer, noting the differences between the parties in each case and the fact that a third case had been filed in the District of Rhode Island before Harris County v. EPA was filed. In addition, the court found that factors of convenience and fairness were either neutral or leaned against transfer. Arizona v. EPA, No. 2:25-cv-02015 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 7, 2026)

Supreme Court Declined to Review Ruling that Federal Law Preempted Iowa Counties’ Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by two Iowa counties and county officials seeking review of an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the federal Pipeline Safety Act preempted county ordinances that would regulate portions of a planned carbon dioxide pipeline. Shelby County v. Couser, No. 25-419 (U.S. Jan. 12, 2026)

Environmental Groups Withdrew Challenge to Alaska LNG Project Authorizations After Agencies Issued New Biological Opinions

After the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed newconsultations under the Endangered Species Act for the Alaska LNG Project, Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club moved to voluntarily dismiss their challenge to the original biological opinions. The organizations had contended that the biological opinions did not fully examine and mitigate harms to polar bears, Cook Inlet beluga whales, and North Pacific right whales. The case had been held in abeyance since November 2024, when the Ninth Circuit granted federal respondents’ request for abeyance to allow the Services to reinitiate consultation. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 24-3397 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026)

Oregon Federal Court Invalidated Categorical Exclusion that Exempted Forest Thinning Projects from NEPA Review

On remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal district court for the District of Oregon ruled that the U.S. Forest Service’s 1992 promulgation of a categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for projects that allowed unlimited commercial thinning was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the record did not show that the Forest Service considered the impact of thinning at any scale and that the court therefore could not conclude that the Forest Service engaged in reasoned decision-making regarding the environmental impacts authorized by the categorical exclusion. The court rejected the federal government’s threshold argument that the statute of limitations barred the challenge, as well as arguments that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by laches, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the plaintiffs waived their challenge to the categorical exclusion’s validity by failing to raise it during the administrative process. The court concluded that setting aside the categorical exclusion as to all future Forest Service actions as well as the project approvals challenged in this proceeding was the appropriate remedy. The plaintiffs' original allegations included that projects that involve commercial logging operations inherently result in more significant environmental effects, including release of stored carbon. Oregon Wild v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:22-cv-01007 (D. Or. Jan. 13, 2026)

Challenge to California In-Use Locomotive Regulation Voluntarily Dismissed After Repeal

After the California Air Resources Board’s repeal of the In-Use Locomotive Regulation became effective on January 1, 2026, two associations representing freight and passenger railroads, California officials, and intervenor environmental groups submitted a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the associations’ lawsuit challenging the regulation. Association of American Railroads v. Sanchez, No. 2:23-cv-001154 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026)

Federal Court Enjoined Colorado Labeling Requirement for Gas Stoves

The federal district court for the District of Colorado granted trade associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction barring the Colorado Attorney General from implementing or enforcing a Colorado law that established requirements for disseminating certain information about air quality and health impacts of indoor gas stoves on stove labels and on internet sites where gas-fueled stoves are sold. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The court first concluded that the labeling requirement regulated commercial speech. (The court rejected intervenor defendant Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado’s argument that the labeling requirement was government speech not subject to the First Amendment.) The court further found that the labeling requirement was “objectively controversial because there is robust disagreement by scientific sources concerning the validity of the statements” about health outcomes contained on the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment webpage to which the labels were required to refer people. Because the court found the requirement to be objectively controversial, the court applied strict scrutiny rather than the “less exacting scrutiny” of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Although the court was not persuaded by the trade associations’ contention that the Colorado law’s public health rationale was pretextual and that the true rationale for the rule was to discourage people from using gas-fueled stoves for climate change reasons, the court found that the Attorney General “does not present any conclusive evidence regarding the potential health effects of using gas-fueled stoves” and therefore did not identify “an actual concrete problem” that would establish a compelling government interest. In addition, the court found that the labeling requirement was not narrowly tailored. Because the labeling requirement failed the strict scrutiny test and the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim, the court also found that the trade associations satisfied the irreparable harm and public interest factors of the preliminary injunction test. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser, No. 1:25-cv-02417 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2025)

North Dakota’s Challenge to Biden-Era Restrictions on Federal Coal Development Dismissed as Moot After Congressional Review Act Nullification

On December 19, 2025, the federal district court granted plaintiff North Dakota and federal defendants’ request to dismiss North Dakota’s action challenging a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amended during the Biden administration to restrict future coal development on federal lands in the state. The parties had notified the court that President Trump signed a resolution on December 11, 2025 that disapproved and nullified the amended RMP under the Congressional Review Act. The parties therefore requested that the case be dismissed as moot. North Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00042 (D.N.D. Dec. 19, 2025)

Maryland Federal Court Denied Oil and Gas Industry Intervenors’ Motion to Transfer Endangered Species Act Challenge to Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities to Louisiana

The federal district court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron), American Petroleum Institute, and other industry intervenor defendants to transfer environmental organizations’ challenge to a 2025 biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement prepared under the Endangered Species Act to address federally authorized oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The intervenor defendants argued that the case should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana where Chevron and American Petroleum Institute, along with the State of Louisiana, had filed a lawsuit challenging the 2025 BiOp. The Maryland federal court agreed with the intervenor defendants that the case could have been brought in the Western District of Louisiana but found that the intervenors did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the factors considered when determining whether to grant a venue transfer motion counseled in favor of transfer. In particular, the court afforded the plaintiffs’ choice of venue substantial weight because a portion of the “complained-of conduct” occurred in the District of Maryland, the location of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s headquarters. The court also found that the interest of justice factor weighed against transfer. Although the court agreed with the intervenor defendants that the cases presented similar legal issues and that there was a risk of conflicting rulings, the court found that those factors weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction in this first-filed case. The court also was not persuaded that the case was “a local Louisiana dispute that is best decided by a Louisiana court.” Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 25-cv-1627 (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2025)

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

On January 6, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP’s) applications to discontinue its appeal of a Commonwealth Court ruling that concluded that regulations implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) 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 (Jan. 6, 2026); Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, No. 107 MAP 2023 (Jan. 6, 2026)

Florida Court Dismissed Youth Plaintiffs’ Climate Case Against Public Service Commission

A Florida Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit in which youth plaintiffs alleged that the Florida Public Service Commission violated their rights under the Florida Constitution by classifying as suitable utilities’ Ten-Year Site Plan reviews that projected use of fossil fuels. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were “nearly identical” to claims dismissed in an earlier case, Reynolds v. State. As in that case, the court concluded that this case must be dismissed under the political question and separation of powers doctrines. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims focused on policy decisions reserved for the Florida Legislature such as the type of fuel to be used to generate electricity and the effects of pollution. The court also found that the plaintiffs “failed to cite any manageable standard” to guide the court in determining whether the Commission’s decisions violated the Constitution. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs’ alleged climate change-related injuries did not satisfy standing requirements for causation and redressability. Barreto v. Florida Public Service Commission, No. 2025 CA 1803 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Jan. 16, 2026)

Court Ordered Climate Scientist Michael Mann to Pay Sanctions for “Bad Faith Litigation Conduct”

In a case brought by climate scientist Michael Man in which a jury found two writers liable for defamation, the District of Columbia Superior Court denied Mann’s motion to reconsider the court’s March 2025 order granting in part the two defendants’ motions for sanctions for “bad faith litigation tactics.” The conduct related to Mann’s attorneys’ use at trial of a demonstrative regarding the amount of losses attributable to the defendants’ defamatory statements. The demonstrative included the amount of $9,713,924.00, when the correct amount was $112,000. The court said that Mann and his attorneys “provided no explanation why they prepared a demonstrative that contained incorrect figures to be used at trial, when they could have very well prepared a demonstrative with the correct figures.” The court found that the attorneys’ explanations for the use of the demonstrative, including that they knew the defendants would make corrections during re-cross examination, “strain credulity”; the court also found that Mann was “ultimately responsible for the conduct of the litigation of his case and it was his responsibility to ensure that the facts of his case were presented truthfully and straightforwardly.” The court ordered Mann to pay one of the defendants $16,762.82 in fees, costs, and fees on fees, and the other defendant $11,404.80. Mann v. National Review, Inc., No. 2012 CA 008263 B (D.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 22, 2026)

Oregon Court Rejected Contention that Utility Commission Was Ignoring Grid Decarbonization Policy Objective

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Oregon Public Utility Commission orders regarding the implementation of a 2021 law regarding the decarbonization of Oregon’s electric grid. A renewable energy company argued that the Commission misinterpreted a statutory provision requiring that zero-emission electricity provide ancillary benefits to Oregon communities “to the maximum extent practicable.” The Court of Appeals rejected the company’s characterization of the Commission’s interpretation, finding that it appeared that Commission understood the law to require that it give weight to the policy considerations related to ancillary benefits to communities. The court acknowledged the possibility of future disputes about how to account for those policy considerations in the approval process for electric companies’ clean energy plans but said it would be premature to opine on that issue before the Commission took action. NewSun Energy, LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon, No. A184849 (Or. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2025)

California Appellate Court Affirmed Denial of Bond Validation for Facilities to Convey Water in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s denial of validation of the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) authority to issue revenue bonds for the planning, acquisition, and construction of the Delta Program, which comprises facilities for conveyance of water in, about, and through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The appellate court agreed that the Program’s contours were “too vague” to support the validation request as a modification of the project authorized by statute as the initial component of the statewide water storage and delivery system known as the State Water Project. Because it had denied validation of the bond issuance, the court did not consider cross-appeals by Sierra Club and other parties from the trial court’s denial of their claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Delta Reform Act, and the public trust doctrine. Under CEQA, Sierra Club and other organizations had alleged that an environmental impact report should have been prepared. They noted that DWR initiated the environmental review in January 2020 with issuance of a Notice of Preparation that listed 24 “probably significant environmental effects of the Project,” including changes in greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resiliency to respond to climate change. Sierra Club v. Department of Water Resources, No. C100552 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2025)

New York Court Declined to Give DEC More Time to Issue Regulations to Implement Climate Law

A New York trial court denied the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) motion requesting that the court extend the deadline the court had set for DEC to promulgate regulations that the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Action mandated be issued by January 1, 2024. The court in October 2025 ordered DEC to come into compliance by February 6, 2026. The court found that DEC’s motion requesting the extension was moot because the court’s order had been stayed by operation of law when DEC filed a notice of appeal. The court also found that DEC did not meet the legal threshold for a motion to renew or reargue. The court said it had declined to take on oversight of the regulatory process and had instead afforded DEC time to seek legislative changes to the deadline. The court found that the “essence” of DEC’s argument in its motion to renew or reargue was “the very same” as its original argument—that it did not want “to be governed by a hard deadline.” Citizen Action of New York v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 903160-25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 8, 2026)

U.S. NEW CASES AND OTHER FILINGS

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Sought Review of Biden Administration’s Energy Standards for Consumer Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters

Three trade associations and a company that manufactures and sells gas-powered furnaces and other appliances filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a D.C. Circuit decision upholding Biden-era amendments to the energy efficiency standards for consumer furnaces and commercial water heaters. The petitioners presented two questions: (1) “[w]hether courts may defer to an agency’s legal interpretation of a statute because an agency applied the statute to undisputed facts, despite this Court’s holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that courts must construe statutes without deference to agency statutory interpretations” and (2) “whether an appliance’s ability to operate in existing homes and buildings without renovation is a ‘performance characteristic’ that [the Energy Policy Conservation Act] prohibits the Department [of Energy] from eliminating.” American Gas Association v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 25-879 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026)

Petitioners Said EPA Grant of Regulatory Primacy to West Virginia for Carbon Sequestration Wells Was Unlawful 

Petitioners filed an opening brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the court should vacate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision approving the State of West Virginia’s application for primary enforcement authority for Class VI Underground Injection Control Wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA’s approval gave the State regulatory authority over carbon sequestration wells. The petitioners argued that EPA’s determination that the State would implement the Class VI program consistently with the federal program was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law “because EPA failed to grapple with record evidence that West Virginia had failed to effectively implement at least three similar federal environmental programs.” In addition, the plaintiffs argued that EPA’s approval violated the SDWA because the State’s program was not “at least as stringent” as the federal regulations. West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization v. Zeldin, No. 25-1384 (4th Cir., filed Jan. 21, 2026)

Michigan Attorney General Filed Antitrust Suit Against Energy Industry Defendants for Alleged Scheme to Delay Transition from Fossil Fuels

The Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit against four energy companies and American Petroleum Institute alleging that they engaged in a “conspiracy to delay the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy” in violation of federal and Michigan antitrust laws. The complaint alleged that defendants knew by approximately 1980 that continued reliance on fossil fuels would impose “negative externalities,” including climate change, and also were “aware that clean energy alternatives were feasible and inevitable, and emergence of these alternatives would increase competition in the transportation and primary energy markets,” reducing defendants’ and fossil fuels’ market dominance. The complaint alleged anticompetitive conduct by the defendants in the transportation sector that included shutting down their own research and development programs into vehicle electrification technologies, engaging in patent litigation to delay deployment of such technologies, and restraining the buildout of electric vehicle infrastructure such as charging stations. Alleged anticompetitive conduct directed at “primary energy” products for heating and cooling buildings included “capturing key technologies” and abandoning defendants’ own “commercially viable ventures” to suppress growth of renewable energy sources; coordinating the diversion of capital for “low carbon” energy to “infrastructure and applications that entrench fossil fuel use, such as natural gas and carbon capture”; coordinating to disseminate misleading information regarding fossil fuel risks and casting doubt on substitutes; conspiring to infiltrate and misdirect information-producing institutions to influence consumer preferences and public discourse about energy sources and climate change; and hiring hackers to undermine efforts to expose the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. The complaint alleged that because of the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct, Michigan suffers and will continue to suffer from climate change and other negative externalities, including rising insurance premiums and depressed home values. The complaint asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The relief sought included compensatory and trebled damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. People of the State of Michigan v. BP p.l.c., No. 1:26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich., filed Jan. 23, 2026)

Plaintiffs Challenged “Newest Iteration” of Oil and Gas Leasing Program on Coastal Plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

In a lawsuit first filed in 2020 to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s August 2020 authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, three environmental organizations filed an amended and supplemental complaint on January 13, 2026 to also challenge the “newest iteration” of the authorization of the program, which the Secretary issued in October 2025. The plaintiffs assert that both the 2020 and 2025 programs exceeded congressional authorization and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Wilderness Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that “[t]he Coastal Plain, like the rest of America’s Arctic, is already profoundly stressed by the effects of climate change” and that “[c]onsumption of fossil fuels—encouraged by expanded oil and gas development such as that proposed by Defendants the Secretary of the Interior and BLM in the Program—is the main cause of climate change.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ NEPA review “ignored or obscured potential harm to tundra, permafrost, and other landscape features, water quantity and quality, air quality, the climate, wilderness characteristics, and wildlife” and “included a misleadingly narrow range of alternatives.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. Burgum, No. 3:20-cv-00205 (D. Alaska Jan. 13, 2026)

United States Challenged California Setback Law for Fossil Fuel Operations

The United States filed a lawsuit challenging a California law (SB 1137) enacted in 2022 that restricts fossil fuel operations within 3,200 feet of certain “sensitive receptors” such as homes, schools, and health care facilities. SB 1137’s legislative findings cited “increasing impacts of climate change” and “a growing body of research” showing “direct health impacts from proximity to oil extraction,” that disproportionately impact communities most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. The law stated that “[f]urther assistance must be provided to frontline communities that have been most polluted by the fossil fuel industry by cleaning up pollution, remediating negative health impacts, and building resilient infrastructure to prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change.” The U.S. asserted that federal law preempted SB 1137’s restrictions because their “categorical prohibition on certain fossil fuel development on federal lands … stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s objectives … to promote the responsible development of fossil fuel resources on federal lands,” as reflected in the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and other federal statutes. In addition, the U.S. asserted that the California law conflicted with the Constitution’s Property Clause by interfering with property interests in the federal mineral estate and violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by directly regulating the federal government. United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-00107 (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 14, 2026)

Youth Plaintiffs Challenged 2025 Montana Laws as Violating Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment

After the Montana Supreme Court declined in December 2025 to exercise its original jurisdiction to consider claims that 2025 amendments to state environmental laws were unconstitutional under the court’s 2024 decision in Held v. State, youth plaintiffs filed a complaint in Montana District Court seeking to have the amended laws declared facially unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Department of Environmental Quality to prepare and develop a comprehensive plan for the prevention, abatement, and control of greenhouse gas emissions in Montana “that conforms with its affirmative obligation to maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.” In addition, they asked the court to enjoin issuance of air quality permits for fossil fuel projects until the plan is developed absent “a showing that there is a compelling state interest for the project and the project is the least onerous means to achieve that compelling state interest.” Held v. State, No. DV-4-2026-0000007-OC (Mont. Dist. Ct., filed Jan. 16, 2026)

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION ADDITIONS TO THE DATABASE

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Netherlands: Court finds that the Dutch State failed to take sufficient mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire

On January 11, 2024, Greenpeace Netherlands and eight Dutch citizens of the island of Bonaire sued the Dutch State concerning insufficient climate adaptation and mitigation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire from the impacts of climate change. Bonaire is a Caribbean island and a special municipality of the Netherlands. The claim was brought following a warning letter sent in 2023, in which the plaintiffs requested consultations with Dutch ministries regarding stronger climate adaptation policies and increased resources for the island. 

Greenpeace argued that the Dutch State failed to take adequate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the human rights of Bonaire’s inhabitants, in violation of its obligations under international and domestic law. The claim relied on Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, alleging an unlawful act due to insufficient climate action. The plaintiffs invoked the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, the right to culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and procedural rights under the Aarhus Convention. They also referred to the Netherlands’ climate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The plaintiffs emphasized that Bonaire faces heightened vulnerability to climate change, including increased heat stress, sea level rise, water scarcity, ecosystem degradation, and associated health impacts. They argued that Bonaire’s residents are treated differently from residents of the European Netherlands without adequate justification, noting that large-scale and long-term adaptation planning and investment exist in the European Netherlands but not in Bonaire. The claim also highlighted structural inequalities, including high poverty levels on the island, and argued that these factors require heightened state attention under principles of equality and non-discrimination.

With respect to mitigation, Greenpeace relied on the reasoning developed by the Dutch Supreme Court in Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands, arguing that Articles 2 and 8 ECHR impose positive obligations on the State to contribute its fair share to preventing dangerous climate change. The plaintiffs asserted that the Netherlands’ current mitigation trajectory was insufficient and inconsistent with its human rights obligations. They extended this reasoning to adaptation, arguing that due diligence requires timely and effective adaptation measures tailored to the specific risks faced by Bonaire’s population, including impacts on health, housing, livelihoods, and cultural life.

The plaintiffs extend their legal reasoning on mitigation also to adaptation. They note that there is ‘widespread consensus’ in international climate policy and law, as well as amongst human rights bodies, that there is a need to ‘rapidly accelerate’ the implementation of adaptation measures. Plaintiffs argue that the State has a legal obligation to take all appropriate measures that may be reasonably necessary, in a timely and consistent manner. This obligation is based on due diligence, and must take into account the special needs and disproportionate vulnerability of the inhabitants of Bonaire, and the complex historical and political context of the islands. They also point to other successful climate litigation on adaptation in this regard, such as the Torres Strait Islanders case at the UN Human Rights Committee.

On September 25, 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued an interim judgment on admissibility. The court found Greenpeace Netherlands admissible under Article 3:305a of the Civil Code as a representative organization acting in the collective interest. The individual claims brought by eight residents of Bonaire were declared inadmissible, as Greenpeace’s claim already encompassed their interests and the individuals had not demonstrated that they were personally and directly affected in a manner justifying separate claims.

On January 29, 2026, the District Court of The Hague issued its final judgment on the merits. The court held that the Dutch State had failed to take sufficient climate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire and that this failure violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The court found that Bonaire’s inhabitants face disproportionate climate risks, including serious risks to health and well-being, and that the State had not adequately justified treating Bonaire differently from the European Netherlands in its climate policies.

The court ordered the Dutch State, within 18 months, to incorporate binding interim greenhouse gas reduction targets into national legislation covering the entire economy. The court also ordered the State to ensure that, by 2030, a detailed and implemented climate adaptation plan is in place for Bonaire to increase the island’s resilience to climate impacts.

The decision is notable for its reliance on human rights law, its emphasis on equality and non-discrimination within a state’s own territory, and its engagement with international and regional climate jurisprudence. It also represents a significant development in climate litigation concerning state obligations to protect particularly vulnerable territories from the impacts of climate change. Greenpeace Netherlands and 8 citizens of Bonaire v. The Netherlands (Netherlands, District Court of The Hague)

NEW CASES

Germany: Pakistani communities sue RWE and Heidelberg Materials for partial compensation for 2022 floods

Building on the legal approach developed in Lliuya v. RWE, this case concerns a claim for partial compensation brought by Pakistani farmers seeking redress for the losses they suffered during the floods that struck Pakistan in 2022. The lawsuit was filed on 22 December 2025. The plaintiffs are 39 farmers from the Pakistani province of Sindh, specifically from the districts of Jacobabad, Larkana, and Dadu. The claim is brought against RWE, one of Europe’s largest electricity producers, and Heidelberg Materials, one of the world’s leading cement manufacturers. The plaintiffs cultivate agricultural land of which they are either the owners or over which they hold ownership-like or other proprietary rights. The claim concerns damage caused by extreme precipitation in their region in late August 2022 and the resulting flash floods. The floods submerged the plaintiffs’ fields for several months, destroying cultivated crops and stored seed and causing lasting damage to soil quality and agricultural infrastructure. The flooding posed a severe threat to the lives and livelihoods of the plaintiffs and the wider village populations. Their families were rendered homeless for months and were forced to live in emergency shelters with limited access to basic necessities. The destruction of homes, crops, livestock, and household property caused both immediate suffering and long-term economic harm. Thousands of people in the region died as a result of the floods, including residents from the plaintiffs’ villages. The plaintiffs’ entire summer 2022 harvest was completely destroyed. Due to persistent standing water and waterlogged soils, most plaintiffs were also unable to cultivate crops during the winter season of 2022/2023. Long-term soil degradation caused by the flooding continues to have adverse effects to this day. The plaintiffs seek partial compensation for lost profits from these two growing seasons, as well as a judicial declaration establishing the defendants’ liability in principle. The plaintiffs argue that the causally relevant conduct consists in the defendants’ group-level management decisions to emit quantities of CO₂ determined by them. They further contend that the risks and dangers of climate change were objectively foreseeable and, at the latest, recognizable to the defendants as early as 1965. The claims are based on German civil law. First, the plaintiffs invoke an entitlement to reasonable compensation by analogy to Section 906(2), sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB), a nuisance-type rule governing the toleration of harmful interferences with property and providing for compensation (so-called faktischer Duldungszwang). Secondly, the plaintiffs rely on Section 823(1) BGB, the core tort provision of German private law, alleging that the defendants breached their duties by making unlawful corporate and business decisions that infringed legally protected interests. Pakistan Climate Cost Case (Germany, Heidelberg Regional Court)

United Kingdom: Filipino communities sue Shell for loss and damage from the 2021 typhoon

A group of 67 claimants affected by devastating Typhoon Odette, which hit the Philippines in 2021, filed a claim against energy giant Shell, seeking to hold it liable for physical and property damage and losses which they argue were caused by Shell’s emissions. The claimants brought the action in the UK, where Shell is headquartered, under Philippines law. The claim follows a Letter Before Action which the claimants and their legal team (Hausfeld) delivered to Shell on October 23, 2025; and a 2022 report by the Philippines Commission on Human Rights “examining the impact of climate change on the human rights of Filipino people and the role of 47 major fossil fuel companies in causing the climate crisis” (Odette Case Overview, November 2025). The claimants are reportedly supported by the Odette Case campaign, which brings together Greenpeace Philippines, the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC), the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ), and Uplift. 

According to the Odette Case Overview, “the claim is likely to be brought on four causes of action in Philippine (sic.) law: (1) Shell caused damage to the claimants in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy [under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Philippines Civil Code]. (2) Shell violated the claimants’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthy environment [under the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.] (3) Shell acted with negligence. They had the opportunity to mitigate climate harm and an obligation to refrain from obfuscating climate science, but failed to do so [under the law of quasi-delict and environmental tort under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Philippines Civil Code and applicable precedent]. (4) Shell has been unjustly enriched, profiting enormously from their contribution to climate change at the expense of the claimants [under Article 23 of the Philippines Civil Code].” Casquejo and others v Shell plc and another (the Odette Case) (United Kingdom, High Court)

Canada: Greenwashing claim brought against a “compostable” poop bag producer

In December 2024, a class action on behalf of purchasers across Canada or, alternatively, a Quebec subclass was filed before the Superior Court against Earth Rated, which sells “Certified Compostable Poop Bags” as part of its business. The plaintiff alleged that the poop bags, marketed, labelled, and sold as compostable, were false and misleading environmental representations, as the bags and their intended contents (pet waste) cannot be composted in most municipal composting systems in Canada. According to the application, composting facilities in Quebec and many other provinces either do not accept compostable plastics at all, do not accept pet waste, or mechanically remove and landfill plastic bags during processing, rendering compostability claims ineffective or misleading in real-world disposal conditions.

The plaintiff therefore alleged that Earth Rated’s practice was in violation of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, and related consumer protection legislation. The plaintiff further relies on federal guidance on environmental claims, international standards on environmental labelling, and amendments to section 74.01 of the Competition Act that specifically address representations about environmental benefits and climate change mitigation, including requirements that such claims be supported by adequate and proper testing or substantiation. The relief sought includes authorization of a class action, compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction prohibiting continued representation of the products as compostable.

In April 2025, Earth Rated filed an application seeking authorization to adduce additional evidence at the authorization stage under the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant argues that the proposed sworn statement and supporting exhibits correct or clarify what it characterizes as incomplete or inaccurate allegations in the authorization application. In particular, Earth Rated asserts that certain composting facilities in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada do accept certified compostable bags, with or without pet waste, and that the full product packaging contains qualifying language indicating that compostability depends on the availability and acceptance policies of local municipal programs. The defendant submits that this evidence is relevant to assessing whether the plaintiff has established an arguable case, including whether the impugned representations would mislead a reasonable consumer when read in context.

The case forms part of a broader trend in Canada since 2024 toward increased private enforcement and litigation concerning environmental and climate-related marketing claims. Amendments to the Competition Act expanding private access and explicitly addressing claims related to environmental protection and climate change mitigation have coincided with heightened scrutiny of corporate representations concerning compostability, recyclability, offsets, and emissions reductions. While framed as consumer and competition litigation, the proceedings are climate-relevant insofar as they test the legal standards governing claims about environmentally beneficial products and the evidentiary threshold for substantiating such claims in light of existing waste management and emissions-reduction realities. Dan Grigorescu vs. 9199-4467 Québec Inc. (Earth Rated) (Canada, Quebec Superior Court)

Canada: Greenwashing claim brought against a toilet paper brand

On January 23, 2025, a class action was filed against Procter & Gamble, alleging that Procter & Gamble’s “Keep Forests as Forests” campaign, including “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging, misrepresents the environmental footprint of Charmin toilet paper. The plaintiff claims that despite marketing the product as environmentally friendly, the paper is produced using widespread deforestation practices. 

This class action is part of a growing wave of Canadian private and class claims targeting greenwashing in consumer products following the 2024–2025 amendments to the Competition Act, which enabled private parties to challenge misleading environmental claims. The case is relevant to climate change as it contests corporate claims about forest protection, sustainability, and environmental responsibility. A. Gingras v. Proctor & Gamble Inc. (Canada, Quebec Superior Court)

Estonia: Environmental organizations challenge a municipal council’s decision to construct a pulp mill

In May 2025, the Lüganuse Municipal Council decided to establish a special local government spatial plan for the construction of a bioproducts production complex (pulp mill) proposed by Viru Keemia Grupp AS.  The plant’s main activity would be the production of up to 500,000 tonnes of softwood and hardwood pulp per year using advanced KRAFT technology. This process includes the separation of up to 100,000 tonnes of lignin annually during the evaporation process, which would then be further processed into raw graphite. Environmental organizations inside and outside Estonia have raised concerns about the mill’s environmental impacts and published a report highlighting the associated risks (https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Pulping-the-future-2025-07-12.pdf). 

In June 2025, Estonian Fund for Nature challenged the Lüganuse Municipal Council’s decision and asked the Tartu Administrative Court to declare the special spatial plan invalid. It argued that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process and the balancing of interests contained several errors. The main issues raised include: 

i) The plant would increase logging pressure at a time when logging volumes are already extremely high and reductions are needed. In Estonia, the LULUCF sector has turned into a CO2 emitter instead of sequestrating due to too high logging volumes.

ii) It would exacerbate the biodiversity crisis and lead to further loss of forest habitats.

iii) It would have a significant climate impact—the factory’s raw materials are associated with at least 2.5 million tonnes of GHG emissions per year. However, this has not been addressed in the SEA report, nor has it been taken into account in decision-making. The report instead gives the impression that the factory would have a solely positive climate impact due to carbon sequestration in wood products, which the complainant argues is in fact marginal. 

iv) The plant would contribute additional pollution and nutrient inflow into the Baltic Sea, which is already in poor ecological condition.

On September 9, 2025, the Tartu Administrative Court in Estonia accepted the Estonian Fund for Nature’s complaint for further proceedings. Estonian Fund for Nature vs. Lüganuse Parish (Pulp Mill Case) (Estonia, Tartu Administrative Court)

United Kingdom: Nigerian individuals seek to hold Shell PLC liable for the environmental damages it caused in Nigeria

First filed in 2015, the claimants in this long-running group litigation are thousands of individuals from the Bille and Ogale communities in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. They allege that operations by Shell PLC and its Nigerian subsidiary caused persistent oil spills, leading to extensive environmental damage, and, consequently, damage to livelihoods. Through the UK courts, the claimants seek to hold Shell liable for environmental harm caused abroad.

The case has been managed under a Group Litigation Order (GLO) since May 2022, and numerous hearings have taken place to deal with case management issues. On the issue of how a claim is proved, the Court of Appeal delivered an important judgment in December 2024. It held that the "global claim" approach (i.e., claimants having to prove that Shell was responsible for all pollution causing the environmental contamination, and if any other sources of pollution contributed to their losses, each claim would fail) was not appropriate — rather, the “lead case” approach should be used: a smaller number of representative claimants would guide the overall litigation. 

Another preliminary issues hearing took place in June 2025, regarding aspects of Nigerian law. The full trial is expected to take place in late 2026. Alame & Ors v Shell (United Kingdom, High Court (King’s Bench Division))

Grenada: Community Challenge in Grenada Reinforces Access to Environmental Information in Climate-Sensitive Coastal Development

On July 17, 2024, the Coral Cove Group, a community organization based in L’Anse aux Épines, Grenada, filed an application for judicial review against the Planning and Development Authority. The application arose from the Authority’s refusal to provide access to planning application materials, including technical plans and environmental information, relating to a proposed boatyard development at Mt. Hartman Bay, a coastal area that is environmentally sensitive and vulnerable to climate-related impacts such as coastal erosion, sea level rise, and increased storm intensity. The Coral Cove Group argued that the denial of access to information undermined meaningful public participation and prevented community scrutiny of a development with potential environmental and climate implications, particularly in light of Grenada’s exposure to climate change and the importance of coastal ecosystem protection for climate resilience.

During proceedings in late 2024, the Planning and Development Authority did not advance a substantive defense in relation to the claim concerning access to information. The court consequently affirmed the right of the Coral Cove Group to obtain the requested planning and environmental documents. While the court did not rule on the substantive legality of the planning permission for the boatyard development, the proceedings underscored the procedural obligations of public authorities to ensure transparency and access to environmental information in development decisions that may affect climate-vulnerable coastal zones.

As of the most recent publicly available information, the case remains ongoing, with no final determination on the underlying planning approval. The matter is considered significant for climate and environmental governance in Grenada, as it reinforces procedural climate justice principles, including access to information, public participation, and accountability in decision-making related to developments that may exacerbate climate risks or undermine local climate resilience. Coral Cove Group vs. Planning Authority (Grenada)

Singapore: NGO sues a power generation company for failing to disclose material information related to climate-related risks regarding issued bond

On February 15, 2023, a whistleblower complaint was submitted by NGO Market Forces to the Singapore Exchange, alleging that JERA Co. Inc. (JERA) failed to disclose material information regarding its US$300 million bond issued on April 14, 2022. The complaint asserted that: 

(1)        JERA failed to disclose risks related to its significant exposure to the LNG value chain and climate transition, such as (i) the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on LNG demand due to volatility and high prices; (ii) JERA’s lack of analysis in demonstrating alignment with the Paris Agreement or risks posed by the IEA's "Net Zero by 2050" scenario; (iii) JERA’s reliance on unproven technologies like ammonia and hydrogen co-firing without disclosing cost assumptions or acknowledging past failures in carbon capture and storage; and (iv) the likely impact on JERA by a rapid transition to renewable energy that may undercut the LNG industry, as JERA’s generation assets are allegedly predominantly gas-fired.

(2)        JERA has not disclosed specific litigation cases, which could have a material effect on JERA’s future financial prospects, thereby preventing investors from making an informed assessment of the company's prospects. Further, JERA has failed on an ongoing basis to disclose developments in litigation proceedings as these developed. 

Market Forces alleges that JERA is in violation of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) (and its subsidiary legislation, Offers of Investments Regulation 2018) and the Singapore Exchange Rulebook Rules 603, 243 and 323. 

As of late 2025, there have been no reports of public disciplinary action by the Singapore Exchange regarding this whistleblower complaint. Singapore Exchange (SGX) Whistleblower Complaint Regarding JERA Bonds (Singapore, Singapore Exchange)

DECIDED CASES

United Kingdom: High Court rejects an application for judicial review against the decision granting a development to produce and store hydrogen 

A group of climate and environmental campaigners (the “claimant”) who oppose Carbon Capture and Storage (“CCS”) in respect of power generation brought a judicial review against the decision by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (SSESNZ). The SSESNZ previously agreed to the grant of consent for the “HyNet Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Storage Project – Offshore” (“the Development”), itself part of a larger project involving hydrogen production, transport and storage (the “HyNet Cluster”). The Development comprises 3 geological gas storage sites in the Liverpool Bay Area beneath the East Irish Sea, and is designed to store 109 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The claimant also challenged the decision of the Second Defendant, the Oil and Gas Authority (trading as the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) to grant consent for the Development. 

The challenge was brought on three grounds: 

i) (a) failure to assess major accidents and disasters (“MAD”) effects and/or (b) a failure to carry out a lawful public consultation, as required under the EIA Regulation;

ii) failure to assess cumulative effects of the Development on climate, as required under the EIA Regulations; and

iii) failure to comply with the requirements of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 (“the Habitats Regulations”).

The High Court, on October 15, 2025, rejected the application for judicial review. It found that: on the first ground, the MAD had been assessed through the EIA process — which EIA legislation “does not impose a standard of perfection”, but rather requires “an adequate basis for public consultation”. On the flooding risk to the terminal, which the Claimant had highlighted, the Court found that the emergency shut down process, which would be in place was “a rational approach”, and that the Secretary of State had made no arguable legal error in relation to it. Moreover, the Court found that the Secretary of State had complied with the consultation requirements. 

On the second ground, the Claimant argued that, to fully assess the Development’s environmental effects and its impact on climate, the cumulative effects of the wider HyNet Cluster needed to be assessed. The Court disagreed, finding that it had to focus on the specific project, the Development; here, consent wasn’t being sought for a “multi-phase scheme”, and the HyNet Cluster was subject to its own EIA requirements, thus its impacts were not to be taken into account in assessing the Development’s own impacts. Moreover, the CO2 emissions deriving from hydrogen production wouldn’t be indirect, secondary, or cumulative effects of the Development, as a matter of causation. 

Regarding the third ground, the Court held that the Secretary of State had “sufficient information to be satisfied that there would be no adverse effects upon the integrity of any relevant protected site”, therefore “it was rational to conclude further consultation with the public was unnecessary.” 

The Court additionally found that the claimant had not acted sufficiently promptly in filing the claim three months after the relevant decision had been made; and would have disallowed the application on this basis. The Claimant has stated it has appealed the decision. R (Hynot Limited) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (SSESNZ) and another(United Kingdom, High Court (King's Bench Division – Planning))

United Kingdom: Court of Appeal finds that a judicial review of granting tariff preferences, with effects on greenhouse gas emissions, falls outside the scope of the Aarhus Convention

Foodrise, an NGO group, brought a judicial review against a decision by the HM Treasury and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The decision at issue gave, under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Pt 1, tariff preferences to Australian imports under a 2021 UK-Australia free trade agreement and the Customs Tariff (Preferential Trade Arrangements and Tariff Quotas) (Australia) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023 No. 195). Foodrise argued that the tariff preferences would likely lead to an increase in beef production in Australia, where beef production methods are more greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive than in the UK, thus increasing GHG emissions substantially and generating “carbon leakage.” Foodrise also successfully applied to the High Court for a costs limit order under Part IX of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) (r 46), arguing the claim was subject to a cost cap under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters ("the Aarhus Convention").

Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, which the UK ratified on 23 February 2005, requires parties to the Convention to ensure that members of the public "have access to administrative or judicial procedures to challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment", which procedures must "provide adequate and effective remedies" and not to be "prohibitively expensive" (Article 9(4)). Under the Aarhus Convention, legal costs for NGOs involved in environmental litigation are capped at £10,000.

At first instance, the High Court judge agreed with Foodrise, finding that the judicial review fell within the scope of Articles 9(3) and 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention given that, although the FTA and the 2018 Taxation Act were not environmental legislation, s. 28 of the Act required the respondents to have regard to international obligations including those under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement on climate change, which directly deals with environmental issues. The government appealed, countering that the claim did not fall under the Aarhus Convention.

On May 13, 2025, the Court of Appeal sided with the government, holding that the judicial review concerned breaches of public law principles and not any breach of national law relating to the environment or environmental law, hence it fell outside the scope of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. Foodrise appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which has granted permission to appeal the decision. The judicial review is stayed pending the appeal. R (on the application of Foodrise Ltd (formerly Global Feedback Limited)) (Appellant) v His Majesty's Treasury and others (Respondents) (United Kingdom, Supreme Court)

United Kingdom: Unsuccessful appeal on the sentencing of ‘Just Stop Oil’ protesters 

Sixteen defendants from four different cases, sentenced for offences committed in connection with Just Stop Oil climate protests between August and November 2022, appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against their custodial sentences. The appellants were sentenced between 15 months to 5 years of imprisonment for conspiring to or actually causing a public nuisance, or for causing criminal damage.

The appellants, supported by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace as interveners, argued that (i)  the sentencing judge in each case erred in declining to reduce the sentences despite the appellants’ conscientious motivation, (ii) the sentences imposed constituted a disproportionate interference with their rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and/or 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), and that (iii) the Aarhus Convention supplements their grounds of appeal. 

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in two cases, reducing the sentencing for some of the appellants, whereas it dismissed the other two appeals. In its judgment of 7 March 2025, the Court of Appeal held that“[t]he correct approach to issues that may arise when sentencing in cases of nonviolent protests, such as conscientious motivation and deterrence, was considered authoritatively in R v Trowland [2023] EWCA Crim 919; [2024] 1 WLR 1164 (Trowland).” In Trowland, the Court had found that  Article 10 and Article 11 protections were “significantly weakened” on the facts of the case – notably by the fact that disruption was the central aim, as opposed to a side-effect, of the protest, and a “stand-out feature” of the case was the protesters’ lack of moderation. In the premises, the court highlighted the appellants’ stated intention to cause as much disruption as possible, by staging protests which, rather than being persuasive, were “on such a scale as to be coercive”; and that the prospect of being sentenced has not been a significant deterrent.

Regarding one of the cases that appeal was dismissed, the court found that the protest had not been “violent”, but nonetheless the penalty was not disproportionate given the category of the offence, involving “damage caused to heritage and/or cultural assets”. Accordingly, on a proportionality assessment, the Court found that the sentences were commensurate with the crimes committed (subject to some adjustments it made in the case of the aforementioned appellants).  The Court also held that it would not have been appropriate for the sentencing judges to have had regard to the Aarhus Convention or the views of the UN Special Rapporteur, which had criticised the Trowland case, as the Aarhus Convention is not incorporated into English law. 

Eleven appellants appealed to the UK Supreme Court, arguing that sentences imposed on them (even as reduced by the Court of Appeal) are disproportionate interference with their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).  On 8 October 2025, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the basis that the application does not raise an arguable point of law. R v Hallam and others (Appellants) (‘Just Stop Oil’ protests case) (United Kingdom, Supreme Court)

France: Court declares the French government to have fully executed its 2017 injunction

This case marks the conclusion of nearly a decade of litigation over France’s failure to comply with EU Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC, which sets binding limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter (PM10).

The applicants initiated the case in 2017, after years of systemic excesses in major French cities. Between 2017 and 2023, the Council of State repeatedly found France in breach of its EU obligations and issued a series of escalating astreintes (financial penalties), reaching €10 million per semester. The Court noted that the government often preferred to pay penalties rather than adopt politically sensitive measures to curb air pollution.

However, in April 2025, the Court considered that France had implemented credible and sufficient measures to achieve compliance, most notably through the mandatory Low Emission Zones (Zones à faibles émissions ZFE) introduced by the Climate and Resilience Law (2021) and expanded in 2024. The Court therefore terminated the astreinte and declared its 2017 injunction fully executed. Friends of the Earth and Others v. France (France, Council of State)

European Union (EU): Court of Justice confirmed that the European Commission must pursue an objective of incentivizing greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the development of benchmarks

This case concerns an appeal (Case C-621/23 P) brought by Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB (“LK”), a Swedish mining company, against a July 26, 2023 judgment of the General Court of the European Union. The General Court had dismissed its action for annulment of Article 1(3) of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/355 (“Decision 2021/355”). The European Commission was the defendant at first instance and the Kingdom of Sweden intervened to support the appeal.

Under the EU ETS Directive, certain industrial installations may receive free allowances based on harmonized benchmarks for their sectors or products. LK challenged Decision 2021/355, which rejected Sweden’s proposal to cover a sub-installation producing iron ore pellets using the benchmark for sintered ore. LK sought annulment of this decision via the General Court and then appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

LK advanced that iron ore pellets are replaceable by sintered ore and therefore should qualify for the same benchmark. The Commission should ensure free allocations to promote the most emission-efficient techniques, which would include pellets. The appellant further argued that the restrictive interpretation violated principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and the duty to state reasons, and potentially violated EU environmental obligations. 

On May 22, 2025, the CJEU rejected the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision. It confirmed that in the context of the development of benchmarks, the Commission must pursue a general objective of incentivising the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible, not having the character of an obligation of result. Furthermore, the Court found that iron ore pellets cannot be considered equivalent to sintered ore for the benchmark, because the production processes and uses differ sufficiently. CJEU therefore held that the Commission provided sufficient reasoning for its decision, with the refusal not violating the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the TFEU. Luossavaara Kiirunavaara AB v. European Commission (European Union, European Court of Justice)

European Union (EU): The European Court of Justice clarifies that Article 263 TFEU remains a legislative matter

Lorenz Kiene and three companies active in the production and distribution of synthetic, carbon-neutral fuels (eFuels) appealed an order of the General Court that had dismissed their action as inadmissible. The appellants challenged Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) 2023/851, part of the EU’s Fit for 55 package, which sets strengthened CO₂ emissions standards for new passenger cars and vans, including a 100% reduction target for 2035, effectively ending sales of new internal-combustion vehicles.

The appellants argued that the regulation unlawfully disadvantages eFuels by focusing only on tailpipe emissions and ignoring lifecycle emissions, thus preventing their fuels from being considered climate-neutral. In May 2024, the General Court rejected their action as inadmissible, holding that the applicants were not individually concerned under Article 263 TFEU because the regulation is a measure of general application affecting all market operators in the automotive and fuel sectors.

The appellants claimed they were individually affected due to their pioneering position and significant investments in the eFuel sector and that rejecting their action left them with no legal avenue to challenge the Regulations. 

The European Court of Justice dismissed the appeal in full. It upheld the General Court’s finding that the applicants were not individually concerned. Their situation was not different from other economic operators affected by the 2035 zero-emission target, such as automotive suppliers. The regulation remains a general legislative measure. It rejected the argument based on Article 47 of the Charter, clarifying that the right to effective judicial protection does not override the Treaty rules on admissibility of direct actions. The court held that since the applicants did not meet the conditions of Article 263 TFEU, their action was correctly dismissed. Kiene and Others v Parliament and Council (European Union, European Court of Justice)

European Union (EU): General Court annulled the European Commission’s decision rejecting a request for an internal review approving the French CSPAC

Two environmental NGOs (ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir) sought an annulment of the European Commission’s decision of May 5, 2023. That decision had rejected their request for internal review of the act by which the Commission approved the French Strategic Plan under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2023–2027 (French CSPAC). The applicants argued that the French PSPAC was incompatible with the essential requirements of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (CAP Regulation), in particular due to manifest errors of assessment regarding the plan's contribution to specific environmental and climate objectives.

The applicants alleged that the Commission had committed several manifest errors of assessment regarding the contribution of the French PSPAC to the achievement of specific objective D in terms of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to long-term national targets, such as the 18% reduction in GHG emissions from the agricultural sector set by the National Low Carbon Strategy (SNBC). The General Court ultimately rejected the arguments based on manifest errors of assessment relating to Objective D, concluding that the Commission had not erred in considering that intervention 32.04 contributed, on a complementary basis, to the objective of reducing GHG emissions.

However, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision of May 5, 2023, in its entirety. It concluded that the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment by rejecting a specific ground in the internal review request. This error concerned the non-compliance of the BCAE 7 standard (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions 7) as implemented by the French CSPAC, which relates to crop rotation. The Court found that the BCAE 7 standard, as set by France, limited the crop rotation obligation to 35% of the crop area and introduced a multi-year rotation alternative, which did not comply with the minimum requirements of Annexe III of Regulation 2021/2115, which requires a crop change at least once per year at the plot level. Since BCAE 7 falls under “environmental law” within the meaning of the Aarhus Regulation, and the Commission’s rejection decision was indivisible (as the review concerned the overall assessment of the CSPAC’s effective contribution), the illegality regarding BCAE 7 led to the annulment of the entire rejection decision. ClientEarth & Collectif Nourrir v. European Commission (European Union, European Court of Justice)