Climate Litigation Updates (January 7, 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 #207

FEATURED U.S. CASES

California Appellate Court Found that Trial Court Erred in Concluding It Lacked Jurisdiction Over Citgo in Municipalities’ Climate Cases

In climate change-based tort lawsuits brought by California municipalities, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order granting Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s (Citgo’s) motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the municipalities’ claims did not arise from or relate to Citgo’s California contacts. The court found that the municipalities demonstrated that Citgo purchased, distributed, and sold fossil fuel products to California consumers via contractual arrangements with other companies, that Citgo promoted the products as Citgo gasoline, and that Citgo “did not include any materials identifying climate-related risks associated with utilizing gasoline.” The appellate court found that “[b]ecause the complaint clearly encompasses claims based upon a duty to warn and asserts that Citgo failed to do so,” the plaintiffs met their burden to demonstrate a connection between Citgo’s California contacts and their claims. The court therefore concluded that specific jurisdiction over Citgo was appropriate. The court also found that Citgo failed to demonstrate that exercise of jurisdiction was unreasonable. In re Fuel Industry Climate Cases (County of San Mateo v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.), No. A172719 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026)

Hawai‘i Trial Court Rejected Fossil Fuel Companies’ Motions to End Honolulu Climate Suit

A Hawai‘i trial court denied motions by fossil fuel companies to dismiss or grant summary judgment to the companies on climate change tort claims asserted by the City and County of Honolulu and Honolulu Board of Water Supply (Honolulu).

The court rejected the companies’ argument that, as a matter of law, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s October 2023 opinion allowing Honolulu to proceed with its lawsuit “expressly limited [Honolulu’s] claims to conduct that occurred in, or that targeted, the State of Hawai‘i.” Based on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court and a footnote in the Supreme Court’s opinion, the court concluded that the Supreme Court understood the scope of Honolulu’s claims, did not geographically limit those claims, and left Honolulu to prove causation at trial.

The court also found that the defendants did not satisfy the requirements for summary judgment on their argument that the statute of limitations barred Honolulu’s claims. Citing Hawai‘i Supreme Court precedent that “summary judgment should not be granted when there is still time for the non-movant to develop evidence for use at trial,” the court found that it “cannot conclude continued discovery efforts would be futile.”

Similarly, the court found that it could not conclude that continued discovery efforts by Honolulu would be futile on issues relevant to defendants’ personal jurisdiction arguments. City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, No. 1CCV-20-0000380 (Haw. Cir. Ct. Jan. 2, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Montana Supreme Court Declined to Exercise Original Jurisdiction to Consider Claims that Post-Held v. State Amendments to Environmental Laws Were Unconstitutional

On December 23, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction to consider the merits of a petition filed 13 days earlier by 13 Montana youth who alleged that 2025 amendments to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Montana Clean Air Act were unconstitutional under the court’s December 2024 ruling in Held v. State. The youth petitioners, who also were plaintiffs in Held v. State, argued in the petition that the 2025 amendments violated their fundamental rights to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution and Held because they “re-blindfold state agencies during MEPA reviews of fossil fuel projects” and unlawfully restrict the prevention and abatement of greenhouse gas air pollution. The petitioners argued that their petition justified an original proceeding before the Montana Supreme Court because (1) it presented an issue of statewide importance due to “ongoing state-wide harms from fossil fuel air pollution,” together with “the high-volume of MEPA reviews” conducted each year; (2) the enactment and implementation of the amendments was “plainly contrary to binding precedent,” including Held; (3) the constitutionality of the amendments presented purely legal questions; (4) “urgent resolution” was required because “every additional ton of GHG emissions emitted as a result of Respondents’ actions exacerbates Petitioners’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries”; and (5) respondents were currently engaged in reviews for large-scale fossil fuel projects and permits and in drafting a “GHG Guidance Document.” The court concluded, however, that the petitioners did not demonstrate why urgency or emergency factors made the normal trial court litigation and appeals process inadequate. The court noted that the petitioners had filed the petition seven months after the amendments took effect. The court acknowledged the petitioners’ argument that development of a factual record was unnecessary due to the factual record already created in Held, but the court found that the petitioners had not addressed why a district court could not address the legal issues “in a timely fashion and permit them to present an appeal in the ordinary course.” Held v. State, No. OP 25-0853 (Mont. Dec. 23, 2025)

En Banc D.C. Circuit to Rehear Challenges to EPA Termination of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants

On December 17, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted petitions for rehearing en banc and vacated its September 2, 2025 decision holding that a federal district court abused its discretion when it granted nonprofit organizations’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a bank that served as the U.S.’s financial agent to continue funding grants awarded to the organizations during the Biden administration under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established by the Inflation Reduction Act. The D.C. Circuit’s December 17 order provided that an April 16, 2025 partial administrative stay was in effect. The court set a schedule for new briefing to be completed on February 17, 2026 and for oral argument to be heard on February 24. Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025)

Hawaii Federal Court Declined to Block State’s Climate Impact Fee from Taking Effect; Ninth Circuit Granted Private Plaintiffs’ and U.S.’s Requests for Injunction Pending Appeal

On December 23, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied motions by cruise industry and local business plaintiffs and by the United States for a preliminary injunction blocking a Hawai‘i law imposing a “climate impact fee” on cruise ship operators. The law—Act 96—extends the State’s transient accommodations tax to cruise ships and also imposes registration and notice requirements. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. On December 4, the court granted the United States’ motion to intervene, finding that the government satisfied the conditions for permissive intervention. In its December 23 decision on preliminary injunction motions filed by the U.S. and by the private plaintiffs and on a motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs’ complaint, the court first concluded that both plaintiff Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)—which is an organization whose members include cruise line brands representing 95% of global cruise capacity—and local business plaintiffs challenging the law had constitutional standing but that the local businesses asserted the rights of third parties and therefore did not have prudential standing. The court also concluded that the United States had standing to bring suit to protect its interest in federal supremacy over interstate maritime commerce. Second, the court concluded that because state mechanisms existed for challenging Act 96’s state tax and county surcharges, the court lacked jurisdiction over CLIA’s claims regarding these provisions under the Tax Injunction Act, though the court concluded that it could retain jurisdiction over CLIA’s challenges to Act 96’s registration fee and notice requirements. The court concluded, however, that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the U.S. claims. Third, the court denied the state defendants’ motion to dismiss the challenges to the registration fee and notice requirements but dismissed the claims against the county defendants, finding that CLIA did not establish that they had anything to do with the registration fee or notice requirements. Regarding the preliminary injunction motions, the court said it could not conclude that CLIA or the federal government were likely to succeed on the merits despite “serious questions” as to whether Act 96’s state tax, county surcharges, and registration fee violate the Constitution’s Tonnage Clause or are preempted by the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884. The court also found that CLIA did not establish a likelihood of success on its First Amendment challenge to Act 96’s notice requirements because the challenge was based on the underlying constitutionality of the tax, surcharges, and fee. Both the U.S. and the private plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed emergency motions for injunctive relief. On December 31, the Ninth Circuit granted the motions and enjoined enforcement of Act 96 pending resolution of the appeals. Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. v. Suganuma, No. 1:25-cv-00367 (D. Haw. Dec. 4 and 23, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Said Issue of Facility Owner’s Obligation to Consider Climate Change Factors Was Question for Trial

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that whether the terms of a permit for a bulk petroleum storage and distribution facility in Providence required consideration of climate change factors was a question of fact to be decided at trial. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing three counts in a citizen suit brought by Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. The defendants had argued that the issuance by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management of a new Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity in 2024 that explicitly imposed climate change-related obligations demonstrated that duties to consider climate change factors did not previously exist. The court concluded, however, that “whether the revised terms clarified a preexisting obligation or instead introduced an entirely new requirement is not a strictly legal exercise.” Instead, the court found that the answer to the question would depend on “facts surrounding regulatory practice, industry expectations, and what conditions were reasonably understood to fall within expected operational parameters of ‘Good Engineering Practices’ and ‘Best Management Practices’ at the time” (which were operative terms for the stormwater pollution prevention plan required by the facility’s permit). The defendants therefore failed to meet the initial burden of demonstrating no genuine dispute of material fact. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US, No. 1:17-cv-00396 (D.R.I. Dec. 23, 2025)

Louisiana Federal Court Certified Class for Constitutional Challenge to Farm Line Conditions at Louisiana State Penitentiary

The federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted a motion for class certification in an action challenging the constitutionality of conditions on the Farm Line at Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as “Angola.” The court characterized the complaint as alleging that incarcerated persons working on the Farm Line “are subject to a risk of increased physical harm due to their extensive and continued exposure to high temperatures and heat indices.” The complaint also includes allegations regarding the intensification of heat exposure due to climate change. The court certified two classes: (1) a “General Class” of all persons incarcerated at Angola who currently are or may in the future be assigned to the Farm Line and (2) an “ADA Subclass” comprising all persons incarcerated at Angola “who have disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities and who currently are, or may in the future be, assigned to the Farm Line.” Trial is set to proceed on February 3, 2026. Voice of the Experienced v. LeBlanc, No. 3:23-cv-01304 (M.D. La. Dec. 23, 2025)

California High-Speed Rail Authority Voluntarily Dismissed Challenge to Federal Funding Termination, Said It Would Seek Private Funding

On December 23, 2025, the California High-Speed Rail Authority voluntarily dismissed its action challenging the Federal Railroad Administration’s decision to terminate federal grant funding for the California high-speed rail program. In a press release issued the same day, the Authority announced that it had “initiated a process to bring private investors and developers to the Authority by summer 2026.” Two weeks earlier the federal district court for the Eastern District of California denied federal defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. The Authority’s complaint described the high-speed rail program as “a crucial part of California’s long-term strategic planning, not only to address critical transportation needs, but also greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, as well as to spur economic growth in California’s Central Valley and across the State.” California High-Speed Rail Authority v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02004 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025) 

Maryland Federal Court Denied Offshore Wind Developer’s Request for Preliminary Injunction Blocking Revocation of Federal Approval

The federal district court for the District of Maryland denied US Wind, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin an alleged federal decision to revoke the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for US Wind’s wind project off the Atlantic Coast of Maryland. The court found that US Wind failed to satisfy the tests for ripeness and final agency action and therefore did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:24-cv-03111 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2025)

Montana Federal Court Granted Fish and Wildlife Service Request for Voluntary Remand of Commercial Livestock Grazing Permits

The federal district court for the District of Montana granted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) motion for voluntary remand without vacatur of Commercial Special Use Permits authorizing commercial livestock grazing in the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Montana. The plaintiffs who challenged the permits opposed remand. Their arguments included that the scope of remand was too narrow because the FWS did not propose to address key issues, including whether the FWS had ignored climate change. WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 9:24-cv-00066 (D. Mont. Dec. 15, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Enjoined FEMA’s Termination of Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts held that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program was unlawful. The court called the BRIC program “the largest pre-disaster mitigation program offered through FEMA.” As a threshold matter, the court rejected the federal government’s arguments that the case was not ripe, that the plaintiff states lacked standing, and that sovereign immunity barred the claims. The court also rejected the federal government’s contentions that there had been no final agency action, that states’ claims addressed action committed to agency discretion by law, and that the states sought to compel agency action not required by law. On the merits, the court first found that the “summary termination (without the implementation of any replacement program through which states and local governments can obtain mitigation funding) undoubtedly qualifies as a substantial reduction of FEMA’s mitigation responsibilities” within the scope of the statutory provision prohibiting FEMA from substantially or significantly reducing its authorities, responsibilities, or functions. Second, the court found that the termination violated the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2024 by redirecting pre-disaster funds to post-disaster relief grant programs. Third, the court found that FEMA had not provided the states with the minimum level of funding mandated by statute. The court declined to address the states’ argument regarding the legality of the appointments of two FEMA officials. The court further found that the states met their burden of showing irreparable harm and established that the balance of hardships and public interest tilted in their favor. The court therefore granted the states’ request for a permanent injunction enjoining cancellation of the BRIC program “as it is currently constituted by an act of Congress.” The court wrote: “In sum, this is not a case about judicial encroachment on the discretionary authority of the Executive Branch. This is a case about unlawful Executive encroachment on the prerogative of Congress to appropriate funds for a specific and compelling purpose, and no more than that.” Washington v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1:25-cv-12006 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Transferred States’ Challenge to Revolution Wind Stop-Work Order to D.C. Court

The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island granted a motion by federal defendants to transfer Rhode Island and Connecticut’s lawsuit challenging a federal stop-work order for the Revolution Wind offshore wind project to federal court in the District of Columbia, where a lawsuit brought by the project’s developer was pending in which the court had already issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the stop-work order. The Rhode Island federal court cited the similarities in the claims and requested relief in the two cases and the potential for inconsistent judgments. In the pending case in the District of Columbia, the project’s developer on January 1, 2026 filed a motion for leave to supplement its complaint to challenge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s December 22, 2025 order suspending work on the project. The court granted the motion on January 2 and set an expedited schedule for briefing of the developer’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Rhode Island v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00439 (D.R.I. Dec. 11, 2025), No. 1:25-cv-04328 (D.D.C.); Revolution Wind, LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-02999 (D.D.C. Jan. 1, 2026)

Montana Federal Court Vacated Approval for Project in Custer Gallatin National Forest but Upheld Climate Change Analysis 

Rejecting in part a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the federal district court for the District of Montana found that the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to comply with NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act in the review of a forest treatment project in the Custer Gallatin National Forest. The court vacated and remanded the environmental assessment and decision notice issued by the Forest Service. The court rejected, however, the plaintiffs’ argument under NEPA that the Forest Service failed to adequately address the cumulative impacts of climate change. The court noted that the Forest Service concluded—based on a project-level carbon analysis that was “tiered” to a 2022 programmatic analysis of carbon sequestration for the Custer Gallatin National Forest Land Management Plan—that the project would result in a short-term release of carbon but would over the long term increase carbon storage and reduce emissions. The court found that the Forest Service’s consideration of cumulative climate change effects was adequate “[g]iven the nature of this Project and the recency and scope of the tiered analysis.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 9:23-cv-00110 (D. Mont. Dec. 11, 2025)

California Federal Court Allowed Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint to Clarify Greenwashing Case Against Sugar Producer

The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted the sugar producer Florida Crystals Corporation’s motion to dismiss a greenwashing class action but granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to clarify her theory of liability. The court found that the first amended complaint’s allegations of deception were related to the defendants’ representations regarding the environmental benefits of particular products but that in opposing the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff focused on her reliance on representations regarding company-wide practices related to the environment, including climate change. The court therefore dismissed the first amended complaint on the grounds that it did not “adequately articulate” the plaintiff’s theory as to how the defendant’s representations were deceptive. The court did not address the defendant’s other grounds for dismissal and denied the motion to dismiss on those grounds without prejudice to the company’s ability to raise them after the plaintiff filed a new complaint. Merrell v. Florida Crystals Corp., No. 5:25-cv-02264 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Ordered Disclosure of Federal Advisory Committee Act Records for Climate Working Group

In a lawsuit challenging the legality of the establishment of the “Climate Working Group” that produced a report on which EPA relied for the proposed rescission of the 2009 Clean Air Act endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ordered federal defendants to produce Federal Advisory Committee Act records by December 22, 2025. The court also ordered the parties to file briefs on the deliberative process privilege by December 15 and to propose a schedule to address remaining issues. The parties’ proposed schedule included briefing in January 2026 on remedies with regard to the Climate Working Group and the U.S. Department of Energy. The parties also requested that the court schedule a hearing on the pending motion to dismiss claims against EPA and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Ruled that Federal Pause on Wind Energy Authorizations Was Unlawful

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that federal agencies’ orders pausing all wind energy authorizations (the “Wind Order”) were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The agencies issued the Wind Order to implement a memorandum issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025. As threshold matters, the court found that both the state plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) had constitutional standing and that their claims were within the zone of interests of the statutory provisions at issue, which set forth timelines and standards for wind energy permitting. On the merits, the court found that the Wind Order was a final agency action subject to judicial review and that it was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act imposing a nondiscretionary duty on agencies to pass upon matters presented to them and to complete any mandated adjudicatory hearings within a reasonable time. The court rejected the agencies’ argument that arbitrary-and-capricious review did not apply because they merely took action as directed by the President. The court vacated the Wind Order in its entirety. New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-11221 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025)

Virginia Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to NEPA Categorical Exclusions Adopted by Forest Service in 2020

The federal district court for the Western District of Virginia concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to a 2020 U.S. Forest Service rule that established three categorical exclusions exempting certain commercial logging projects, road construction, and private uses of national forest lands from NEPA review. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were not ripe for review and that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not tie the categorical exclusions to any site-specific application. The plaintiffs’ allegations included assertions that the exclusions would allow significant climate impacts to occur without analysis. Clinch Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 2:21-cv-00003 (W.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2025)

New York Court Rejected Industry Challenge to State Hydrofluorocarbon Regulations

A New York trial court denied a petition challenging amendments to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) regulations addressing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The court described the amended regulations as including prohibitions on new HFC products and systems, prohibitions on bulk substances and containers, and a variance process. First, the court rejected industry petitioners’ claims that portions of regulations were arbitrary and capricious. Regarding provisions addressing bulk substances, the court found that the record demonstrated that the regulations aligned with federal law and implemented the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) scoping plan, and that DEC acknowledged the requirements were technology forcing and provided a variance process to address feasibility concerns. Regarding prohibitions on regulated substances with 20-year global warming potential (GWP20) greater than 10 or greater than 20 (depending on the application), the court found that the regulations were consistent with the scoping plan and that the record showed DEC considered comments, that the regulation did not require specific alternatives, and that a variance provision was included. Regarding the DEC’s decision to include regulations of “other residential HVAC” that the petitioners alleged did not align with federal and other states’ requirements, the court found that the record explained why EPA and other states might not have yet regulated the technologies and that the regulations were intended to address emerging technologies. Second, the court rejected contentions that DEC failed to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). The court found that DEC substantially complied with SAPA provisions requiring best estimates of the costs of the regulation, consideration of the regulation’s impact on small business, and identification of differences between federal standards and the adopted regulations. Third, the court ruled that DEC acted within its statutory jurisdiction under the CLCPA and other state environmental statutes. Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 903624-25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 22, 2025)

Iowa Court Granted Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Developer’s Request to Remand Permit Challenge to Iowa Utilities Commission

In a proceeding challenging the Iowa Utilities Commission’s (IUC’s) approval of a hazardous liquid pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC’s (Summit’s) pipeline to transport liquefied carbon dioxide through 29 Iowa counties, the Iowa District Court granted Summit’s motion to remand for further proceedings before the IUC. The court found that Summit had “good reason” for failing to present during the IUC proceedings regarding a ban enacted by South Dakota in 2025 (after IUC’s approval of the permit) on use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines enacted by South Dakota. The court also found that the materiality requirement for remand was satisfied due to the route modifications the South Dakota ban would require and their potential influence on IUC’s determination of whether to vest Summit with additional rights of eminent domain. Shelby County v. Iowa Utilities Commission, No. CVCV067849 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Dec. 19, 2025)

Massachusetts Land Court Said Abutting Landowner’s Allegations Regarding Flooding Concerns Established Standing for Challenge to Approval for Single-Family Home Conversion

The Massachusetts Land Court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a special permit and variances for conversion of a single-family home in Winthrop to a two-family home. The court found that the abutting property owner’s allegations regarding potential harms from water deflection and flooding were sufficient to demonstrate standing under the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act, which imposes burdens to affirmatively allege and demonstrate standing on parties challenging certain land use decisions. The plaintiff contended, among other things, that the zoning actions could cause property damage and threaten his personal safety by allowing construction of a two-family home without proper drainage and by directing flooding to the plaintiff’s property “without taking into consideration projections for future sea level rise and useful life of the structure.” Honan v. Baird, No. 23 MISC 000337 (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 8, 2025)

State Trial Court Held that North Dakota Carbon Storage Law Was Unconstitutional

A North Dakota District Court held that a North Dakota law regarding underground carbon dioxide storage provided for a physical taking of property constituting a taking without providing for just compensation. The law provided that if a carbon storage operator did not obtain consent of all persons who own a storage reservoir’s pore space, the North Dakota Industrial Commission could require that the nonconsenting owners be included in a storage facility, with title to the storage facility and the stored carbon transferring to the State upon completion of a carbon capture project. Although the North Dakota law provided for “compensation” to the nonconsenting owners, the court found that it “clearly does not provide ‘just compensation’ as defined in North Dakota.” Northwest Landowners Association v. State, No. 05-2023-CV-00065 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Dec. 2, 2025)

U.S. NEW CASES AND OTHER FILINGS

Lawsuit Challenged FERC Reauthorization of Rio Grande LNG Export Terminal

Two environmental organizations and the City of Port Isabel filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorizations of the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas, and the associated Rio Bravo pipeline project. The petitioners’ primary challenge was to FERC’s order reaffirming its authorization of the projects under the Natural Gas Act on remand from the D.C. Circuit’s 2024 decision in City of Port Isabel v. FERC, in which the court found that FERC failed to adequately analyze climate change and environmental justice impacts. The petition for review challenging the order on remand did not set forth specific arguments, but before FERC the petitioners had argued, among other things, that FERC should have analyzed a potential carbon capture and sequestration system as a connected action and that the projects were contrary to the public interest because they would not provide public benefits that could outweigh health impacts and other harms. South Texas Environmental Justice Network v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 25-1284 (D.C. Cir., filed Dec. 15, 2025)

United States Challenged California Cities’ Natural Gas Bans

The United States filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California challenging two California cities’ ordinances establishing building electrification requirements and banning natural gas infrastructure in certain new construction. The complaint alleged that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted the ordinances adopted by the City of Morgan Hill and City of Petaluma. The U.S. asked the court to declare that the ordinances are preempted and to permanently enjoin enforcement of the laws. United States v. City of Morgan Hill, No. 5:26-cv-00056 (N.D. Cal., filed Jan. 5, 2026)

Developers of Virginia and New York Offshore Wind Projects Challenged Federal Stop-Work Order

The public utility developing the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project and a subsidiary that leases the offshore commercial lease area for the project filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) December 22, 2025 order directing the utility to immediately stop work on the project. The plaintiffs alleged that the BOEM order—which cited “national security threats” as the rationale for the stop-work order—was inconsistent with BOEM’s regulations, with lease terms, with construction and operations plan approvals, and with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The plaintiffs also asserted that the order was arbitrary and capricious, contending that the national security rationale was “not plausible.” They also asserted that the order violated OCSLA, that the order deprived the utility of a property interest without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and that the order violated the Constitution’s Property Clause. The plaintiffs alleged that the order was causing immediate and irreparable harm, including because the wind project was critical to Virginia’s legislative clean energy directive and the utility’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions. Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 2:25-cv-00830 (E.D. Va., filed Dec. 23, 2025)

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the developers of Empire Wind Project offshore Brooklyn filed a lawsuit challenging BOEM’s December 22, 2025 suspension of the Empire Wind Project, which is located on the outer continental shelf approximately 14 miles offshore New York. The developers allege the suspension order is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion; that BOEM acted without observing procedure required by law; and that the order contrary to OCSLA. In addition, the developers asserted that the suspension order violated their right under the Fifth Amendment to due process. Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00004 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 2, 2026)

Sunrise Wind LLC, the developer of an offshore wind project approximately 30 miles east of Long Island, also filed a lawsuit challenging BOEM’s suspension order. The complaint alleged that the order posed an immediate threat to energy, environmental, and public health benefits the project would generate, including achievement of the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. Sunrise Wind LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00028 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 6, 2026) 

Environmental Groups Challenged TVA Approval of Illinois Coal Mine Expansion

Sierra Club and Prairie Rivers Network filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Illinois challenging the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) approval of the expansion of a coal mine in southern Illinois. The complaint alleged that TVA’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was predicated on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of a 2002 lease that granted rights to mine TVA coal reserves and also because the decision “contradicts TVA’s own expressed goals related to carbon emissions and statutory obligations related to environmental protection.” The plaintiffs also asserted that TVA violated the National Environmental Policy Act both because the environmental review was grounded in the allegedly erroneous construction of the lease as requiring TVA to grant the mining authorization and because the environmental review did not consider reasonably foreseeable impacts of the mining company’s continued violations of environmental law. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that TVA did not adequately consider the impacts of potential divestment of TVA mineral rights in southern Illinois, including whether sale of the coal reserves to be burned was consistent with TVA’s decarbonization and environmental protection goals. Sierra Club v. Moul, No. 3:25-cv-02202 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2025)

Grant Recipient Challenged Termination of Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program

An organization that received an approximately $20 million grant under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s purported termination of the entire grant program and refusal to disburse awarded grants. The grant awarded to the plaintiff was for acquisition of land for “a green campus for the community of Norcross”; for offering emergency and clean energy job training; and for services such as air, water, and energy assessment and remediation. The complaint asserted that the federal defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the defendants’ actions exceeded their authority, were contrary to law, and failed to observe required procedures in violation of the APA. The plaintiffs also asserted separate claims that the defendants’ actions were ultra vires and violated separation of powers. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an injunction preventing the defendants from terminating the grant program and from impeding or terminating the plaintiff’s access to awarded funds. Lucky Shoals Community Association, Inc. v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-07221 (N.D. Ga., filed Dec. 17, 2025)

Lawsuits Challenged Trump Administration Suspension of Funding for Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program

Two lawsuits filed in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington challenged U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration actions freezing funds appropriated for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program established by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The IIJA appropriated $2.5 billion to “support changes in the transportation sector that help achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and improve the mobility of passenger and commercial vehicles that employ electric, hydrogen fuel cell, propane, and natural gas fueling technologies across the United States.” One lawsuit was filed by California, 14 other states, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and the District of Columbia (the states). The other was filed by two environmental organizations (Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council) and Climate Solutions, which the complaint described as “a Northwest-based clean energy economy nonprofit.” The states’ lawsuit also challenged DOT and FHWA actions suspending the Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator Program, which also was funded under the IIJA. The states alleged that the defendants “never publicly explained” their actions suspending the programs, which the complaint said had been held in limbo since early in the Trump administration. The states alleged that the failure to obligate funding under the programs constituted an impoundment that violated the separation of powers by contravening constitutional provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Take Care Clause, and the Presentment Clause. The states also asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The states’ complaint included allegations regarding the importance of the funding for the plaintiffs’ climate goals. The nonprofits’ complaint asserted violations of the APA, violation of separation of powers, violation of the Take Care Clause, and ultra vires action. California v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02574 (W.D. Wash., filed Dec. 16, 2025); Climate Solutions v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02578 (W.D. Wash., filed Dec. 16, 2025)

Lawsuit Challenged Reissued Coastal Use Permit for LNG Terminal 

Three environmental organizations challenged the reissuance by the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy’s Office of Coastal Management (OCM) of a Coastal Use Permit for construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the Calcasieu Ship Channel in Cameron Parish. A Louisiana trial court vacated the previously issued Coastal Use Permit in October 2025, finding that OCM violated its regulations, the Louisiana Constitution, and the coastal zone management plan by failing to adequately consider environmental and climate change impacts. In November 2025, OCM published a revised basis of decision and reissued the permit. The organizations alleged that OCM failed to provide notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the permit. The organizations also alleged that the revised basis of decision did not correct the errors identified by the court, including by failing to consider the project’s cumulative climate change impacts. Sierra Club v. Louisiana Department of Conservation & Energy, No. C-1021318 (La. Dist. Ct., filed Dec. 18, 2025) 

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION ADDITIONS TO THE DATABASE

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Europe: European Court of Human Rights reaffirms the limited instances in which violation of rights under Article 2 and 8 can be found

Three Austrian nationals and the environmental organization Global 2000 filed a case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2023 after having exhausted the available domestic remedies. The applicants alleged that the Federal Minister for Digital and Economic Affairs’ refusal to ban the sale of solid fossil fuels from 2025 and of fossil fuels used in aviation from 2040, or to take other equally effective measures to mitigate the effects of climate change, constitutes a violation of their rights under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). One of the applicants, a farmer, additionally alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as her livelihood was in danger due to the droughts caused by climate change.

On December 11, 2025, the ECtHR published its unanimous decision. 

With respect to the allegation under Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, the Court found that the right is violated only when there exists a serious, real, and sufficiently identifiable threat to an individual’s life. The Court considered it doubtful that Article 2 was engaged on the facts of this case.

With respect to the allegation under Article 8, the court first found that the individual applicants do not have proper standing. Applying the criteria from KlimaSeniorinnen, the Court found that the individual applicants have not provided concrete information outlining how they were personally affected, nor have they submitted evidence substantiating the health conditions, to satisfy the particularly stringent victim-status requirements. For the organizational applicant, the Court reached a mixed conclusion on standing after applying the representative-standing criteria from KlimaSeniorinnen. Although it was found that the organization was validly constituted, entitled to act within Austrian jurisdiction, and mandated to work on environmental protection,  the Court questioned whether its statutory purposes included the defense of human rights in the environmental context and whether it represented individuals affected within Austria. The Court left the issue open, however, because the application was held inadmissible on other grounds.

The Court reiterated that Article 8 does not guarantee a right to the specific measure sought by the applicants, namely a prohibition on the sale of fossil fuels. It stressed that, in light of the subsidiarity principle and the broad margin of appreciation afforded to States in determining how to pursue their climate objectives, Article 8 cannot be interpreted as obliging a State to adopt any particular mitigation measure under a sectoral legal framework of an applicant’s choosing (para. 33). The Court also held that the applicants had failed to adequately demonstrate how Austria had neglected to establish an appropriate regulatory regime. Although the government acknowledged that existing policies were insufficient to ensure compliance with its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets, the Court considered this insufficient for the applicants to substantiate their claims. It also noted that the applicants had not pursued available domestic remedies beyond requesting action from the Federal Ministry, nor had they argued that effective remedies were lacking.

Finally, with respect to the additional allegation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the right to property, the Court observed that it had not previously applied the article in the climate context and that existing case law did not support its applicability (para. 37). It added that, even assuming the provision could apply to climate-related impacts, the third applicant would not meet the victim-status requirement. Fliegenschnee et al. v. Austria (European Court of Human Rights)

DECIDED CASES

New Zealand: Court upholds local council’s decision to grant a mining company access to a commercial forestry land for assessing viability of coal mine extension

In April 2021, Southland District Council (Council) granted access to Ohai Commercial Forest, a commercial forestry land owned by the Council, to Bathurst Resources Limited (BRL) for the purpose to assess the viability of extending an existing coal mine in Southland. Forest & Bird challenged the Access Decision on eight grounds, arguing, in essence, that the Council erred in assessing the significance of the Access Decision under the Local Government Act 2002 and in deciding without public engagement or consultation. 

New Brighton Collieries Ltd (NBC), BRL’s wholly owned subsidiary that would have operated the coal mine, applied to strike out the decision in the High Court, including on the ground that the access permit did not permit any commercial mining of coal. Any future mining required a separate mining permit by the Crown, as well as a publicly notified resource consent process under the Resource Management Act 1991. Associate Judge Johnson of the High Court, on November 4, 2021, declined to rule on the strike-out application and directed that it be heard with the substantive judicial review application. 

On March 6, 2023, Justice Osborne of the High Court declined the substantive application, also declining to accept Forest & Bird’s categorisation of the Access Decision as a “climate change” decision. The court also explained that there was a meaningful distinction to be drawn between the Council making a decision under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 as a private landowner, compared to it making a decision as a regulatory body under the Resource Management Act 1991. The Court also found that Forest & Bird’s logic fell short because the Council’s granting access was not identical to approving coal mining expansion. 

Forest & Bird appealed, maintaining that the Council’s decision was unreasonable and that, in light of the climate change context, the courts should apply a “heightened scrutiny” standard of review. A bench consisting of Justices Katz, Mallon, and Ellis from the Court of Appeal, on July 16, 2025, however, dismissed the appeal. The decision was largely based on the fact that by the time of the hearing in the High Court, NBC had completed its exploration activities and made no resource consent application. There had also been legislative amendments repealing sections 104E and 70A of the Resource Management Act 1991, which now allows local authorities to consider greenhouse gas emissions in exercising their resource consenting and rule-making functions. The Court of Appeal held that the issue was moot at the time of the first hearing and so, given these material changes, any grant of declaratory relief would be empty. The Court of Appeal also held, as the High Court did, that while granting access may have opened the first “door,” doing so does not mean that the subsequent “doors” will also be open, or even tried. Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Southland District Council (New Zealand, Court of Appeal)

New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal grants visa based on the economical and psychological hardship stemming from climate change

From 2023 to 2025, multiple citizens of Tuvalu, a low-lying independent island nation in the South Pacific, appealed against their deportation liability when their presence in New Zealand became unlawful. Although the contents of the humanitarian appeal slightly varied, all appellants argued that the challenging circumstances they would face on returning to Tuvalu is inhumane. 

Except in a single instance, the Tribunal granted temporary or resident visas, noting the intense effects of climate change in Tuvalu. The Tribunal acknowledged the intensified water insecurity and reduced food availability stemming from climate change, finding that the effects of climate change can adversely affect the enjoyment of basic human rights. The Tribunal, in multiple appeals, also accepted arguments on psychological and/or mental health impacts, based on the concerns about children due to climate disasters. 

However, in Carlton v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, an appeal by a 29- and 25-years-old couple, the Tribunal, while acknowledging climate change “as raising concerns that are humanitarian in nature,” did not find the circumstances to be “well outside the normal run of circumstances.”

Visa/Residency Granted:

Taeka v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

BZ (Tuvalu) v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment(New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

Timaio v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

BS (Tuvalu) v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment(New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

Re Limoni (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

Maaloo v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment(New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

BM (Tuvalu) v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

Isala v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

Appeal Rejected:

Carlton v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal considers climate change in deciding refugee status 

Refugee status was granted to a citizen of Somalia after the appellant appealed a refugee and protection officer’s decision to decline to do so. The Tribunal found that the appellant was likely to face a tapestry of harms that cumulatively reached the threshold of serious harm.

Part of the Tribunal’s consideration centered on climate insecurity, with Somalia ranking seventh among the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. The Tribunal, relying on a report from the International Crisis Group, noted that while droughts and climate change did not create Al-Shabaab or cause Somalia’s instability, they have shaped the environment in which the conflict is taking place and influenced the militant group’s tactics and evolution. The Tribunal found, based on the report, that climate change and conflict are increasingly intertwined, and Al-Shabaab is exploiting climate threats and emergencies. AX (Somalia) v Refugee and Protection Officer (New Zealand, Immigration and Protection Tribunal)

New Zealand: Court of Appeal acknowledges that climate change may cause arbitrary deprivation of life 

A citizen of Kiribati claimed that deportation would expose him to persecution or cruel treatment, partly due to the negative impacts of climate change on his safety and well-being. One issue the courts faced was whether, for the purposes of the Refugee Convention, the Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a yardstick of time is necessary to assess the real chance of harm from climate change. On appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted that the issue could give rise to a seriously arguable question of law of general or public importance. 

Simultaneously, however, the Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that even if a specific timeframe or yardstick was implemented to assess the real chance of an arbitrary deprivation of life as a result of climate change, such a deprivation was unlikely to be found. It agreed with the Tribunal’s acceptance that although climate-change hazards could give rise to a Convention or ICCPR ground, on the evidence, this was not established. AW (Kiribati) v Refugee and Protection Officer (New Zealand, Court of Appeal)

New Zealand: Gas company voluntarily withdraws online advertisement after complaints on greenwashing were filed

Gas company Clarus withdrew its online advertisement after two separate complaints were filed to the Advertising Standards Authority for greenwashing.

The advertisement at issue showed a photo of a family in a kitchen making pancakes with the text “Renewable gas now flowing – Enjoy all the same benefits of gas with renewable gas. Learn more.” Both complaints filed against this advertisement argued that the claim of “renewable gas” was misleading and a form of greenwashing, violating the Advertising Standards Code Principle 2, Rule 2(b) (Truthful Presentation) and Rule 2(h) (Environmental Claims).

The first complaint argued that the claim was deceptive because Clarus’s gas was not fully renewable, but rather blended with fossil fuels. It argued that this fact was not clearly disclosed to the public and that the public might assume they were purchasing a completely green product. The complainant also pointed out that current gas appliances are not designed to run on entirely renewable gas. The second complaint went further, challenging the environmental basis of the claim by stating that methane gas, even if considered renewable, is demonstrably worse for the climate than coal when whole-of-life emissions are considered. It noted that the very small amounts of leakage (<0.2%) make it environmentally detrimental. 

The Chair of the Complaints Board ultimately ruled the matter as Settled. This decision was based on the fact that Clarus, the Advertiser, was co-operative with the self-regulatory process and removed the advertisement after receiving the complaints. The Chair concluded that no further purpose would be served by placing the matter before the Complaints Board. Clarus [2025] NZASA 23 (New Zealand, Advertising Standards Authority Complaints Board)

Brazil: Court found no fault in climate-related protest based on freedom of expression and the need to discourage environmentally unsustainable practices

JBS S.A. (JBS), a Brazilian multinational meat and meat product producer, filed a suit against Greenpeace Brazil (Greenpeace) and World Animal Protection Brazil (WAP) for trademark infringement and trespassing at its headquarters. This took place after the two organizations each held protests against the company, including a demonstration by Greenpeace at JBS headquarters.

On August 26, 2025, a judgment of Judge Valdir da Silva Queiroz Junior was issued. The judgment partially upheld JBS’s claim and confirmed its preliminary order that the defendants refrain from carrying out further invasions of the plaintiff’s property. The judgment deemed the other allegations unfounded and affirmed the right to freedom of expression. The reasoning for the decision highlighted the following: 

(i) There exists a duty to preserve and protect the environment for present and future generations, to which follows a need to discourage unsustainable practices.

(ii) No offense to the plaintiff’s honor or image was established, as the defendants acted within the limits of freedom of expression, basing themselves on facts and public news. Publicizing the plaintiff's activities in the agricultural sector—emphasizing the emission of polluting gases and deforestation resulting from the activities—was also supported by Article 225 of the Constitution, which underscores the commitment made between companies, public authorities, and civil society to adopt measures to reduce pollution and deforestation. 

(iii) The protests were carried out individually and peacefully.

(iv) The right to exclusive use of the trademark is not absolute and must be subject to the exceptions provided for in the Industrial Property Law and to the balance with the constitutional values of freedom of expression. JBS vs. Greenpeace and WAP (Inhibition of environmental and climate protests) (Brazil, Sao Paulo State Court)

New Zealand: High Court upholds government’s decision to ban issuing permits for mining of petroleum in certain regions

Greymouth Gas Turangi (Greymouth), a company active in the exploration of hydrocarbons and the mining of such resources, sought a judicial review against an Oil and Gas Ban made by the prime minister of energy and resources. The Prime Minister, on April 12, 2018, had announced that there would be a ban on issuing any permits for exploration or mining of petroleum products in all offshore regions of New Zealand (Oil and Gas Ban), with the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to be amended as such. The Prime Minister also announced the terms for the invitation to bid for the 2018 block offer, which excluded potential offshore areas in Taranaki, unlike the prior years’ offers. Greymouth also sought to review a decision by the delegate of the Minister of Energy and Resources, which, before the Oil and Gas Ban was announced, declined an uncontested bid for a petroleum exploration permit (PEP) off the Taranaki coast. 

In High Court, the decision was quashed by consent, based on the decision-maker’s breach of procedural fairness and commission of errors of fact and law in evaluating Greymouth’s compliance history. 

Turning to the challenge to the Oil and Gas Ban, at issue was whether the Executive took the right steps in announcing the new ban. Greymouth argued that the steps between the announcement of the Ban and when the Ban came into force were inconsistent with the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Greymouth further argued that the rationale for the policy change was to advance climate change concerns, which is extraneous to the Act’s purposes, and that a division of Executive responsibilities explicitly required such concerns to be managed elsewhere. 

The Court declined these arguments. The court first found that the Prime Minister’s announcements have not relied on the powers in the Crown Minerals Act. Instead, they foreshadowed administrative action that was to ensue later. On Greyhound’s second argument, the Court noted that while “[i]t is tolerably clear that the ban on offshore prospecting was motivated in large part to address climate change policies, quite discretely from the management of Crown minerals,” that “[t]he status of that policy aspiration was not a matter to which the government could be committed prospectively: subject to not governing by executive fiat, separation of policies on the management of Crown minerals from issues such as climate change policy was a matter that could be revisited and for which the government would answer, if at all, at the ballot box.” The court held that the alleged inconsistency between the actual purpose and the Act’s purpose cannot add anything to the case’s ground of challenge. Greymouth Gas Turangi Ltd v Minister of Energy and Resources (New Zealand, High Court)

Brazil: Federal District Court partially grants requests urging federal agencies to further mitigate greenhouse gas emissions

On July 6, 2023, three NGOs filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against Federal Union, the State of Rio Grande do Sul, and several federal and state agencies, including: the Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA), National Electric Power Agency (ANEEL), Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (SE & UTE Cantiota III), Rio Grande do Sul environmental agency (FEPAM), and Companhia Riograndense de Mineração (CRM). 

The plaintiffs alleged that (i) the federal and state government, by action or omission, failed to comply with the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the Paris Agreement, and the Rio Grande do Sul’s Policy on Climate Change (PGMC); (ii) the agencies have neglected climate policy when dealing with the licensing and renewal of licenses for these projects in the state; (ii) the Federal Government has encouraged coal-fired thermoelectric projects through energy auctions authorized by ANEEL; and (iv) CRM and CGT Eletrosul have been each operating a coal mine and thermoelectric Plant in disregard of environmental climate laws. Plaintiffs argued that it is up to the Judiciary, based on the principle of the prohibition of regression and duties of protection, to guarantee effective compliance with the rules in question and to prevent the climate scenario from worsening. They also argued that the entire situation of alleged unlawfulness gives rise to a claim for compensation for collective moral damages. 

Based on their allegations, plaintiffs made several requests for relief, so that the defendants’ conduct is brought into line with the environmental climate standards. Alongside requests for preliminary injunctions, plaintiffs sought declaration by the governments of their faults, an implementation of a Just Energy Transition plan for the contested plants, compensation for climate damages, and payment of collective moral damages.

The request for injunctive relief was rejected by the judge, who ruled that the analysis of the claims would require a more in-depth hearing. The judge held that the plaintiffs’ claims were too broad and had high economic, political, and social impacts. In addition, however, the judge recognized that the effects of climate change are recognized by the international community, that the process of adaptation by countries is slower than desirable, and climate change could cause irreversible damage to the environment and future generations.

On August 22, 2025, a ruling partially granting the requests was made. Classifying the claim as a structural climate case, the decision carried out a conventionality control based on Advisory Opinion OC 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). It also used pronouncements from the Federal Justice Council (CJF) and Precedent 618 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to reverse the burden of proof. The decision highlighted scientific and legal bases for the decision, such as: reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, studies from the World Meteorological Organization, and reports from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In evaluating these sources, it recognized that the IPCC considers coal to be the fossil fuel with the highest CO2 emissions. It analyzed the consequences of climate change in Rio Grande do Sul based on studies of the impacts of rainfall that hit the state. 

Regarding the licensing of the Candiota III Mine and Thermal Power Plant, the court understood that, at the time of the licenses (2011 and 2016), “there was a prevailing understanding that Brazilian emission reduction targets had a voluntary character,” granting discretion to the licensing authority. Thus, it dismissed the initial illegality of the operations. 

The Court, however, considered that currently, in a “third phase” of the climate legal regime, “substantial limitations are emerging and consolidating” that impose the assessment of climate impact in the licensing process. This understanding was based on the provisions of the PGMC (State Policy on Climate Change) and Decree 56.347/2022, foreign cases, and advisory opinions from international courts. Therefore, it ordered the immediate suspension of the licenses until these conditions are included, extending this to other similar projects in Rio Grande do Sul. The court also understood that IBAMA and FEPAM should take measures to deepen the climate impact analysis of other coal-fired projects in the state, recognizing that climate assessment during licensing is already mandatory for future coal-fired thermoelectric and coal-fired power plants. Regarding the Energy Transition Plan, the decision stated that “postponing the definition of the mitigation trajectory” for such a polluting sector “is unconstitutional and currently incompatible with advisory opinions,” requiring the State to develop it. Concerning social participation in licensing, it decided that, under Brazilian environmental law, IBAMA must ensure due access to information on thermoelectric licensing procedures and that Rio Grande do Sul should increase the participation of members of civil society and the scientific community in the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change (FGMC). 

Regarding requests for civil liability for damages, it considered that the occurrence of environmental damage had not been demonstrated. Concerning climate damage, it considered that emissions were formally authorized until the present decision. The court based its decision on the National Council of Justice’s (CNJ) Protocol for Judgment on Environmental Actions, which requires the illegality of GHG emissions for damages be granted by the judiciary. Therefore, it found that neither the claim for civil liability for climate damage nor the claim for collective moral damages was admissible. However, it stated that, based on the sentence, there is no permission for the continued emissions by the enterprises. Furthermore, it considered that the declaration of a “State of Climate Emergency” does not fall within the purview of the Judiciary. 

Conclusively, the Court ordered IBAMA and FEPAM to (i) suspend the operating licenses of the Candiota III Plant and the Candiota Mine, respectively, for non-compliance with the guidelines of the PNMC, PGMC, and State Decree 56.347/2022; (ii) include climate conditions in the operating licenses of the plant and the mine, respectively, including scope 3 emissions; and (iii) to include in the Terms of Reference for licensing thermal power plants and coal mines in Rio Grande do Sul the assessment of the climate component, including scope 3 emissions. It also ordered the Union and Rio Grande do Sul to present, by January 31, 2026, a Just Energy Transition Plan for the state's mineral sector; it ordered Rio Grande do Sul to promote the adjustment of the composition of the members of the FGMC, increasing the participation of civil society and the scientific community. Hearings were scheduled to monitor the measures determined in the judgment and set fines in case of non-compliance.

The case is currently on appeal, with the stay of execution of the appeal granted upon the defendants’ request. The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region suspended all orders for immediate or time-limited compliance with the judgment or the motions for clarification, as well as for compliance through inspection hearings and compliance with court orders and auxiliary judicial expertise. Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Climate emergency in Rio Grande do Sul state) (Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul Federal Court)

United Kingdom: Court of Appeal sets precedent on how the Environmental Principles Policy Statement should be applied

Campaigning NGO Rights Community Action applied for judicial review of a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) released in December 2023. The Statement advised that local planning authorities should not set energy-efficiency standards for new buildings that exceed those contained in current or forthcoming Building Regulations. The claimant argued that local authorities should be able to impose higher energy efficiency standards to reduce GHG emissions from buildings. The government, on the other hand, claimed that differing local standards create complexity and cost, undermine economies of scale, and could adversely affect housing supply.

The claimant challenged the lawfulness of the WMS on three grounds that (i) the Secretary of State failed to fulfill his duty to have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement (EPPS) under the Environment Act 2021 § 19(1); (ii) the WMS unlawfully purported to restrict the exercise by local authorities of statutory powers under the Planning and Energy Act 2008 § 1 and under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 § 19; and (iii) it misrepresented the legal position of decision-makers, particularly planning inspectors.

On July 2, 2024, the High Court rejected all grounds of challenge on which the claimants appealed. 

On appeal, the core issue was whether the Secretary of State had complied with the environmental principles duty in section 19 of the Environment Act 2021 (s.19 EA 2021). The claimant argued that the Secretary of State had failed to have “due regard” to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement (EPPS) when the WMS was adopted in December 2023, and that a later assessment carried out in February 2024 could not retrospectively cure that failure. The claimant also separately argued that the WMS unlawfully restricted local authorities’ statutory powers to set higher local energy-efficiency standards under the Planning and Energy Act 2008.

In July 2025, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. On the first claim under s.19 EA 2021, while the Court agreed that there was a failure to have regard to the EPPS at the moment of WMS adoption, the Court held that this defect could subsequently be cured by a legally adequate assessment undertaken in February 2024. The Court emphasized that s.19 imposes a procedural duty, which requires that the policy-making process as a whole demonstrate due regard, not at a single, fixed point in time. This case was the first time that s.19 EA 2021 was considered in court. On the second claim challenging the lawfulness of the WMS itself, the Court held that the WMS does not override the statutory powers of local planning authorities under the Planning and Energy Act 2008. As such, local planning authorities remain entitled to adopt local plan policies that require higher energy efficiency standards, but only where such departures are supported by local circumstances and viability evidence. 

The claimants have applied to the UK Supreme Court for permission to appeal. R (Rights: Community: Action Limited) v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (United Kingdom, England and Wales Court of Appeal)

Germany: Court of First Instance finds a breach of duty of care by not adapting land planning tools to increase measures to mitigate climate change

The Court of First Instance of Brussels, on October 29, 2025, held that the Brussels-Capital Region had failed its duty of care in the face of climate change by not adapting its land-use planning tools to increase the territory’s capacity to capture carbon or by not adapting the city to combat the risks of flooding and heat islands. The court ordered the Brussels-Capital Region to suspend the urbanization and sealing of undeveloped sites and land exceeding 0.5 hectares within its territory until its official Regional Land Use Plan (Plan Régional d’Affectation du Sol) is adopted, and in any case by December 31, 2026. The court found that the Region was at fault for continuing to authorize real estate projects on undeveloped sites larger than 50 acres based on outdated regulations adopted before climate issues were recognized.

This decision is subject to appeal but is provisionally enforceable during any subsequent legal proceedings. We Are Nature.Brussels and others v. Brussels-Capital Region (Belgium, Brussels Court of First Instance)

NEW CASES

United Kingdom: Unincorporated association brings a judicial review against the grant to expand London Luton Airport

Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (“LADACAN”), an unincorporated association constituted to oppose the expansion of Luton Airport, brought a judicial review against the Secretary of State’s decision to grant development consent to the expansion of London Luton Airport. This decision was taken in spite of the recommendation of planning inspectors that permission should not be granted. 

The following grounds of challenge were brought and will be considered in the High Court: 

(i) There was an error in law in that greenhouse gas emissions from inbound flights were excluded from the environmental impact assessment (EIA); 

(ii) There was a lack of consistency in approach between the Luton Airport decision and the process for approving Gatwick Airport’s expansion;

(iii) There was an error of law in that the likely significant impacts of non-carbon dioxide emissions were excluded from the environmental impact assessment;

(iv) There was an error of law in concluding that the government’s duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 to adopt policies and procedures to help reach net zero was a ‘pollution control regime’; and

(v) There was a failure to comply with duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which require that developments in an area of outstanding national beauty must seek to further the conservation and natural beauty of the area. High Court challenge to Luton Airport expansion (United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice)

Germany: Constitutional challenge brought against the amended Federal Climate Protection Act

In 2024, two NGOs, several youth complainants, and over 50,000 supporters filed a new constitutional complaint challenging Germany’s amended Federal Climate Protection Act (Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG). Building on the Federal Constitutional Court’s landmark climate ruling of March 24, 2021 in Neubauer and the European Court of Human Rights’ April 2024 confirmation of robust legislative climate duties in Klimaseniorinnen, they argue that the 2024 KSG violates their fundamental rights.

The complaint targets the Second Act Amending the KSG, in force since July 17, 2024. The amendment replaces binding, sector-specific annual emissions caps and mandatory “immediate action” programs with a cross-sector, multi-year control system based on projections of cumulative emissions for 2021–2030 (and later 2031–2040). Corrective action is triggered only if those aggregate totals are projected to be exceeded. There is no meaningful steering for the period after 2030 and no mechanism at all after 2040. 

The complainants allege that the new framework delays mitigation and structurally shifts reduction burdens onto future generations. They further argue that the KSG allows total emissions that exceed Germany’s remaining Paris-compatible CO₂ budget under Article 20a of the Basic Law (GG). The German Advisory Council on the Environment estimates that the 1.75°C-based budget of 3.9 Gt CO₂ would be exhausted by 2033 under current law, and that the 1.5°C budget is already spent. Even these insufficient targets are unlikely to be met, as recent emissions reductions stem mostly from economic slowdown rather than structural climate policy. The Council of Experts on Climate Issues projects continued shortfalls, including in meeting EU Effort Sharing Regulation obligations.

Based on the Federal Constitutional Court’s climate jurisprudence, the complaint alleges that Germany must adopt a Paris-compatible emissions pathway, initiate reductions early enough to avoid a future “emergency brake,” and distribute mitigation burdens fairly across generations. The complainants contend that the 2024 KSG violates the climate protection mandate in Article 20a GG, the intertemporal protection of liberty under Article 2(1) GG in conjunction with Article 20a, and state duties to protect life and health under Article 2(2) GG. They also invoke the European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires Paris-aligned targets, credible pathways, and effective enforcement—elements the new KSG allegedly fails to provide.

In August 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court invited the federal government, several ministries, and expert bodies to submit observations. The German Advisory Council on the Environment has already provided its opinion. A decision from the Federal Constitutional Court is expected in 2026. Greenpeace e.V. and Germanwatch e.V. v. Germany (Challenge on amended Federal Climate Protection Act) (Germany, Federal Constitutional Court)

Germany: Constitutional complaint brought against a continued legislative failure to adopt effective climate measures in transport sector

In September 2024, two NGOs, joined by five low-income individuals dependent on private mobility—four in rural areas with poor transit access and one with a disability—filed a constitutional complaint against a continued legislative failure to adopt effective climate measures in Germany’s transport sector. Building on the Federal Constitutional Court’s landmark climate ruling of March 24, 2021 and the European Court of Human Rights’ April 2024 confirmation of robust legislative climate duties, the complainant argues that government inaction violates fundamental rights.

Complainants argue that further delays in legislation will force drastic future restrictions such as driving bans and prohibitive CO₂ prices, disproportionately harming those unable to shift to public transport or electric vehicles. The complaint highlights years of missed transport-sector targets and the minister’s failure to produce lawful “immediate action” programs, such as the 2024 amendment to the Climate Protection Act, which eliminated binding sector targets and sector-specific remedies, easing pressure on transport. The complaint also pointed to the projections by the Environment Agency and the Council of Experts, which show that any apparent progress relies on other sectors compensating for large transport deficits. By 2040, Germany is projected to overshoot its pathway, with millions of combustion cars still on the road and no feasible plan for climate-neutral operation. Germany is also likely to miss EU Effort Sharing targets, while the 2027 ETS 2 may cause steep CO₂ price spikes and major social impacts.

The complainants argue that inaction consumes the remaining Paris-compatible CO₂ budget and pre-determines severe future restrictions on freedom. Scenario analysis shows that delay until 2030 would require unrealistically rapid emissions cuts. They also allege intertemporal and social inequality, as burdens fall hardest on those least able to pay. Complainants claim that only immediate, concrete measures in transport (or, subsidiarily, across sectors) can protect their constitutional and human rights and that improving the legal framework alone is insufficient. Greenpeace e.V. and Germanwatch e.V. v. Germany (Failure to adopt effective climate measures in transport sector) (Germany, Federal Constitutional Court)

Estonia: NGO challenged amendments to shale oil extraction permits based on failure to assess indirect climate impact and impact to wildlife

MTÜ Loodusvõlu, the legally registered NGO of Fridays for Future Estonia, challenged an amendment to a permit which allowed companies to extract increased amounts of shale oil. The permit, originally issued in 2019, granted Enefit Industry AS and Osaühingu VKG Kaevandused permission to extract shale oil, a coal-like fossil fuel, at the Uus-Kiviõli sites until 2049. In October 2025, the Board amended the permits to increase the quantity of oil shale mined to a total of 15 million tonnes a year, or a 2.5-fold increase. 

MTÜ Loodusvõlu claimed that in making the amendment, the Board had failed to assess the indirect climate impact of increased mining, caused by increased downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the processing of oil shale. Additionally, they claimed that the Board also inadequately assessed the impacts of increased mining on nearby wetlands and wildlife, including species and sites protected under the EU Bird Directive and Habitat Directive. The Tallinn Administrative Court accepted the case and designated the Environmental Board as the defendant. Fridays for Future Estonia vs. Environmental Board (Oil Shale Mining Case) (Estonia, Tallinn Administrative Court)

France: Citizens sue the government for failing to address climate risks

In June 2025, 14 French citizens affected by climate-related events, supported by Greenpeace France, Notre Affaire à Tous, and Oxfam France, filed a lawsuit against the French State before the Council of State (Conseil d’État). The plaintiffs challenge the insufficiency of the third National Adaptation Plan to Climate Change (PNACC 3). Earlier, in April 2025, the plaintiffs had submitted a preliminary request (requête préalable) to the government, asking for more ambitious adaptation measures, but was left unanswered.

According to the plaintiffs, the plan lacks binding obligations, dedicated funding, and rigorous monitoring. It does not adequately address climate risks and overlooks social and territorial inequalities, particularly in overseas territories, disadvantaged neighborhoods, and among already vulnerable populations (low income, disability, etc.).

The plaintiffs request that the State revise PNACC 3 so it becomes a binding, well-funded, and closely monitored adaptation strategy. They demand concrete measures in key risk areas, including flood prevention and management, water access and quality, housing and infrastructure safety (including soil instability), heatwave protection, support for vulnerable populations, policies supporting overseas territories and marginalized populations, and agricultural and rural adaptation. They also seek structural reforms to ensure that adaptation is systemic and equitable.

The case draws on the constitutional duty to protect the environment (Charte de l’environnement), as well as international and European obligations, including climate law and human rights instruments. The suit asserts that the State has a general obligation to adapt to climate change and ensure protection for all citizens, including the most vulnerable. The Case of the Century 2025: Greenpeace France, Notre affaire à tous et Oxfam vs France (France, Council of State)

Germany: Environmental NGO challenges the federal government’s climate protection program as failing statutory obligations

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) filed a lawsuit against the federal government in the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, alleging that the government’s climate protection program lacked sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally mandated emissions reduction targets. In May 2024, the Higher Administrative Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the program was insufficient to meet the binding climate targets established under the Climate Protection Act. The federal government appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig.

On October 22, 2025, the Federal Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for January 29, 2026, to decide the federal government’s appeal in the final instance. DUH maintains that the federal government has still not presented a program capable of achieving the legally mandated climate targets for 2030 and 2040, arguing that the government must specifically identify which measures will reduce CO₂ emissions and by what amount. The organization contends that vague declarations of intent and measures with unclear climate benefits are inadequate to fulfill statutory obligations. The federal government is currently negotiating a new climate protection program that must be adopted by March 2026 at the latest, and any judgment from the Federal Administrative Court would directly influence the formulation of this program. DUH v. Federal Government (Germany, Federal Administrative Court)

Türkiye: Olive producers challenge the Council of State on the constitutionality and legality of a Mining Law amendment

In August 2025, 77 olive producers from the Milas and Yatağan districts of Muğla Province filed a joint lawsuit at the Turkish Council of State challenging the constitutionality and legality of Law No. 7554, which amended the Mining Law to permit the conversion of designated olive groves into open-pit coal mines for nearby thermal power plants.

Primary Question:

Is Provisional Article 45 of the Mining Law (Law No. 7554), which permits uprooting and relocation of olive groves for mining, unconstitutional under the Turkish Constitution?

Sub-questions:

1.         Did the Ministry of Energy unlawfully implement the law through an improperly prepared regulation circumventing environmental protections?

2.         Do the mapped and targeted olive groves enjoy constitutional protection as agricultural, environmental, or property assets?

3.         Should execution of the contested regulation be suspended to prevent irreversible environmental damage pending judicial review?

The plaintiffs argue that:

•           Provisional Article 45 of the Mining Law violates the Constitution, property rights, and environmental protections.

•           The law targets specific parcels and operators (Yatağan TEP / YK Enerji), violating the constitutional principle of generality of law.

•           The Ministry of Energy’s implementing regulation was unlawful.

The plaintiffs request:

•           Referral to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review under Article 152 of the Constitution.

•           Suspension of execution of the regulatory act. They request that the enforcement or implementation of the contested regulatory act be suspended until the Constitutional Court issues its decision, to prevent potential ongoing harm.

•           Annulment: They request that, following the oral proceedings, the contested regulatory act be annulled.

Standing and Environmental Rights

The plaintiffs argue that as olive producers on the affected lands, they have standing because the administrative act directly threatens their environmental rights. They cite domestic and international sources, including:

•           1972 Stockholm Declaration (right to live in a dignified environment; duty to protect natural resources for present and future generations)

•           Turkish Constitution Articles 17, 36, 56

•           Environmental Law Article 30 (allowing citizens to challenge administrative acts threatening the environment)

•           European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 (linking the right to life to the right to a healthy environment)

Constitutional and Environmental Violations

The plaintiffs contend that the law authorizing the clearance of olive groves contravenes Article 56, which guarantees the right to a healthy and balanced environment. Olive trees provide economic value and critical ecological functions such as carbon sequestration, soil erosion prevention, and biodiversity habitat. Destroying these groves for coal mining would harm local communities’ rights to clean air, water, and soil and disrupt regional ecological balance.

Under Article 90 of the Constitution, ratified international treaties prevail over conflicting domestic legislation. The plaintiffs invoke:

•           1972 Stockholm Declaration

•           1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and Agenda 21

•           Convention on Biological Diversity

•           1979 Bern Convention

They also cite relevant jurisprudence:

•           Constitutional Court: Recognizing procedural obligations to prevent environmental harm, ensure public participation, and balance competing interests (Cerattepe Decision, 2017/33865).

•           European Court of Human Rights: Environmental decision-making must preemptively assess harm, provide access to information, enable participation, and allow judicial recourse (Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, 46117/99).

Although Turkey has not ratified the Aarhus Convention, plaintiffs argue that its principles—public access to environmental information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice—are widely recognized and persuasive in evaluating environmental and life-right claims.

The plaintiffs further assert that removing olive groves in Akbelen and Yatağan would irreversibly destroy traditional livelihoods, violating domestic constitutional guarantees and international environmental obligations.

Additional Constitutional Concerns

The law is also alleged to violate:

•           Article 17 (Right to Life)

•           Article 23 (Freedom of Settlement)

•           Article 35 (Right to Property)

•           Article 45 (State duty to protect agricultural lands and support agricultural production)

The case forms part of broader community and environmental resistance to coal mining expansion in the Akbelen–Milas–Yatağan region. Milas and Yatağan Olive Producers v. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (Council of State challenge to Provisional Article 45 of the Mining Law) (Turkey, Council of State)

Canada: Pension Plan Investment sued for mismanaging climate-related financial risks 

In October 2025, a group of young Canadians sued the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board alleging the pension fund is mismanaging climate-related financial risks and failing to disclose and properly manage exposure to fossil fuel assets, thereby subjecting pension contributions to undue risk of loss from poorly managed climate risk. The complaint focuses on inadequate climate modeling/disclosure and fiduciary breaches. Aliya Hirji, Travis Olson, Ravneet Singh et Chloe Tse v. Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (Canada, Ontario Superior Court)

Canada: Major gas and electricity company sued for greenwashing

NGOs and residents brought claims that FortisBC’s marketing of gas and renewable natural gas misleads customers about climate impacts. The suit alleges deceptive marketing and seeks remedies. The case has generated regulatory attention given national focus on corporate environmental claims. Stand Environmental Society, Edgar Dearden, and Lorraine Goldman v. FortisBC Energy Inc., FortisBC Holdings Inc., and Fortis Inc. (Canada, British Columbia Supreme Court)