Climate Litigation Updates (July 11, 2025)

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation twice each month (though during July and August we will be publishing once a month). We also add these developments to our U.S. and Global climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected]. Thanks to Sabin Center summer interns Mabel Ciepluch, Korina Leyl, and Victor Tong for their assistance in preparing this update.

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #200

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Federal Court Allowed States and Renewable Energy Organization to Proceed with Administrative Procedure Act Challenges to Halt on Federal Wind Energy Approvals

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss claims challenging Trump administration actions halting federal approvals for offshore and onshore wind energy projects. The case was brought by 17 states and the District of Columbia. Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY) intervened as a plaintiff. The surviving claims allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing a “categorical and indefinite halt on wind-related projects without a reasoned basis”; by “disregarding extra-statutory review procedures” required for federal permitting and approvals of wind energy projects; and by failing to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking for the pause on approvals. The defendants argued the states and ACE NY lacked Article III standing, but the court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient harm and noted that the state plaintiffs qualified for “special solicitude”; the court also found that the traceability and redressability of the harm had been “firmly established.” The court dismissed common law ultra vires, equitable, and constitutional claims, finding that the APA claims were a better fit and concluding that “extremely high standard” for ultra vires claims was not met. The court also dismissed Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act citizen suit claims. Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-11221 (D. Mass. July 3, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Environmental Defense Fund Dropped Challenge to EPA’s Extension of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Deadline but “Stands Ready” to Bring Future Challenges

On July 7, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF’s) unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of its petition challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) extension of the reporting deadline for 2024 data under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule from March 31, 2025 to May 30, 2025. EDF’s motion noted that the May 30 deadline had passed without further extensions and that future years were not affected by EPA’s action; that EPA had informed EDF that data received was consistent with previous reporting years in terms of scope and coverage; and that EDF “stands ready to challenge any failure to make reported data public as legally required, or other actions to delay, weaken, or repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.” EPA had earlier filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding as moot. Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 25-1101 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2025)

Fifth Circuit Vacated EPA Equation that “Artificially Increases” Stringency of Fuel Economy Standards

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an equation formulated by EPA to calculate vehicle fuel economy was “unreasonable and unreasonably explained” because it “failed entirely to respond to several significant points in comments which, if true, would have necessitated a change in course.” As a result, the court said, EPA finalized a “sensitivity factor” for accounting for different test fuel types that was “far too low,” thereby “artificially increase[ing]” the stringency of fuel efficiency standards. In addition, as a threshold matter, the court found that petitioners—“several agricultural organizations and a trade organization representing various segments of the gasoline fuel supply chain”—had standing based on their allegations of harm from decreased demand for gasoline. The court vacated the rule to the extent it set the too-low sensitivity factor and implemented that factor by shifting the test fuel for fuel economy compliance. Texas Corn Producers v. EPA, No. 24-60209 (5th Cir. June 24, 2025) 

Federal Court Denied Request for Preliminary Injunction Requiring Agencies to Restore Environmental and Climate Information and Tools to Websites

The federal district court for the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring federal agencies to restore information and online tools concerning environmental justice, climate change, and other environmental issues to their websites. The court found that the plaintiffs—four nonprofit advocacy organizations—had not clearly established irreparable harm based on increased costs to find alternative data and tools. The court said the plaintiffs’ delay in seeking injunctive relief “bolstered” this conclusion, noting that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit more than two months after most of the tools were removed and moved for a preliminary injunction over one month after filing the lawsuit. The deleted tools at issue in the case are EPA’s EJScreen, the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, the Department of Transportation’s Equitable Transportation Community Explorer, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Future Risk Index. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Department of Energy (DOE) from the lawsuit eight days before the court’s decision. DOE had reposted the Low-Income Energy Affordability Data Tool on June 3, 2025 and represented that it did not expect to remove it again and would provide notice if it did. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-01112 (D.D.C. July 9, 2025)

Federal Court Allowed Some Claims to Proceed in Challenge to Federal Approval for Maryland Offshore Wind Project

In a challenge to federal approvals for the Construction and Operations Plan for the Maryland Offshore Wind Project, the federal district court for the District of Maryland held that at least one plaintiff had standing for each of the claims but granted the defendants’ and intervenor defendant’s motion to dismiss several claims. The plaintiffs included local governments in Maryland and Delaware, entities representing fishing and non-fishing business interests, community and business associations, public advocacy groups, and individual residents of the area. The court found that the plaintiffs did not make any “particularized factual allegations” that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It further found that the plaintiffs did not state a claim under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) because Maryland and Delaware had found the project was consistent with their coastal management programs and the CZMA did not give BOEM authority to contravene those assessments. The court also dismissed the claim under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, finding no allegation of intentional “taking” of protected bird species by the federal defendants. However, the court allowed a Marine Mammal Protection Act claim to proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged an unlawful incidental taking of the North Atlantic Right Whale, and also allowed an Endangered Species Act claim to proceed. It also found that government plaintiffs stated a claim under the National Historic Preservation Act. The court reserved judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the National Environmental Policy Act regarding cumulative impact assessments, holding that these issues were more appropriately addressed at the summary judgment stage. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:24-cv-03111 (D. Md. July 2, 2025)

Federal Court Said Administrative Record for Forest Project Must Include Scientific Literature on Logging and Climate Change

In a NEPA challenge to a U.S. Forest Service project in the Willamette National Forest that the plaintiffs alleged would involve “aggressive commercial logging,” the federal district court for the District of Oregon granted the plaintiffs’ motion to complete the administrative record with exhibits that were “scientific literature relating to the effects of logging on climate change, carbon emissions, and carbon storage.” The court found that there was sufficient evidence that the exhibits were “indirectly” before decision-makers because one of the plaintiffs cited, quoted, and linked to the exhibits extensively in its written comments and the Forest Service responded to the substance of the comments. The exhibits therefore had to be included to complete the record. Oregon Wild v. Warnack, No. 6:24-cv-949 (D. Or. July 1, 2025)

Trump Administration Agreed to Schedules for Endangered Species Act Determinations on Chinook Salmon and Striped Newt

In late June 2025, the federal district court for the District of Oregon and in the District of Columbia each approved settlements that resolved Endangered Species Act lawsuits involving species that the plaintiffs alleged were threatened by climate change. 

In the Oregon case, the court approved a settlement in which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed to schedules for reviewing the status of three evolutionary significant units (ESUs) of Chinook salmon and making 12-month findings as to whether their listing as threatened or endangered is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by other pending proposals. NMFS agreed to make a finding on the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal Chinook salmon by November 13, 2025, and the finding on the Washington Coast spring-run Chinook salmon by January 2, 2026. The plaintiffs submitted petitions requesting the listing of the ESUs in August 2022 and July 2023. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:25-cv-00258 (D. Or. June 27, 2025)

In the District of Columbia case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to make a new 12-month finding regarding the listing of the striped newt as threatened or endangered by April 24, 2030. The lawsuit challenged the 2018 determination that listing was not warranted. The striped newt occurs in occurs in north-central Florida and southern Georgia. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:24-cv-03467 (D.D.C. June 30, 2025) 

Vermont Federal Court Allowed Organizations to Intervene to Defend Climate Superfund Law

In the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute’s lawsuit challenging Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, the federal district court for the District of Vermont granted Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont and the Conservation Law Foundation’s motion to intervene to defend the law. The organizations alleged that climate change had harmed their members and that implementation of the law could benefit their members. The court found that the relevant factors weighed in favor of granting permissive intervention. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Moore, No. 2:24-cv-01513 (D. Vt. June 30, 2025)

New Jersey Court Affirmed NJDEP’s Compressor Station Approval Despite Climate Concerns

On June 27, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP’s) determination that the construction and operation of Compressor Station 327 by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company was consistent with the goals of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act.

Environmental groups—Food & Water Watch, New Jersey Highlands Coalition, and Sierra Club—challenged the project’s approval on multiple grounds, including greenhouse gas emissions and water quality impacts. However, the court found that NJDEP reasonably excluded climate change concerns like off-site GHG emissions and downstream air quality effects from the Highlands Act review. The court reasoned that they were outside NJDEP’s statutory mandate because the emissions would occur outside the Highlands region, there was no showing of direct impact on the Highlands region, and the issue had already been reviewed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The court also rejected the claim that the project would induce sprawl or increase climate-related water quality risks in the Highlands region, noting that the compressor station served out-of-state demand and did not increase local gas delivery. The court also upheld NJDEP’s finding that the project was consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan because of low projected water use and wastewater discharge.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellants’ broader climate concerns fell outside the scope of a Highlands Applicability Determination and affirmed NJDEP’s decision. In re Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327), Office Building & Appurtenant Structures, Highlands Applicability Determination, Program Interest No. 1615-17-0004.2 (APD200001), No. A-3616-20 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 27, 2025)

California Court of Appeals Rejected GHG Offset Scheme in Tejon Ranch Development

On June 26, 2025, the California Court of Appeals held that the environmental impact report (EIR) involved in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge to the County of Los Angeles’s approval of the 12,000-acre Centennial Specific Plan proposed by Tejon Ranchcorp (Tejon), was legally inadequate with respect to climate change impacts, specifically greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and wildfire risk.

The court found that the County’s reliance on California's cap-and-trade program to offset the Centennial project’s estimated unmitigated GHG emissions was prejudicially misleading and unlawful under the CEQA. The EIR claimed the project would emit approximately 157,642 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. After deeming these emissions “significant,” the County proposed to mitigate 96% of them through the purchase of cap-and-trade allowances. However, the court found this approach improper because, although the cap-and-trade program regulates certain sectors such as energy and fuel suppliers, the Centennial project itself was not a “covered entity” under the program. As a result, relying on emissions reductions already required by law for other entities did not constitute valid CEQA mitigation. 

Further, the CEQA’s “additionality” requirement prohibits the use of emissions reductions that are already legally mandated for other entities to offset a project’s climate impacts. Mitigation measures must result in new, project-specific reductions rather than rely on reductions that are already accounted for under existing regulatory schemes. Consequently, by inappropriately applying cap-and-trade credits, the court held that the County understated the project’s climate impacts, thus violating the CEQA. As a result, the court mandated that the EIR be decertified until the GHG analysis is corrected. 

The court also affirmed the Superior Court’s finding that the EIR’s discussion of wildfire risks beyond the project site was legally deficient because it failed to adequately consider how the project could exacerbate off-site wildfire conditions. The EIR acknowledged on-site wildfire risks but offered only a one-paragraph discussion of off-site wildfire risks, failing to analyze the risk of new ignitions from off-site project infrastructure and failing to meaningfully reduce these off-site risks. This rendered the analysis prejudicially misleading, especially given the growing severity of wildfires linked to climate change in California. 

The court also rejected claims that the EIR violated CEQA with respect to wildlife movement, habitat connectivity, native vegetation loss, and failure to consider feasible project alternatives. It further rejected Tejon’s claim preclusion argument based on Climate Resolve’s settlement on similar grounds. Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles, No. B330610 (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2025)

California Appellate Court Said CEQA Analysis for Vegetation Treatment Program Had to Consider Impact on Wildfire Risk of Conversion from Native to Non-native Plants

Reversing a California Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection violated CEQA when it approved the California Vegetation Treatment Program, which would use controlled burning and other techniques to decrease the types of vegetation that fuel wildfires. The Court of Appeal found that substantial evidence did not support the State Board’s findings that the Program would avoid adverse effects on native chaparral and coastal sage shrub from “type conversion,” which refers to a replacement of native shrub species with non-native plants, and that evaluation and mitigation of any adverse effects could be “tiered” to project proponents’ future reviews. The appellate court said the State Board was “required under CEQA to consider the adverse environmental effects of type conversion—most specifically, the increased wildfire danger.” The Court of Appeals’ decision did not address the climate change-specific arguments made by the challengers in their original petition. California Chaparral Institute v. Board of Forestry & Fire Protection, No. D083484 (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2025)

California Court Rejected Challenge to State’s Retention of Private Law Firm to Handle Climate Case

A California Superior Court denied a petition for writ of mandate filed by the collective bargaining representative of attorneys employed by the California Department of Justice in which the petitioner sought to set aside the State Personnel Board’s decision approving a contract retaining an outside law firm to assist in handling California’s case seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for climate change harms. The court found that substantial evidence supported the determination that the contract was justified under a statutory provision that allows use of personal services contracts for state services in certain situations, including where “[t]he services contracted … are of such a highly specialized or technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experience, and ability are not available through the civil service system.” California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment v. California State Personnel Board, No. 25WM000029 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 2, 2025)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

Federal Government and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grant Recipients Took Positions on Impact of One Big Beautiful Bill Act

On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a letter in the D.C. Circuit arguing that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provision establishing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and rescinding “unobligated balances” of funding made available under that provision provided additional support for DOJ’s position that the D.C. Circuit should reverse the preliminary injunction barring EPA from terminating GGRF grants. On July 7, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a response, arguing that the OBBBA did not affect their claims that EPA’s actions violated the Constitution, the IRA, federal regulations, and the Administrative Procedure Act, given that “all their funds were and are obligated.” Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir.)

New Mexico Plaintiffs Sought State High Court Review of Constitutional Claims Challenging State’s Oil and Natural Gas Regulation

Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the New Mexico Supreme Court seeking review of an intermediate appellate court’s June 2025 decision ordering dismissal of their claims under the New Mexico Constitution that the State’s system for regulating pollution from oil and natural gas violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The plaintiffs’ petition argued that the New Mexico Constitution’s Pollution Control Clause creates a “positive constitutional right” that must be enforced by the courts and that deeming claims under it nonjusticiable would make New Mexico an outlier. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the intermediate appellate court erred by concluding at the motion to dismiss stage that the State defendants complied with the Constitution; misconstrued and limited the power of the Declaratory Judgment Act; erred in concluding that substantive due process was not applicable; and erred in concluding that the New Mexico Constitution’s equal protection clause “can never protect classes of people disproportionally harmed by state actions permitting oil and gas pollution.” Atencio v. State, No. S-1-SC-40980 (N.M. July 1, 2025)

Fossil Fuel Defendants Asked Hawai‘i State Court to Stay Hawai‘i’s Climate Suit Pending Resolution of U.S.’s Action Against State; State Filed Answer in Federal Suit

Fossil fuel industry defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in the climate change lawsuit that the State of Hawai‘i filed against them. The defendants contended that the resolution of the federal lawsuit filed by the United States the day before the State filed its lawsuit could resolve “crucial threshold questions” that might “dispose of this case entirely.” State v. BP p.l.c., No. 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct. June 17, 2025)

In the federal lawsuit, the court denied the United States’ June 30 request that default be entered against the Hawai‘i defendants because the defendants had not filed a responsive pleading by the June 23 deadline. The court noted that the defendants had filed an answer on the same day that the U.S. made its request and “[i]n light of State Defendants’ response to the complaint, albeit untimely,” the court denied the request for default. In their answer, the State defendants asserted a number of affirmative defenses, including based on standing, ripeness, sovereign immunity, res judicata, and failure to state a claim. The State defendants also said they intended to rely on the doctrine of abstention. United States v. Hawaii, No. 1:25-cv-00179 (D. Haw. July 3, 2025)

Fossil Fuel Companies Removed Climate Change Wrongful Death Action to Federal Court

Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron) filed a notice of their removal to federal court of a wrongful death action filed by the daughter of a woman who died from hyperthermia in Seattle during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome. All other fossil fuel industry defendants consented to the removal of the litigation. Chevron argued that there was diversity jurisdiction in federal district court because “the single purported Washington

Defendant, Olympic Pipe Line Company LLC [(Olympic)], has been fraudulently joined and procedurally misjoined.” Chevron contended that “deception-based claims” could not be asserted against Olympic, which “merely transports fossil fuels—the company does not produce, let alone market to consumers, any fossil fuels,” and that even if a claim could be stated against Olympic, it would not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claims against the other defendants. Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2:25-cv-1190 (W.D. Wash., filed June 25, 2025)

Lawsuit Sought Endangered Species Act Listing Determination for Crater Lake Newt

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a complaint in the federal district court for the District of Oregon to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue a 12-month finding on whether listing of the Crater Lake newt under the Endangered Species Act is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other proposals. CBD submitted a petition requesting the listing of the Crater Lake newt on an emergency basis on November 28, 2023, and FWS found that listing might be warranted in October 2024. The primary threat cited in the complaint and in the October 2024 finding was predation by introduced species. CBD alleging that the newt was “rapidly headed towards extinction” as invasive crayfish expanded into its habitat. CBD and FWS also cited threats from habitat and food web alteration by signal crayfish (an introduced species), climate change, reduced population size, and range restriction. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 3:25-cv-01158 (D. Or., filed July 3, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Inter-American Court on Human Rights publishes its Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court published Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the human rights obligations of States in the context of the climate emergency. In the opinion, the Court affirms that States have obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Protocol of San Salvador to prevent, mitigate, and remedy the human rights impacts of climate change. The Court explicitly recognizes that the right to a healthy environment includes the right to a stable climate and that exceeding 1.5°C of global warming would threaten the enjoyment of multiple human rights. It emphasizes that State obligations extend to both individual and collective dimensions, and may include responsibility for cross-border harm where a causal link is established. States must adopt effective mitigation and adaptation measures aligned with climate science, regulate private actors, and cooperate with other States, particularly under principles of equity and differentiated responsibility.

The opinion also underscores the need for procedural safeguards—including access to information, public participation, and access to justice—and highlights special protections owed to Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, children, environmental defenders, and future generations. The Court draws on the Escazú Agreement, the Paris Agreement, and other international instruments as interpretive sources. Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency (Inter-American Court of Human Rights)

The Sabin Center has launched a blog symposium on the advisory opinion. Readers may follow this symposium here or subscribe here. 

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Hungary: Constitutional Court annuls Climate Act provision for insufficient emission reduction targets and calls for stronger intergenerational justice safeguards

The constitutional review case of Hungary’s Climate Protection Act (Act XLIV of 2020) was initiated by fifty members of Parliament, who argued that several provisions of the Act violated the Hungarian Fundamental Law (Alaptörvény) and certain international treaties, including the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The petitioners submitted their application in 2021 (case no. II/3536/2021), challenging, among other things, the emission reduction targets laid out in Article 3(1) of the Act. They argued that the Act’s 2030 target—a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to 1990 levels—was insufficient, fell short of both European Union commitments (which call for at least 55% reductions), and failed to align with the scientific consensus necessary to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal. They also claimed that the Act lacked concrete implementation measures and disregarded principles such as precaution and intergenerational equity.

The Constitutional Court found that Article 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act was unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court held that the provision violated Article P(1), Article XX(1), and Article XXI(1) of the Fundamental Law, which enshrine the principles of intergenerational justice, the right to physical and mental health, and the right to a healthy environment. The Court emphasized that the emission target failed to uphold the constitutional duty to preserve natural resources for future generations and to take adequate preventive and precautionary action against foreseeable climate risks.

The Court did not accept the argument that this provision conflicted with international treaties, including the Paris Agreement. However, it emphasized the state’s duty to take climate measures that align with Hungary’s constitutional obligations and broader international climate goals.

On June 12, 2025, the Court ruled that Article 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act is unconstitutional and annulled it, effective June 30, 2026. This delayed annulment gives the legislature time to revise the law.

Additionally, the Court determined—acting ex officio—that Parliament committed a constitutional omission by failing to adopt comprehensive, climate-specific measures tailored to Hungary’s and the Carpathian Basin’s needs. These include not only mitigation (beyond traditional emissions regulation) but also adaptation and resilience measures. The Court ordered Parliament to fulfill this legislative obligation by June 30, 2026.

The Court dismissed or rejected other parts of the petition, including challenges to Articles 1, 2, 3(2)-(3), and 4 of the Act, either for lack of legal merit or procedural insufficiency.

In sum, this decision is a landmark ruling in Hungarian climate law. It enforces constitutional obligations related to environmental protection and intergenerational equity and requires the legislature to adopt more ambitious and specific climate policies in line with constitutional principles. Decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court in case II/3536/2021 (on the constitutionality of Article 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act) (Hungary, Constitutional Court)

Brazil: Federal Supreme Court rules government failed to curb illegal deforestation and orders seizure of properties and discontinuation of land regularization policy

On September 17, 2020, the Brazilian political party Rede Sustentabilidade filed a direct constitutional claim before the Federal Supreme Court. The claim alleged that the federal government was in breach of its constitutional obligations to prevent and respond to illegal deforestation, with a primary focus on the Amazon and Pantanal biomes in the midst of climate change. Civil society organizations, such as Observatório do Clima, WWF-Brasil, and Greenpeace, supported the claim. The plaintiffs contended that the dismantling of environmental enforcement agencies and the allowance of land regularization policies violated the constitutional right to an ecologically balanced environment under Article 225 of the 1988 Federal Constitution.

The plaintiffs’ complaint was particularly concerned with the government’s failure to prevent and penalize illegal land clearing, the use of arson for land conversion, and the government’s policy of land regularization. The land regularization policy, regularização fundiária, enables individuals who had previously illegally deforested public lands to obtain legal land titles. The plaintiffs contend that this policy encourages environmental crime.

Over the next five years, the Court received extensive factual and technical evidence that demonstrated a significant increase in fire activity and deforestation. On April 28, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had committed an unconstitutional omission as it failed to effectively curb illegal deforestation through insufficient enforcement. The Court has now ordered the federal government to take a series of actions, most notably to seize the private properties where illegal deforestation or arson had occurred. The properties are to be seized with sufficient evidence linking to the landowner’s conduct.

The Court also ruled that regularizing illegally acquired land fails to comply with the constitutional duty to preserve the environment, thus ruling to discontinue the policy. The ruling specifically required the executive to adopt effective legal and administrative mechanisms to prevent the continuation and expansion of the regulation. The Court also ruled that the state must pursue reparatory measures against landowners for environmental damage. These measures may include civil actions to obtain compensation.

This was a landmark ruling, leading Brazil to consider necessary actions in the midst of a climate crisis. Rede Sustentabilidade v. Brazil (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

Romania: Court of Appeal suspends environmental permit for Răstolița hydropower project citing inadequate impact assessment and risks to biodiversity and climate

On December 11, 2024, two Romanian NGOs—Declic and Bankwatch Romania—filed an application before the Cluj Administrative Court seeking the suspension of Environmental Permit No. 2024/6, issued by the Mureș Environmental Protection Agency for the Răstolița Hydropower Project. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the permit on multiple grounds, arguing that the project, which involves deforestation and the development of major hydro-technical infrastructure, was approved without sufficient consideration of updated environmental, climate, and public safety standards.

The claim centered on several procedural and substantive issues, including:

(i) the alleged failure of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess the entire project comprehensively, focusing only on deforestation while omitting the full environmental effects of hydro-technical works;

(ii) reliance on outdated permits and technical documentation from 1990, despite advancements in safety and environmental standards;

(iii) alleged violations of Article 6(3)-(4) of the EU Habitats Directive and Article 28 of Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) No. 57/2007;

(iv) concerns over the adequacy of the public consultation process, which plaintiffs argued did not comply with the procedural requirements in Annex 5 of Law No. 292/2018;

(v) the lack of an adequate assessment of the deforestation’s impact on climate mitigation, flood risks, and biodiversity.

The plaintiffs argued that the deforestation of 39.38 hectares of protected natural areas would negatively affect carbon storage, flood control, and the habitat of several protected species. They also questioned the project’s contribution to national energy objectives, noting that the hydropower plant’s estimated capacity of approximately 35 MW accounts for only 0.19% of Romania’s total installed generation capacity and would affect ten rivers.

In February 2025, the Cluj Administrative Court rejected the request for suspension, allowing work on the project to continue. The court sided with Hidroelectrica, the state-owned energy company leading the project, ruling that the environmental agreement could remain in effect pending the resolution of the main case. Romanian Energy Minister Sebastian Burduja described the ruling as a major victory for the country’s energy sector, noting that over 90% of the works were already completed and the project was on track to become the first hydropower plant finalized in Romania in over three decades. He emphasized its strategic importance for balancing the grid and enhancing energy security. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.

On June 4, 2025, the Cluj-Napoca Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s ruling and ordered the suspension of the environmental permit. This decision is final with respect to the interim measure but does not resolve the underlying merits of the case, which are scheduled to be heard on June 24, 2025.

The Court of Appeal’s decision effectively halts the Răstolița Hydropower Project, which is reportedly over 90% complete and had been scheduled for commissioning in November 2025. According to the Romanian government, the project is one of strategic national interest and would be the first hydropower plant completed in the country in three decades. Officials, including the Minister of Energy, have emphasized the project’s role in contributing to national energy security and reducing reliance on energy imports. They have also expressed concern that prolonged litigation has already caused significant financial losses for the state-owned energy company Hidroelectrica and the national budget—estimated at over 443 million euros in unproduced energy and related costs between 2019 and 2024. Declic and Bankwatch Romania v. Răstoliţa Hydropower Project (Romania, Cluj Administrative Court)

Australia: Federal Court fines Active Super $10.5 million for misleading ESG investment claims

In June 2024, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed a claim with the Federal Court to impose a $10.5 million fine on Active Super regarding securities fraud on its environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment schemes. Active Super claimed that it eliminated investments that posed a risk to the environment such as coal mining and oil tar sands. However, ASIC claimed that Active Super still maintained direct investments in companies like Shell Plc and Whitehaven Coal.

In March 2025, the Federal Court of Australia sided with ASIC, determining that Active Super failed to acknowledge its emissions heavy investments within its green marketing. ASIC v. Active Super (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

Germany: Federal Court of Justice rules “climate neutral” claims must be clearly explained in advertisements to avoid misleading consumers

In 2021, Katjes, a fruit gum manufacturer, claimed that all products were created in a climate-neutral manner. The advertisement claimed that the company offset its emissions through projects with the company ClimatePartner.

The Central Office for Combating Unfair Competition (Competition Association) challenged this advertisement as misleading because consumers would assume that the fruit gums were produced without any emissions, rather than through offsets. The case was considered by two lower civil courts, which sided with Katjes on the premise that consumers can be expected to understand the term “climate neutral.”

On July 5, 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) overruled the lower courts for the following reasons:

1. Advertising a product as climate neutral can always be significant in the purchasing decision of customers
    
2. Environmental claims made in advertising have an increased risk in misleading customers due to the high personal value that the environment has for consumers
    
3. When making environmental claims, companies need to clarify the content of terms indicated green features of a product within the advertisement itself
    
4. Reduction and compensation of emission are two possible ways of achieving “climate neutrality” but are not equally valid.
    
5. The ambiguous term “climate neutral” may only be used if the company explains how the neutrality is achieved. Explanations must include specific details of the measures as well as any offsetting measures the company intends to take.
    
6. Requiring the consumer to visit separate websites for these explanations is not sufficient. If the required explanation is not contained directly in the advertisement, the term “climate neutral” is deceptive and incorrect. Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs v. Katjes (Germany, Federal Court of Justice) 

Australia: Federal Court action challenges Hunter Valley coal expansion over Great Barrier Reef impacts; project withdrawn before decision

On June 19, 2024, Hunter Environment Lobby (HEL) applied for legal action with the Federal Court to overturn the federal government decision to expand the Hunter Valley Operation (HVO) for coal mining. The HVO continuation project would extend the life of two mines to 2050.

In April, 2024, the Environment Minister ruled that the Commonwealth environment department did not need to consider the potential impacts of the coal operations on the Great Barrier Reef. However, HEL claimed that multiple studies reveal the potential damages of the operation on reef habitats.

In October 2024, Hunter Valley withdrew their expansion program. Hunter Environment Lobby v. Hunter Valley Operations (Australia, Federal Court)

Chile: Court of Appeals rejects injunction on coal surplus case

In March 2024, residents of Tocopilla, along with environmental organizations Chile Sustentable, Greenpeace Chile, and Asociación Interamericana para la defensa del ambiente (AIDA), filed a writ of protection before the Court of Appeals of Santiago against AES Andes. In February, AES Andes burned through 94,000 tons of surplus coal from their Norgener 1 and 2 units due to a request from the National Electricity Coordinator. Plaintiffs argued that the authorization should be revoked due to the right to life, health, and a pollution-free environment under the Chilean constitution. In late March 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected the issuance of a preliminary injunction, allowing AES Andes to burn through the rest of the coal supply under request by the Electricity coordinator. Asociacion Interamericana para la defensa del ambiente (AIDA) v. AES Andes (Chile, Santiago Court of Appeals)

Australia: Santiago Court of Appeals denies injunction to stop AES Andes from burning surplus coal despite constitutional health and environmental claims

Beginning in July 2022, the Environment Council of Central Queensland (ECoCeQ), represented by Environmental Justice Australia, submitted a formal reconsideration request to the Australian Minister for the Environment and Water. The ECoCeQ requested the Minister, Tanya Plibersek, to reconsider the approval of nineteen large coal and gas projects, referencing Section 78A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 (EPBC).

The Minister refused to revoke the approvals for the Narrabri Underground Mount Pleasant and Ensham coal mine extensions in May 2023, ultimately releasing a public response in November 2023 stating that the mines’ extensions remained controlled actions under the EPBC Act and that the mines’ extensions would not cause a significant net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

In August 2023, ECoCeQ submitted an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the Minister failed in its interpretation and application of the “substantial cause” test under the EPBC.

In October 2023, Justice McElwaine dismissed the application, stating that the Minister lawfully applied EPBC Act requirements and acted within the range of reasonable conclusions given the evidence, including in the decision regarding the substantial clause test. ECoCeQ appealed the dismissal to the Full Court in December 2023, and the court dismissed the appeal in May 2024. The court stated that the substantial cause requirement demands a non-speculative causal link between emissions and harm to species pursuant to the EPBC Act, meaning the Minister acted lawfully. Additionally, the Federal Court found that large export-oriented coal mines will produce “no net increase” in global emissions, and the emissions would be too “small” to warrant a detailed assessment under the EPBC Act.

The court declined to order costs against the plaintiff, stating that the litigation was brought in the public interest and prompts important questions regarding climate change. Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc. v Minister for the Environment and Water (Australia, High Court)

Peru: Superior Court of Lima allows climate youth lawsuit on Amazon deforestation to proceed to merits review

On December 16, 2019, a group of Peruvian youth filed suit against Peru, alleging that the government has taken insufficient action to address climate change. Seven plaintiffs, represented by their parents, filed a complaint against the Peruvian state for its alleged failure to adequately halt deforestation in the Amazon rainforest by adopting concrete and effective measures under the National Policy on the Environment and the National Policy on Forests and Forest Wildlife. The complaint focuses on deforestation in five Amazonian regions: Loreto, Ucayali, Madre de Dios, Amazonas and San Martin. The plaintiffs argue that the situation is worse for Peruvians born between 2005 and 2011, whose futures are severely compromised due to the climate crisis. They assert that their fundamental right to enjoy a healthy environment has been violated, along with their rights to life, water, and health.

On April 24, 2025, the Superior Court of Lima issued a ruling stating that the case could proceed to a full merits analysis. This ruling rejected the Peruvian government’s attempts to halt the case, which were challenged and ultimately overturned on appeal. The state has continued to seek dismissal, contending that imposing deforestation targets or intervening in executive policymaking is beyond the judiciary’s authority. The court is currently considering the next steps, with a decision on the merits of the case expected later this year. Álvarez et al v. Peru (Peru, Superior Court of Lima)

Russia: Supreme Court denies climate activists’ case demanding government action to meet Paris Agreement targets; case proceeds to European and Constitutional Courts

On September 11, 2022, activists from several climate groups in Russia filed a case before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation demanding that the Russian government protect its citizens from the risk of future death or serious illness by keeping global emissions to 1.5-1.8oC in accordance with its obligations under domestic and international law. The plaintiffs request that Russian authorities take measures that will reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the targets of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C agreed pursuant to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Russia is currently the fourth biggest producer of carbon emissions worldwide, and needs to reduce 31% of its 1991 levels to meet the 2030 goal of the Paris Accords. The plaintiffs contend that Russia’s insufficient measures on climate change are violating the Russian constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The court denied the application on September 21, 2023, and it was subsequently submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Proceedings with the European Court of Human Rights are currently pending. In May 2024, plaintiffs also submitted a constitutional claim to the Russian Constitutional Court, which is currently under review. Ecodefense & Other NGOs v. Russia (Russia, Constitutional Court)

Brazil: Dismisses case after Copelmi withdraws Guaíba Mine Project, ending dispute over hydrological risks and environmental permitting

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent provisional relief of a precautionary nature on an incidental basis, filed by the Arayara Association of Education and Culture against Copelmi Mineração Ltda., FEPAM and the National Water Agency (ANA), claiming that the Guaíba Mine Project will cause harmful impacts to the inhabitants of the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre, as a result of hydrological risks. The project is the largest open pit coal mine in Brazil, with a high potential for water pollution. The plaintiff points out flaws in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project, neglecting to comply with important permitting phases, such as holding public hearings in affected communities. The plaintiff claims that the project poses a risk of pollution, especially to the Jacuí River, which contributes with 86.3% of the average flow of Lake Guaíba, which is responsible for supplying drinking water to several municipalities. It highlights the need to analyze the extent of possible environmental damage resulting from the undertaking and the synergies with other infrastructures designed for the region. It also argues that the Guaíba Mine Project will impact the balance of water resources, which is inextricably linked to climate change, and thus mobilizes the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12,187/2009). Therefore, actions such as pollution of springs, diversion of water courses, lowering of water tables, drainage of aquifers, among other harmful measures related to the Project, are directly or indirectly related to climate change. It is required, among other points, (i) as a preliminary injunction, the suspension of the permitting process for the Guaíba Mina Project until the judgment on the merits, so that the installation of the mine is prohibited and (ii), on the merits, the prohibition of the installation of the project in the originally planned location, in view of the irreversible environmental damages that it will cause to the region, in addition to the declaration of nullity of the environmental licensing procedure with the initiation of a new procedure that contemplates all the risks and the elaboration of an action plan for emergency, with a view to mitigating the consequences of possible environmental damage.

After the defendants’ preliminary statements, a decision was rendered recognizing the passive illegitimacy of ANA and, consequently, the incompetence of the Federal Court to judge the action. Thus, the action was redistributed in the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (TJRS).

Subsequently, the court suspended this process for six months, considering that the permitting procedure for the Guaíba Mine project was declared null and void in the scope of the case “Arayara Association of Education and Culture and others v. FUNAI, Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM (Mina Guaíba Project and affected indigenous communities).” The suspension was determined in order to await the exhaustion of the appeal phase and the confirmation or not of the decision of that lawsuit.

In April 2025, a judgment was handed down that dismissed the case without resolving the merits, due to the supervening loss of the object, given COPELMI’s withdrawal from the Minas Guaíba Project and the consequent archiving of the environmental licensing process. Arayara Association of Education and Culture vs. Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM (Guaíba Mine Project and hydrological risks) (Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul Federal Court)

Indonesia: Complaint filed against mass air pollution violating right to a clean and healthy environment 

In September 2024, residents of South Sumatra, represented by Greenpeace Indonesia, filed a lawsuit against three pulpwood companies for toxic haze that causes air pollution. Greenpeace Indonesia argued that the companies violated the community’s fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment. 

On July 4, 2025, the Palembang District Court in Sumatra dismissed the lawsuit by finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The plaintiffs are currently considering an appeal. Greenpeace Indonesia v. PT Bumi Hijau, PT Bumi Andalus Permai, and PT Sebangun (Indonesia, Palembang District Court)

NEW CASES

Netherlands: Complaint filed Against Energy Transfer regarding alleged Anti-SLAPP violation

In November 2016, Greenpeace International (GPI) signed an open letter with over 500 organizations, calling on funders to withdraw financing for an oil pipeline in North Dakota. Energy Transfer—the developer of the pipeline—and related entities cited this signature as evidence to bring GPI before U.S. courts, seeking at least $300 million in damages. A federal lawsuit was principally based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Energy Transfer also named Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc. as defendants, as well as two other organizations and individual activists. In February 2019, the court dismissed the RICO claims against the Greenpeace entities with prejudice and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Later that month, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit in North Dakota state court against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., and Greenpeace, Inc. (Three individuals and a group that Energy Transfer alleged was a “front organization” for Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc. were also originally defendants in the state court case.) In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota state court found that Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to Energy Transfer entities based on state law claims, including trespass, trespass to chattel, conversion, nuisance, defamation, tortious interference with business, and conspiracy. The Greenpeace entities indicated they will appeal if the trial court does not reverse the jury’s verdict.

On July 23, 2024, GPI sent a notice of liability to Energy Transfer (ET) under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive, stating that GPI holds ET liable for the costs of legal representation and trial expenses incurred as a result of ET’s actions. “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The EU’s Anti-SLAPP directive was passed on April 11, 2024. On September 6, 2024, ET responded by rejecting liability and insisting its legal action was not a SLAPP suit.

In February 2025, GPI filed a case with the Public Prosecutor of the District Court of Amsterdam, citing violations of the anti-SLAPP Directives under Dutch law. GPI cited Article 6:162 (1) and (2) under the Dutch civil law, which prohibits tortious and improper social conduct. They also cited Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which entitles NGOs to the right to freedom of expression and the right to impart information. Finally, GPI cited the European Union Anti-SLAPP Directive, which GPI said was intended to shield “public watchdogs” from SLAPP suits both within and outside of the EU.

Energy Transfer insists that the lawsuits against GPI are not SLAPPs but a legitimate exercise of the company’s rights under North Dakota State Law. They maintain that there is no legal basis to establish legal liability under European or Dutch law. Greenpeace International v. Energy Transfer (Netherlands, District Court of Amsterdam)

EU: Complaint filed in EU Court of Justice regarding Taxonomy Rule

On January 1, 2024, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities classification system to prevent greenwashing and inform investors about sustainable investment decisions.

On July 8, 2024, the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA) intervened on behalf of Dassault Aviation by filing a claim at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The EBAA claimed that the classification system failed to consider Business Aviation and jeopardizes the competitiveness of the European business aircraft manufacturing industry. Second, the EBAA claimed that financial institutions will be discouraged from financing the manufacturing and purchase of efficient and sustainable aircraft. Dassault Aviation v. European Commission (EU, General Court of the European Union)

Northern Ireland: Complaint filed regarding failure to comply with 2022 Climate Change Act

At the beginning of 2025, a group of landowners, farmers, and campaigners under the name the Alternative A5 Alliance (AA5A) filed for judicial review to challenge the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s (DfI) decision to continue the A5 dual carriageway project. The challenge was filed under Article 67BA of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. The major infrastructure project was aimed at improving the A5 route between Derry and Aughnacloy, which has been a lasting safety concern, resulting in numerous civilian deaths.

The plaintiff alleged that the DfI’s decision failed to comply with Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. This section mandates public authorities to have regard and act in accordance with the legally binding Climate Action Plan, which was not in place at the time the DfI decided to proceed with the project. On these grounds, the plaintiff contends that DfI did not have a proper legal framework to ensure it was complying with Ireland’s climate targets, specifically an emissions reduction cap.

The plaintiff also contended that the defendant failed to take into account a critical relevant consideration, or a recently updated Climate Action Plan, when it approved the plan. The plaintiff also alleged that the DfI acted unlawfully by disregarding the Planning Appeals Commission’s recommendation of imposing a time limit for the project’s development, representing a breach in procedural fairness. The plaintiff contended that the lack of a time limit caused uncertainty for the landowners and residents near the project, failing to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.

The court issued a judgment stating that the DfI acted unlawfully by making a decision inconsistent with Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. The court also stated that the DfI ignored a critical relevant consideration as it proceeded without an updated Climate Action Plan and that DfI violated the principles of procedural fairness when prolonging uncertainty for landowners and residents. The court also ruled that the time limit violations constituted a human rights violation, and ultimately quashed the DfI’s decision to proceed with the project.

At Issue: Whether the Department for Infrastructure lawfully approved the A5 project without an approved Climate Action Plan as required by Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, and whether it failed to respect the human rights of affected residents under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Alternative A5 Alliance v Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland, High Court)

Canada: Complaint filed against consumer protection laws violation 

In March 2024, Stand.earth, Lori Gold, and Eddie Dearden filed a complaint in the British Columbia Supreme Court against FortisBC Energy Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that FortisBC violated consumer protection laws under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) by making misleading representations about its gas products that were likely to deceive consumers. The plaintiffs assert that under BPCPA, businesses must ensure marketing is truthful and not misleading.

The plaintiffs contend that FortisBC’s marketing of renewable natural gas (RNG) as “carbon-neutral” was misleading, as there was no uniform third-party certification verifying the emission claims. The plaintiffs also allege that FortisBC’s advertising implies that RNG comes from within B.C. and is supporting local economies, but that ~85% of the company’s RNG is sourced from out-of-province suppliers. The plaintiffs also allege that FortisBC’s advertising portrays fossil natural gas in general as clean or sustainable, which misleads consumers into believing the product has minimal climate impacts.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction barring FortisBC from making such misleading claims, as well as corrective advertising to clarify the environmental damage caused by their product. The plaintiffs also seek financial compensation for affected consumers.

The claim remains pending before the British Columbia Supreme Court, with no trial date currently scheduled. Stand.earth et al. v FortisBC Energy Inc. (Canada, British Columbia Supreme Court)