Climate Litigation Updates (June 13, 2025)

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation twice each month. We also add these developments to our U.S. and Global climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #198

FEATURED CASE

New Mexico Appellate Court Said State Constitution Did Not Create Enforceable Individual Right to Healthful Environment

The New Mexico Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of 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 were individuals who lived or worked in close proximity to the San Juan and Permian Basins in the northwest and southeast regions of the state where oil and gas extraction occurs or who had “significant cultural, ancestral, and religious ties” to those regions, as well as “various advocacy groups representing populations particularly affected by climate change such as youths, Indigenous communities, and other grouped individuals living and working in the San Juan and Permian Basins.” The defendants were the State of New Mexico, its legislature and governor, and various executive agencies and officials. The court held that the Constitution’s Pollution Control Clause did not contain an enforceable right to be free from a given amount of pollution or create an enforceable right “to a beautiful and healthful environment.” The court further concluded that judicial resolution of a claim under the Pollution Control Clause would violate separation of powers as well as the “merely persuasive” political question doctrine. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs could not state a due process claim because neither the federal nor the New Mexico Constitution recognize an individual right to environmental protection that would support such a claim. The court also found the plaintiffs did not state a viable equal protection claim because they did not allege a classification that resulted in discriminatory treatment. The court said their allegations of discriminatory treatment amounted to “incidental harms based on the geographic location of individuals.” One judge concurred, writing that while she agreed that the Pollution Control Clause did not create an individual or enforceable right, she was hesitant “to foreclose the possibility that [it] creates any right at all.” Atencio v. State, No. A-1-CA-42006 (N.M. Ct. App. June 3, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Fourth Circuit Stayed District Court Injunction Requiring Restoration of IRA and IIJA Grant Funds

In a 2-1 order, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s emergency motion to stay a district court’s injunction requiring the government to restore the plaintiffs’ access to funding from 32 grants awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Fourth Circuit found that the government was likely to succeed on its argument that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, which instead should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims because the plaintiffs’ claims were based on contracts—the grant agreements—not the statutes. The Fourth Circuit also found that the government demonstrated irreparable harm because it would not be able to recoup the funds it was being forced to disburse. One judge dissented due to the “novel” nature of the jurisdictional questions, which “could end up being resolved in favor of either party after full briefing and argument.” The dissenting judge did not think the defendants made a sufficiently “strong showing” that were likely to succeed on appeal. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc on June 10, 2025. Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 25-1575 (4th Cir. June 5, 2025)

Eighth Circuit Said Federal and State Law Preempted Iowa Counties’ Regulation of Carbon Dioxide Pipeline

Affirming two district court decisions, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal Pipeline Safety Act (PSA) and Iowa state law preempted two Iowa counties’ ordinances that would regulate portions of a planned pipeline for transporting carbon dioxide across five states. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the ordinances’ setback and emergency response provisions were safety standards preempted by the PSA. The Eighth Circuit also found that an abandonment provision within one county’s ordinance fell within the scope of the PSA, “which extends to abandoned and discontinued pipelines.” The Eighth Circuit also held that Iowa’s law on hazardous liquid pipelines preempted county permitting and trenchless construction requirements because the counties’ higher standards made the requirements inconsistent with the state law, which delegated permitting power to the Iowa Utilities Commission that was “singular, sweeping, and cedes nothing to the counties.” Couser v. Shelby County, No. 23-3758 (8th Cir. June 5, 2025); Couser v. Story County, No. 23-3760 (8th Cir. June 5, 2025)

Wyoming Federal Court Let Tribe and Environmental Organizations Intervene to Defend Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium

The federal district court for the District of Wyoming granted a motion by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and a number of environmental organizations to intervene to defend the Biden administration’s Resource Management Plan amendments that imposed a federal moratorium on new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin in eastern Montana and Wyoming. The court agreed with the proposed intervenors that their environmental and organizational concerns were “legally protectable” interests in the case, that disposition of the lawsuit would adversely affect their interests, and that the existing parties could not adequately protect the proposed intervenors’ interests. The court also concluded that the proposed intervenors did not have to demonstrate independent standing to intervene. Wyoming v. Burgum, No. 1:24-cv-00257 (D. Wyo. June 6, 2025)

Federal Court Rejected Challenges to 2020 Amendments to SEC Proxy Statement Rule Amendments

The federal district court for the District of Columbia rejected challenges to November 2020 amendments to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-8, which governs the corporate proxy statement process. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the SEC’s cost-benefit analysis did not reasonably consider the benefits of shareholder proposals and that the SEC’s rationale for the amendments—which was “to modernize and enhance the efficiency and integrity of the shareholder-proposal process for the benefit of all shareholders”— was a pretextual justification and that the “true reason” was to support corporate management opposition to the substance of many shareholder proposals, particularly proposals addressing environmental and social issues. Regarding these two arguments, the court found that the SEC reasonably disregarded certain studies about the potential benefits of shareholder proposals and that the plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing based on the existing administrative record that would justify judicial inquiry beyond the SEC’s stated reasons for adopting the rule. Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 1:21-cv-01620 (D.D.C. June 5, 2025)

Louisiana Federal Court Said Case Challenging President Biden’s Withdrawal of Outer Continental Shelf Lands from Oil and Gas Leasing Was Not Moot

The federal district court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that a lawsuit challenging President Biden’s withdrawal of certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from potential oil and gas leasing was not moot despite President Trump’s executive order rescinding the withdrawal memoranda. The court therefore denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings by environmental groups that had intervened as defendants. The court said the lawsuit concerned an issue “that has been the subject of an apparent tug-of-war between administrations for more than a decade” and found that “[t]he likelihood that a subsequent administration will attempt to undo the actions of the last one in this arena by executive order or memorandum is high.” The court also noted that some of the environmental group intervenors in this case were asking another court to vacate President Trump’s rescission order. Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:25-cv-00071 (W.D. La. May 30, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Said Discovery of General Climate Change Information Was Relevant in Adaptation Case Regarding Providence Terminal

In Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) citizen suit alleging that Shell defendants failed to prepare a bulk storage and fuel terminal in the Port of Providence (Providence Terminal) for the impacts of climate change, the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island granted in part and denied in part each side’s motion to compel discovery. The court ruled that Shell must provide factual responses to questions regarding the defendants’ “knowledge and intent in designing, constructing and operating the Terminal with regard to specified flood/storm risks,” rejecting the argument that the documents and admissions sought were more appropriate for expert discovery. The court also rejected the Shell defendants’ contention that requested documents related generally to climate change and not restricted to the Providence Terminal were not relevant. The found, however, that CLF’s request for admissions about what is “possible” called for “irrelevant speculation.” Regarding the Shell defendants’ requests for documents related to “CLF’s institutional knowledge, fundraising, advocacy and communications,” the court found that the discovery was not relevant to the claims and defenses in issue and that to the extent it was “peripherally relevant” was “hopelessly overbroad,” though the court left open that possibility that such information could be relevant and proportional in a different circumstance. The court said both CLF and the Shell defendants could not refuse to respond based on the purported vagueness of requests, finding that the parties must respond based on their reasonable understandings of the requests. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US, No. 1:17-cv-00396 (D.R.I. May 29, 2025)

South Carolina Federal Court Rejected Challenge to Wetlands Permit for Mixed-Use Development Near Charleston

The federal district court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to defendants on claims challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for a mixed-use residential and commercial development on the Cainhoy Peninsula near Charleston, South Carolina. Under the Clean Water Act, the court found that the Corps did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by determining that the project was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The court also deferred to the Corps’ determination that the project would not lead to significant degradation of the waters of the United States and found that the Corps’ public interest review carefully considered the project’s benefits of housing, public services, and conservation “as compared to foreseeable detriments such as increased flooding.” Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the court found that “ample citations to the administrative record” reflected that the Corps considered impacts that the plaintiffs contended the defendants failed to consider, including impacts arising from climate change and sea level rise. The court also found that the plaintiffs had abandoned their Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 2:22-cv-02727 (D.S.C. May 22, 2025)

Ninth Circuit Said Forest Restoration Project’s NEPA Review Was Insufficient

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part a district court’s decision finding that the U.S. Forest Service complied with NEPA in connection with its approval of the Twisp Restoration Project in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, a project that was intended to promote the forest’s resilience to wildfire and climate change, among other purposes. The Ninth Circuit rejected the arguments that the public comment process was insufficient and that the Forest Service relied on an “overly narrow” statement of purpose and need that relied on “circular logic” of using fire suppression and timber harvest to address problems created by previous fire suppression and timber harvest. The Ninth Circuit also found that the Forest Service “sufficiently analyzed viable alternatives” and that the plaintiff did not show that a “natural succession alternative” was feasible. Although the Ninth Circuit rejected a challenge to the Forest Service’s methodology for assessing the project’s impacts, it found that the Forest Service had a duty to analyze the cumulative effects of a restoration project that shared a “common origin” with the Twisp Restoration Project but which covered areas removed from the Twisp project area after a wildfire. The court remanded for a determination of whether an environmental impact statement was necessary based on a revised cumulative effects analysis. North Cascades Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 24-1422 (9th Cir. May 2, 2025)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

California and Other States Challenged Congressional Review Act Disapproval of Clean Air Act Waivers for Three California Vehicle Emission Regulations

California and 10 other states filed a lawsuit challenging three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that “disapproved” Clean Air Act preemption waivers granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for California’s Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Cars II, and Omnibus Low NOx regulations. The other state plaintiffs adopted one or more of these regulations pursuant to Section 177 of the Clean Air Act. The states filed their lawsuit on the same day that President Trump signed the resolutions. The states asserted that the defendants—the United States, EPA, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and President Trump—took actions outside their statutory authority to reclassify the waiver decisions as rules “to provide a pretextual basis for the use of the CRA to disapprove adjudicatory orders granting the three waivers.” The complaint alleged that Congress intended the CRA to apply only to federal rules of general applicability and had never before applied the CRA outside this intended scope. The complaint further alleged that Clean Air Act preemption waivers had consistently been understood to be adjudicatory orders and not rules, and that both the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian had determined that the three waivers at issue in this case were not subject to the CRA. In addition to their claim that the defendants’ actions were ultra vires, the states also asserted that the defendants violated the CRA, separation of powers, and the Tenth Amendment and structural principles of federalism. In addition, the states claimed that the United States, EPA, and the EPA Administrator violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that President Trump, EPA, and the EPA Administrator violated Article II’s Take Care Clause, which provides that the Executive Branch “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” They also brought a nonstatutory review claim asserting that the CRA resolutions were unlawful and unconstitutional. The states requested declaratory and injunctive relief and asked the court to vacate EPA’s reclassification of the preemption waivers as rules and submission of the documents to Congress. California v. United States, No. 25-cv-04966 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2025)

Maryland Municipalities Filed Opening Brief in Appeal of Dismissal of their Climate Cases Against Fossil Fuel Companies

On June 3, 2025, the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, the City of Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County (the municipalities) filed their opening brief in the Maryland Supreme Court in their appeals of trial court decisions dismissing their climate change cases against fossil fuel industry defendants. The municipalities initially appealed to the Appellate Court; the defendants then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Maryland Supreme Court; and the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari on April 24, 2025, limited to seven questions, the first of which asked whether the U.S. Constitution and federal law preempted “state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions on global climate.” The other six questions related to whether Maryland law precluded nuisance, failure-to-warn, and trespass claims in the context of products produced, promoted, sold, and used around the world and whether the municipalities stated claims for public and private nuisance, strict liability and negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The municipalities argued that their claims were not preempted by federal common law or the Clean Air Act, or barred by any constitutional provision. They disputed the trial courts’ characterization of their claims as operating as “de facto regulation” of greenhouse gas emissions. They also contended that their claims were actionable under Maryland law. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., City of Annapolis v. BP p.l.c., Anne Arundel County v. BP p.l.c., No. 11 (Md. June 3, 2025)

Lawsuit Challenged “Mass Terminations” of Department of Agriculture Grants

Three nonprofit organizations that received grant awards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—including under the U.S. Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Assistance (UCFA) program and the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program of the Natural Resources Conservation Service—filed a lawsuit to block the USDA’s “mass terminations” of grant awards. The plaintiffs alleged that the “sole basis for these mass terminations is that the grant awards allegedly no longer effectuate new USDA priorities—namely the Trump Administration’s priority to attack anything it can portray as related to diversity, equity, inclusion (‘DEI’) or climate change, regardless of the purpose of the awards or limits on agency authority.” The complaint asserted that the grant terminations violated their procedural due process rights, that the defendants’ application of the uniform guidance for federal grant awards was unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process, and that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the mass terminations were not in accordance with law and were arbitrary and capricious. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the termination of the UCFA awards under the Inflation Reduction Act violated separation of powers and constituted ultra vires action. The plaintiffs asked the court to vacate the terminations of their awards and to order the defendants to “return to the status quo” in relation to the awards. Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:25-cv-01775 (D.D.C., filed June 5, 2025)

Plaintiffs Cited Climate Change Threats to Sonoran Desert Tortoise in Lawsuit Challenging Decision Not to List Species Under Endangered Species Act

A coalition of conservation organizations and biologists filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2022 determination that listing of the Sonoran desert tortoise as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. The plaintiffs alleged that the determination was not consistent with previous findings from 2010 to 2014, that it conflicted with best available science, and that it “downplay[ed] the significant threat from climate change, including severe drought conditions in Arizona which are likely to result in alarming population declines (likely exceeding 80% of the entire population) in the foreseeable future.” The complaint also alleged that the determination overlooked cumulative threats from climate change and other factors including habitat loss from development, and relied on nonbinding voluntary conservation measures. Desert Tortoise Council v. Burgum, No. 4:25-cv-00272 (D. Ariz., filed June 4, 2025)

Lawsuit Challenged “Emergency Situation Determination” for National Forest System Lands

An environmental organization filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins’s April 3, 2025 Memorandum 1078-006, “Increasing Timber Production and Designating an Emergency Situation on National Forest System Lands.” The organization alleged that the Memorandum made an “Emergency Situation Determination” (ESD) under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that authorized the harvesting of more than 112 million acres of National Forest System lands at a discount price and directed the Forest Service to implement timber harvesting on such lands. The Memorandum implemented Executive Order 14225, “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,” which President Trump issued on March 1, 2025. The complaint alleged that the actions authorized by the Memorandum “will lead to increased logging activity on millions of acres of federal forest land, with direct and indirect environmental impacts including loss of wildlife habitat, increased carbon emissions, soil erosion, water quality degradation, and impacts to endangered species.” The complaint asserted that the ESD and Memorandum and actions taken under them are contrary to law and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Green Climate v. Rollins, No. 1:25-cv-01760 (D.D.C., filed June 3, 2025)

California Residents Filed Lawsuit Alleging that Vape Manufacturers Made False Claims Regarding Carbon Neutrality

Three California residents who had bought Vuse-brand vaporizer devices and consumable products filed a lawsuit against the products’ manufacturers in the federal district court for the Northern District of California alleging that the defendants made false and misleading representations about the products’ carbon neutrality. The plaintiffs alleged that the representation of carbon neutrality depended on the offsetting of emissions through the purchase of carbon offset credits from reforestation projects. The complaint alleged that 84.72% of the carbon credits were allocated to four reforestation projects in Uruguay and China that did not provide “genuine, additional carbon reductions” either because the tree planting would have occurred without the carbon credits’ financial incentive or because the forests faced “negligible deforestation risks.” The plaintiffs contended that defendants had an obligation to independently verify that the projects they invested in met additionality requirements. The plaintiffs alleged they suffered economic harm because they paid a price premium based on the misleading claims. The complaint asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law as well as causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The relief sought by the plaintiffs included compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages and an order enjoining the defendants from labeling, advertising, or packaging the vape products as “carbon neutral.” Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 3:25-cv-04521 (N.D. Cal., filed May 28, 2025)

Five Greenwashing Class Actions Filed Against Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissues Manufacturer

On May 28, 2025, consumers filed five greenwashing class actions in several federal district courts against Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), the manufacturer of Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissues. The complaints—filed by plaintiffs in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York—alleged that P&G deceptively marketed itself as committed to protecting, regrowing, and restoring primary forests such as the Canadian boreal forest while remaining “complicit in the clearcutting of untouched ancient primary forests” to sell its products. The lawsuits claimed that these representations, which were prominently displayed on the product’s packaging and advertising, were designed to mislead environmentally conscious consumers into believing that P&G products were sustainably sourced. In particular, the complaints highlighted P&G’s use of advertising campaigns like “Keep Forests as Forests” and “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging. The complaints emphasized the critical importance of preserving boreal forests due to their capacity to store large quantities of carbon in their soil and peat, “making them one of the largest terrestrial carbon sinks on Earth.” The plaintiffs alleged that disturbances to these ecosystems could have far-reaching global consequences. The complaints alleged that although P&G is not engaging in “deforestation,” its actions constitute “forest degradation,” which can be “equally devastating to the long-term health of primary forests,” including biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem health.

Under its “Protect” messaging, P&G allegedly implied that its tissue products were environmentally responsible because they used pulp certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). However, the complaints asserted that P&G failed to disclose its reliance on suppliers engaged in industrial logging practices such as clearcutting and burning. Plaintiffs further argued that P&G’s use of FSC and Rainforest Alliance logos is misleading, noting that only a small portion of its pulp is FSC-certified and that the Rainforest Alliance, which ceased its certification program years earlier, also never operated in Canada’s boreal forest. 

Under the “Grow” component, P&G claimed that for every tree harvested, two are planted. Plaintiffs argued that this too is deceptive, as the replanting often consists of chemically treated monoculture conifers grown for future logging, creating artificial “tree farms” rather than restoring natural forest ecosystems.

The “Restore” promise—highlighting P&G’s partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation to plant one million trees—was similarly criticized as a token gesture. The complaints noted that such efforts cover less than 1% of the area logged annually in Canada’s boreal forest and do not amount to meaningful ecosystem restoration.

The complaints asserted that these representations violate the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides and various state consumer protection laws, including deceptive practices and fraudulent concealment laws. The plaintiffs sought class certification and asserted claims on behalf of nationwide and state-specific classes. They requested injunctive relief to halt the misleading marketing practices, along with restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees. They also sought an order requiring P&G to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. Dean v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 1:25-cv-05977 (N.D. Ill., filed May 28, 2025); Alzaidi v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 3:25-cv-04519 (N.D. Cal., filed May 28, 2025); Willis v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 1:25-cv-04461 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 28, 2025); DuPont v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 0:25-cv-02260 (D. Minn., filed May 28, 2025); Giarrizzo v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 1:25-cv-011524 (D. Mass., filed May 28, 2025)

Lawsuit Filed to Compel Endangered Species Act Listing Decision for Railroad Valley Toad

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a complaint in the federal district court for the District of Arizona seeking to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Railroad Valley toad under the Endangered Species Act. CBD submitted the petition in April 2022. FWS found that the toad might warrant listing in January 2024. CBD asserted that the 12-month finding required under the Endangered Species Act was due on April 12, 2023 and asked the court to require FWS to issue the finding by a date certain. CBD alleged that the toad—which has an estimated distribution of 445 acres in Nevada—was threatened by oil and gas drilling and by a proposed lithium production project, as well as by other threats, including climate change. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:25-cv-00256 (D. Ariz., filed May 28, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

United Kingdom: UK court dismisses Challenge to UK’s Jet Zero Strategy regarding aviation

In October 2022, climate charity Possible as well as Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) filed separate claims for judicial review in the High Court for England and Wales against the Secretary of State for Transport (SoS Transport), challenging the UK government’s “Jet Zero” strategy. The “Jet Zero” strategy is the UK’s strategy to decarbonise the aviation sector to achieve net zero in aviation by 2050.

The strategy is alleged to:

-           breach the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 since the SoS Transport did not ensure that it would enable the UK’s carbon budgets to be met, which would result in a failure to deliver net zero

-           breach public law principles, because the SoS Transport a) departed from advice given by the Climate Change Committee (the UK’s statutory advisory body on climate change) on reducing demand without giving lawful reasons, b) did not lawfully consult on the strategy, c) failed to take into account emissions other than CO2 caused by flights.

GALBA makes an additional argument on the effects of the strategy on local planning applications for airports.

It was announced in March 2023 that the two cases would proceed to a joint hearing.

Following the joint hearing on 1-4 April 2025, the High Court dismissed the judicial review challenging the UK’s Jet Zero Strategy regarding aviation. The hearing involved three separate claims brought by the two claimants, GALBA and Possible. 

The court determined that the Jet Zero Strategy was intended to focus on achieving net zero aviation by 2050, not on directly restricting aviation demand as suggested by the Climate Change Committee. The judge stated that “it may have been preferable to have included a few lines in the consultation document” explaining why demand management was not included, but the court ruled that this was not a sufficient basis for ruling the entire consultation to be unlawful. Possible v. Secretary of State for Transport; and GALBA v. SST (challenges to government’s ‘Jet Zero strategy’ for decarbonising aviation) (UK, High Court of Justice)

DECISIONS & SETTLEMENTS

Spain: Commercial Court finds that Repsol is misleading consumers with sustainability claims 

On February 21, 2024, Iberdrola Energía España, a major renewable energy company, submitted a claim before the Commercial Court of Santander, in Spain, on the basis that Repsol commits irregularities such as “greenwashing”, “marketing strategies aimed at exaggerating, or directly falsifying, a company’s commitment to sustainability and the environment” and “acts of deception and “misleading omissions.” Iberdrola states that Repsol, Spanish major fossil fuel player, will continue to grow in electricity customers and will continue to offer society present and future energy solutions, such as “renewable fuels” which are a “threat to the false discourse that electrification is the only solution to reduce CO2 emissions in transportation.”

On February 21, 2025, the Commercial Court ruled in favor of Iberdrola, and partially upheld its claim against Repsol, S.A. and its subsidiaries for unfair competition through misleading advertising. The court found that multiple environmental claims made by Repsol on its corporate website and in some advertising campaigns were misleading and thus constituted acts of unfair competition under Articles 5 and 7 of Spain’s Unfair Competition Law (LCD). These misleading claims gave the false impression that Repsol was a sustainable company or was leading the energy transition, despite the fact that over 99% of its business was still linked to fossil fuels. 

Note that following this claim submitted before the Commercial Court No. 2 of Santander, environmental and consumer NGOs and associations have submitted claims before the Regulatory Authority (National Commission for Markets and Competition), highlighting the contribution of Repsol to climate change and accusing Repsol of a greenwashing strategy. Iberdrola and others vs. Repsol (Spain, Commercial Court No.2 of Santander)

Australia: Parties reach settlement on greenwashing claim

On August 9, 2023, Australian Parents for Climate Action (AP4CA) filed a claim in the Federal Court of Australia challenging allegedly misleading statements made by EnergyAustralia about its “carbon neutral” energy products. AP4CA is a climate advocacy organization that works for parents, carers, and families who want to create a safer future for their children. EnergyAustralia produces and sells electricity and is Australia’s third largest domestic greenhouse gas emitter, producing 16.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2021/22. EnergyAustralia offers “Go Neutral Electricity” and “Go Neutral Gas” products. “Go Neutral” customers purchase energy which is mainly sourced from burning fossil fuels, and EnergyAustralia promises to purchase carbon credits to “offset” the associated emissions. The “Go Neutral” products require consumers to opt-in, but there is no additional cost to the consumer. 

EnergyAustralia, on its website, claims that: 

1.         “Go Neutral” electricity and gas is “carbon neutral”;

2.         Emissions created by “Go Neutral” electricity and gas are “cancelled out” or “negated”; 

3.         By opting into “Go Neutral” products, consumers “have a positive impact on the environment”. 

AP4CA argues that EnergyAustralia’s marketing of its “Go Neutral” products amounts to misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. AP4CA argues that carbon offsets do not “cancel out” or “neutralize” the emissions generation by “Go Neutral” energy and that using “Go Neutral” energy does not have a positive impact on the environment. This is because, in summary: 

1.         Paying someone else to avoid generating emissions (known as an “avoidance” credit) is not equivalent to removing the emissions generated from “Go Neutral” energy. Almost 99% of EnergyAustralia’s carbon credits are avoidance credits;

2.         Paying someone else to remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere (known as a “removal” credit) does not cancel out or negate the emissions generated from “Go Neutral” energy. The carbon removal projects EnergyAustralia buys are short-lived and not permanent; 

3.         The emissions from “Go Neutral” ultimately result in a net increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

AP4CA also argues that EnergyAustralia’s renewable energy product “PureEnergy” was not given the same prominence on its website as “Go Neutral”, meaning customers could not compare both products. AP4CA seeks a declaration that EnergyAustralia has misled its customers since 2019 about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electricity and gas usage. AP4CA also seeks an order that EnergyAustralia be restrained from making “carbon neutral” or similar statements to describe the “Go Neutral” product and that it issue a corrective statement to its customers. 

On May 15, 2025, the parties reached a settlement as the final hearing was about to commence. Under the settlement terms, EnergyAustralia issued a formal statement acknowledging that carbon offsets do not negate the environmental harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. EnergyAustralia issued an apology to the 400,000 customers who were part of the ‘Go Neutral’ product scheme, removed all marketing relating to the product on its websites, and discontinued the ‘Go Neutral’ products. Australian Parents for Climate Action v. EnergyAustralia (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

United Kingdom: Court rejects appeal to challenge to a hydrocarbon exploitation project in West Sussex

This public law challenge concerns the grant of planning permission for exploration and assessment of hydrocarbons at a site in Balcombe, West Sussex. The decision was made by a planning inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State. The claimant is a residents association opposed to the proposed development.

In October 2023, the High Court gave judgment, dismissing the claim.

There had been no breach of the EIA regulations. First, there had been no failure to consider the ‘project’ as a whole when screening the proposal out of the EIA regime. The scheme was a single, clearly defined project limited to exploration and associated monitoring. It did not include any subsequent commercial production. Second, whilst GHG emissions were not expressly considered in the screening opinion, that was not an error of law. Whilst there would be a flare, it would have been obvious that this flare would emit GHG emissions. Further, this was a small-scale development, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that that GHG emissions were not a significant likely effect. (Paragraphs 41 to 61.)

The claimant also argued that the inspector should have considered the assessed and quantified level of GHG which would be emitted and he failed to do so. However, there is no requirement, whether in statute or caselaw, that every planning decision has to expressly refer to or quantify the GHG emissions that will result. Climate change is likely to be a material consideration in every planning decision given the policy context as well as the much wider issues, but that does not mean that every decision has to have reference to specific figures or assessment. Each case will depend on its own factual and policy context. Here the reference the inspector made to climate change was adequate in the context of this case. (Paragraphs 62 to 65.)

On October 31, 2023, the claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the High Court’s ruling. In April 2025, the Court of Appeals rejected the claimants’ appeals. First, the court decided that the inspector correctly limited the scope of the assessment to exploration and appraisal phases. Second, the court found that the inspector did sufficiently consider alternatives sites. Third, the court determined that the inspector’s assessment of water pollution was not flawed. Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (UK, Court of Appeals)

Mexico: Supreme Court rules that extinction of the Climate Fund is regressive and unconstitutional

The General Law on Climate Change in Mexico was issued in 2012. This law contemplated the Climate Change Fund, a public trust fund created to increase the existing resources to address climate change. According to article 80 of the Law, it had the objective of attracting and channeling public, private, national, and international financial resources to support the implementation of actions to address climate change. However, in 2020 the Mexican Congress reformed the Law and eliminated the Climate Change Fund.

On November 30, 2020, Greenpeace Mexico filed a lawsuit against these amendments, arguing that they violated the constitutional right to a healthy environment. 

On March 30, 2023, the District Court dismissed the case, deciding that the plaintiff did not have standing because the amendments did not impact them, considering that Greenpeace did not prove that it was beneficiary of the Climate Change Fund or that it had an application in process to access the Climate Change Fund’s resources. 

On April 17, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the decision. The Collegiate Court reversed the District Court’s decision, deciding that Greenpeace did have standing to sue, due to their scientific work in defense of the environment. Then, they asked the Supreme Court to decide the case on the merits.

The Supreme Court ruled on the merits of the case and determined that the extinction of the Climate Change Fund constitutes a regressive measure that affects the right to a healthy environment and reduced the level of protection that had been achieved to protect it. It decided that the amendments violate the right to a healthy environment because they eliminated the general rules that existed to regulate the financing, evaluation and oversight of projects and programs to address climate change, which affected principles such as efficiency, transparency and honesty in the use of the public budget. In addition, it decided that the legislator did not adequately justify the disappearance of the Fund. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the relief so that the amendments could not be applied, neither now nor in the future, in proceedings in which the NGO seeks access to public funds intended to mitigate the effects of climate change, including trusts or other similar instruments. Greenpeace v. Mexico (on the Climate Change Fund) (Mexico, District Court in Administrative Matters)

Turkey: Court rejects appeal on challenge to Turkey’s NDC

On May 8, 2023, three youth climate activists initiated administrative proceedings before the Council of State (Danıştay), requesting the annulment of Türkiye’s Updated First Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat on April 13, 2023, naming the Presidency of Türkiye and the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change as respondents.

The claimants argued that the Updated NDC, which pledges a 41% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (relative to a Business-as-Usual scenario based on 2012 emissions), is unscientific, inadequate, and inconsistent with Türkiye’s obligations under the Paris Agreement. They further alleged violations of fundamental rights, including the right to life, the right to a healthy and balanced environment, intergenerational equity, and the rights enshrined in the Turkish Constitution, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The plaintiffs contended that the Updated NDC constitutes an administrative act producing legal effects within the domestic legal order and is therefore subject to judicial review.

On June 16, 2023 (E:2023/2600, K:2023/3568), the Council of State (10th Chamber) rejected the case without examination on the merits, concluding that the NDC does not constitute a justiciable administrative act. The court held that: “The NDC, being a commitment under the Paris Agreement, does not directly affect the national legal order. It merely outlines future regulatory intentions and, as such, does not qualify as an administrative act subject to annulment proceedings.”

The claimants appealed to the Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Assembly. They submitted that:

1.        The NDC, although derived from international obligations, constitutes a concrete and binding roadmap affecting national policy and regulatory frameworks. It thus qualifies as an executive administrative act.

2.        Under Article 90 of the Constitution, international agreements duly put into effect have the force of law, and actions taken pursuant to such agreements must be open to judicial review.

3.        Excluding the NDC from judicial oversight would allow the executive to shield climate-related administrative decisions from legal accountability, despite their concrete impact on citizens’ rights and environmental governance.

The investigating judge issued a non-binding opinion supporting the claimants’ position, arguing that:

•        Administrative actions separable from the core domain of international relations—such as decisions regarding licensing decisions or tenders—may be reviewed on the merits.

•        The NDC, while rooted in international law, represents its domestic implementation. It is not an integral part of the Paris Agreement but a unilateral declaration of national policy based on treaty obligations.

•        As such, the Updated NDC should be classified as a definitive and mandatory administrative act, amenable to judicial review.

On June 4, 2024 (E:2024/84, K:2024/1253), the Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Assembly dismissed the appeal and denied the request for an oral hearing. The Assembly concluded that the first-instance decision was legally and procedurally sound and that the appeal grounds did not justify reversal.

A dissenting judge issued an opinion invoking the Ayrılabilir İşlemler Kuramı, which posits that administrative acts separable from the domain of foreign affairs—but adopted in implementation of international treaties—are subject to domestic judicial review, provided they are separable from the treaty itself and produce legal effects within the domestic legal order, arguing:

•        The Paris Agreement itself is not subject to judicial review; however, acts taken to implement its obligations domestically—such as the adoption of an NDC—may be reviewed if they are detachable and have legal effect.

•        The NDC establishes a specific trajectory for national GHG emissions, defines a timeline, and serves as the basis for future legislation and administrative enforcement. It thereby alters the national legal landscape.

•        The NDC is not an annex to the Paris Agreement but a standalone executive act taken in furtherance of it. It meets the criteria of a definitive and executable administrative act separable from the treaty itself.

•        Permitting judicial review of such acts does not intrude upon the domain of international relations but safeguards constitutional principles, including legality, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights.

The dissent concluded that the plaintiffs’ appeal should have been granted, the first-instance decision overturned, and the matter remanded for examination on the merits.

 This case marks the first domestic legal challenge to Türkiye’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. While the majority upheld a narrow interpretation of justiciability, the dissent’s invocation of the Detachable Acts Theory contributed to the debate about the interface between international climate obligations and domestic administrative law. A.S. & S.A. & E.N.B v. Presidency of Türkiye & The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change (Turkey, Council of State)

Peru: Court finds that distribution of benefits for REDD+ project in protected area must include Indigenous communities

In 2020, the Kichwa community of Puerto Franco challenged Peru’s Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation, and the Regional Agrarian Directorate of San Martin to recognize their territorial sovereignty over lands encroached upon by Cordillera Azul’s REDD+ project. The Kichwa claimed that the State failed to comply with its obligation to protect and title the rights to the lands under the Cordillera Azul National Park, which was created in 2001 without the consent of the communities. 

In December 2024, the Mixed Court of Bellavista of the Superior Court of Justice of San Martin ruled in favor of the Kichwa and ordered the titling of the territory to the community, the distribution of benefits from the park’s carbon credit sales, and guaranteeing the Kichwa access to the park’s natural resources. The court cited Article 89 of the Peruvian Constitution in its decision and Articles 26-27 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its ruling to emphasize the legal principles underlying the Kichwa’s rights to autonomous control over their traditional lands. The court also issued a mandatory management sharing duty to the Kichwa and ordered the resizing of the REDD+ project. Thus, the ruling established legal and procedural mechanisms for the Kichwa people to be involved in REDD+ decision-making in the National Park, thereby strengthening their customary rights over their forests. Kichwa v. MINAM (Peru, Mixed Court of Bellavista of the Superior Court of Justice of San Martin)

United Kingdom: Court finds UK’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan unlawful

In June 2021, the UK’s sixth carbon budget was set, covering the period 2033 to 2037. In November 2021, the government published its strategy for meeting that and the other preceding carbon budgets. However, that strategy was held to be in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008 - R(Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and Good Law Project) v SSBEIS [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin). The court ordered the government to revise its strategy to correct the legal errors identified. That revised strategy – the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan – was published in March 2023. However, that too was challenged on public law grounds in claims brought by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project. 

Friends of the Earth’s challenge raises grounds under both sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act. Under section 13, Friends of the Earth argue that the Secretary of State did not consider delivery risk in a lawful way, and that there was no legally sufficient basis for the Secretary of State to conclude that the proposals and policies “will enable” the carbon budgets to be met. Further, Friends of the Earth argues that the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to put forward proposals that “must” contribute to sustainable development. Under section 14, Friends of the Earth argue that the Plan unlawfully does not include information obviously material to the critical issue of risk to the delivery of the carbon budgets.

Good Law Project’s challenge focuses on the government’s refusal to include a proper assessment of the delivery risk associated with each of the policies and proposals in the Plan. Good Law Project argues that this is unlawful because it is a breach of section 14 , which requires the Secretary of State to publish sufficient information to allow meaningful scrutiny of the government’s net-zero policies.

ClientEarth’s challenge focuses on the government’s failure to have regard to considerations that are legally essential under section 13, related to the risks of its plans not delivering the emissions savings required to meet the UK’s climate targets. ClientEarth also argues that the government’s assumption that the projected emissions savings from its policies will be delivered ‘in full’ was not rational, having regard to the government’s own assessment of delivery risks to key policies.

On May 3, 2024, the High Court sided with Friends of the Earth on two grounds. First, the Secretary of State breached § 13(1) of the Climate Change Act by failing to consider material considerations in the carbon budget. Second, the Secretary of State made unlawful and irrational assumptions in deciding that their emissions cuts would be fully delivered. Without factual justifications, the Court decided the State acted unlawfully. The High Court held that the UK government’s revised Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (CBDP) failed to comply with its legal obligations under sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008. The Court found that the Secretary of State had not been adequately informed of the delivery risks associated with proposed policies, many of which were uncertain, unquantified, or lacked sufficient evidence of feasibility. Despite this, the government claimed these policies would enable the UK to meet its legally binding carbon budgets. The Court emphasized the need for transparent, evidence-based policymaking and ruled that the Secretary of State could not lawfully conclude that the carbon budgets would be met without properly assessing and disclosing delivery risks. As a result, the CBDP was declared unlawful, requiring further revision and compliance with statutory duties.

Following this decision, the Court gave the government until October 2025 to revise and publish an updated version of The Carbon Budget Delivery Plan. R(Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; ClientEarth v SSESNZ; Good Law Project v SSESNZ (challenges to the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan) (UK, High Court of Justice)

United Kingdom: Court dismissed application for judicial review of UK’s National Adaptation Programme

A disability rights activist, a campaigner trying to save his home and Friends of the Earth, have together brought a public law challenge to the UK’s ‘National Adaptation Programme 3’ (or ‘NAP3’). The claim focuses on legal compliance with section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, as well as breaches of human rights. One co-claimant is a care home resident particularly vulnerable to overheating during seasonal heatwaves, the other is at imminent risk of losing his home and possessions to rising sea levels and coastal erosion. Between them they allege that NAP3 is so deficient that it breaches their human rights to: life (Article 2), home (Article 8), possessions (A1P1), and that they are discriminated against on account of their vulnerable situations (Article 14). The case was filed on October 17, 2023, and is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK. 

The grounds are as follows.

• Ground 1 – misdirection in law as to the correct approach to setting ‘objectives’ under s58(1)(a). Rather than setting lawful specific objectives the Secretary of State has included vague ‘risk reduction goals’. The claimants consider this is inconsistent with the statutory language in s58, the overall statutory scheme, and its fundamental purpose.
• Ground 2 – unlawful failure to consider and/or publish information on the risk(s) to delivery of the plans and proposals in NAP3. There is no evidence this assessment was done.
• Ground 3 – unlawful failure to discharge the ‘public sector equality duty’, in not lawfully considering the unequal impacts of NAP3 on protected groups in society (such as age, race or disability).
• Ground 4 – breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to unlawful interferences with the individual co-claimants’ rights under articles 2, 8, 14 and article 1 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is partly due to the failures in ground 1, but also separately due to the content and deficiencies in NAP3 itself.

A two-day hearing occurred on 23-24 July 2024, in which the claimants challenged NAP3 on the four grounds. The court delivered its judgement on October 25, 2024, and dismissed the application for judicial review on all grounds as follows. 

• Ground 1 - The court found that the Secretary of State did not misinterpret the requirement for “objectives” in s.58 of the Climate Change Act, determining that the duty imposed by is not a single, precisely quantified, objective.
• Ground 2 - The court found that the Secretary of State had considered “delivery risk” at various stages and there was no evidence of unlawful failure.
• Ground 3 - The court ruled that although the initial approach of assessing the equalities implications of NAP3 did not lawfully comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty, the subsequent Equality Impact Assessment conducted solved the original error, considering quashing the belated assessment decision would serve no useful purpose.
• Ground 4 - The court ruled that the claimants’ human rights were not breached and that the government’s adaptation strategies were in alignment with statutory requirements. 

The claimants have now sought to challenge the ruling at the European Court of Human Rights as they have exhausted the domestic route. R(Friends of the Earth Ltd, Mr Kevin Jordan and Mr Doug Paulley) v Secretary of State for Environment, Rood & Rural Affairs (challenge to the Third National Adaptation Programme) (UK, High Court of Justice)

Taiwan: Taipei Administrative Court dismisses Greenpeace claim

On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs filed suit against Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), alleging that the agency’s Regulation for Large Power Consumers was not ambitious enough, in violation of the country’s climate laws. MOEA’s Regulation for Large Power Consumers entered into force on January 1, 2020, and requires large consumers to transition 10% of their contracted capacity to renewable energy. Plaintiffs challenge two aspects of the regulations. They argue that the regulations improperly applied only to 10% of contracted capacity, rather than 20% of actual consumption, and the regulations improperly raised the threshold for who qualifies as a large power consumer to 5,000 kWh, exempting 90% of large company consumers. Plaintiffs argue that the defects violate the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act and the Renewable Energy Development Act, which set a 20% renewable energy goal by 2025. Plaintiffs seek a court order for the MOEA to amend the Regulation for Large Power Consumers. According to the plaintiffs, this is the first citizen suit in Taiwan seeking a reduction in carbon emissions. 

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim on May 8, 2025, stating that the plaintiffs do not have standing, cannot seek judicial review of the regulation, and that people or civic groups do not possess the right to demand that administrative agencies amend laws. Greenpeace has appealed the court decision and plans to continue challenging the court ruling on legal and factual grounds. Greenpeace East Asia and others v. Ministry of Economic Affairs (Taiwan, Taipei Administrative Court)

Canada: Supreme Court rejects appeal on youth case brought against Ontario

The Cap and Trade Cancellation Act (CTCA) was enacted by the province of Ontario in 2018. It repealed the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act, which had established an emission reduction target of 37% below 2005 levels by 2030 in the province, and implemented a revised target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. In response, Ecojustice assisted seven youth environmental activists who filed an application against Ontario, contesting the constitutionality of CTCA. The Applicants argued that the revised target did not adequately address the risks associated with climate change, thereby violating the rights of Ontario youth and future generations as protected by sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They contended that their section 7 right to life, liberty, and security of the person was infringed due to the perilous and existential threats posed by climate change to the lives and well-being of Ontarians. The Applicants maintained that their section 15 right to equality was violated because the revised target created a distinction based on age, imposing a greater burden on younger Ontarians who would endure the long-term impacts of climate change. They sought a declaration that the revised target was unconstitutional and an order requiring Ontario to establish a revised emissions target grounded in scientific principles, consistent with Ontario’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.

In September 2022, the lawsuit proceeded to a hearing on its merits before the Ontario Superior Court. On April 14, 2023, Justice Vermette of the Ontario Superior Court determined that while the Applicants’ claim was justiciable, there was no violation of the Applicants’ sections 7 and 15 Charter rights. Regarding section 7 of the Charter, Justice Vermette found that the province’s revised target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was not arbitrary, as it was linked to the objective of GHG reduction under the CTCA. With respect to section 15 of the Charter, Justice Vermette concluded that the provision did not impose a positive obligation on the provincial government to take any specific actions to combat climate change. The Ontario Superior Court, therefore, dismissed the case. 

The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in May 2023. On October 17, 2024, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision unanimously in favor of the appeal. The Court found that the applicants’ case was not a positive rights case but rather a negative rights case because they were not requesting that Ontario implement specific climate change actions. Instead, they contended that the greenhouse gas emissions targets set by the Minister under the CTCA violated their Charter rights. In other words, by enacting the CTCA, the Ontario government voluntarily assumed a positive statutory obligation to combat climate change in a way that complies with the Charter. Given the lack of a complete evidentiary record, the ONCA declined to determine the applicants’ case on its merits and remitted the application for further consideration by the lower court.

On December 16, 2024, the Ontario government filed an application for leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The case will now return to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a new trial. Mathur, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Canada, Superior Court of Justice)

Canada: Court of Appeals finds that youth case can proceed to trial

Fifteen children and youths brought suit against the Queen and Attorney General of Canada in October 2019, alleging that Canada emits and contributes to emitting greenhouse gases that are incompatible with a stable climate. The plaintiffs argue that Canada’s actions have violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, as well as the rights of present and future Canadian children under the public trust doctrine. They seek declaratory relief and an order requiring the government to adopt a Climate Recovery Plan. 

On October 27, 2020, a Federal Court judge dismissed the lawsuit by Canadian youth against the Canadian government on a pretrial motion to strike for failing to state a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Federal Court of Appeal on November 24. 

In December 2023, the Federal Court of Appeals decided that the case can go to trial. The case will proceed to an eight-week trial beginning on October 26, 2026. La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen (Canada, Federal Court of Appeals)

Brazil: Judge finds Indigenous protection agency does not have standing to challenge highway project

In December 2021, the Associação SOS Amazônia, the Organização dos Povos Indígenas do Rio Juruá (OPIRJ), the Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre (CPI Acre), the Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira (COIAB), and the Conselho Nacional de Populações Extrativistas (CNS) filed a Public Civil Action (PCA) with a request for urgent injunctive relief against the Federal Union, the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT), and the Brazilian Federal Agency of the Environment (IBAMA). The lawsuit sought to nullify the bidding process under DNIT Notice 130/2021, which initiated the tender for construction work on the BR-364 highway segment connecting the municipality of Cruzeiro do Sul, Acre, to the Brazil-Peru border, crossing the Serra do Divisor National Park (PNSD).

From a climate perspective, the plaintiffs argued that deforestation caused by the project would degrade the Amazon rainforest—the Earth’s primary carbon sink—which prevents greenhouse gases from accumulating in the atmosphere and excessively warming the planet. The forest is essential for mitigating climate change and reducing its effects. They also emphasized that indigenous peoples, particularly isolated groups, are especially vulnerable to the impacts of such projects. The plaintiffs requested preliminary injunctions to suspend the bidding notice, environmental licensing, and construction. Their final demands included:

- Declaring DNIT Notice 130/2021 null and void;

- Ordering the Federal Union and DNIT to refrain from any further bidding procedures for the BR-364 segment until:

- Technical and Environmental Feasibility Studies (EVTEA) were conducted;

- Prior, formal, free, and informed consultation was held with affected indigenous and traditional communities, as required by ILO Convention 169;

- FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) confirmed the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the project’s area of influence;

- Prohibiting IBAMA from issuing an environmental license for the BR-364 stretch;

- Suspending Article 3 of Presidential Decree 97,839/1989, which established the Serra do Divisor National Park.

In their defenses, the Federal Union, DNIT, and IBAMA argued that: Using a PCA to challenge the constitutionality of Decree 97,839/89 violated the Supreme Federal Court’s exclusive jurisdiction; The Judiciary should not interfere in administrative decisions; There was no violation of ILO Convention 169, as prior consultation would only be required after confirming the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the project’s area. They requested the lawsuit’s dismissal.

The Unica-Iguatemi Consortium also sought dismissal. FUNAI claimed it had not neglected its institutional duties.

On June 14, 2023, the judge rendered a decision that declared FUNAI’s lack of standing in the case; Nullified DNIT Notice 130/2021; Ordered the Federal Union and DNIT to refrain from any administrative or political decisions regarding the BR-364 segment until:

- Prior consultation (under ILO Convention 169) was conducted with affected indigenous and traditional communities;

- FUNAI confirmed the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the project’s area;

- Prohibited IBAMA from granting an environmental license for the BR-364 stretch until the same conditions were met;

- Suspended any actions under the contract between DNIT and the Unica-Iguatemi Consortium.

The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) appealed, demanding that the Federal Union and DNIT pay R$6,076,000 (the contract’s value) in collective moral damages, to be allocated to environmental recovery projects in the Serra do Divisor National Park and educational programs on environmental and Indigenous culture in Acre, developed with direct input from indigenous communities, the plaintiffs, and the MPF.

The Unica-Iguatemi Consortium appealed, requesting compensation from DNIT for contract termination due to the court’s invalidation of the bidding process.

The Federal Union, IBAMA, and DNIT appealed, seeking to overturn the ruling and dismiss all original claims. Associação SOS Amazônia and other vs. Federal Union and others (BR-364 Road Environmental Licensing) (Brazil, Acre Federal Court)

NEW CASES

Brazil: New constitutional challenge to law on Brazil’s emissions trading system

In March 2025, the National Confederation of General Insurance, Private Pension, Supplementary Health, and Capitalization Companies (CNseg) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for injunctive relief, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 56 of Federal Law 15,042/2024 (Brazilian Emissions Trading System Law). The challenged provision imposes on insurance companies, open supplementary pension entities, capitalization companies, and local reinsurers the mandatory purchase of carbon credits or shares in investment funds holding such assets, amounting to at least 0.5% per year of their technical reserves and provisions.

CNseg argues that the provision suffers from both formal and material constitutional defects, in that insurance companies cannot be subjected to a mandatory investment requirement under the terms set by a Complementary Law regulating the sector. It contends that the provision restricts freedom, free enterprise, and free competition, forcing insurers, despite not being the largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to purchase carbon credits, thereby imposing an excessive burden on them in the name of environmental protection.

Within this context, it is argued that carbon credits have uncertain real value, there is insufficient supply in the domestic market, and the obligation artificially creates demand, which could harm insurers and other companies interested in acquiring these assets.

As interim relief, CNseg requests the immediate suspension of Article 56. On the merits, it seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality, with retroactive effects (ex tunc), of Article 56 of Federal Law 15,042/2024. Brazilian Emissions Trading System and Insurers (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

Brazil: New climate damages case filed against a farmer

On June 10, 2024 the Mato Grosso State Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPMT) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for an injunction, against Carlos Aparecido da Silva for deforestation of an area of 11.31 hectares on the Dois Irmãos farm, located in the state of Mato Grosso, as found in Civil Inquiry 025/2023. The MPMT alleges that the defendant is the owner of the property and that native vegetation was cleared without authorization from the environmental agency. It argues that the reparation of environmental damage requires, in addition to the recovery of the biome itself, the repair of the incidental factors of the degradation caused, such as the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and highlights the principle of climate integrity preservation enshrined in the Brazilian legal system. As an injunction for urgent relief, it requests, among other things, that the defendant be prohibited from economically exploiting the areas that could be used for deforestation without authorization from the environmental agency. In the final instance, the restoration of the degraded area and the payment of compensation for material and moral damages in the amount of R$ 93,498.53 (ninety-three thousand, four hundred and ninety-eight Brazilian Reais and fifty-three centavos) are requested.

The action was initially filed with the Mato Grosso State Court under case number 1004977-80.2024.8.11.0006, and on June 10, the court granted the request for urgent relief. 

On July 11, 2024, the defendant filed its defense claiming that the area is part of the Agrarian Reform Settlement Project called Assentamento Limoeiro and that it has a land tenure relationship, with the Federal Government being the legitimate owner who must respond to the lawsuit together with National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA). He claims that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case and that he has authorization to exploit the area in question, and that the notice of infraction is generic. He therefore requested that his lack of standing to be sued be recognized, that the emergency relief granted be suspended, that the court declare that it lacks jurisdiction, and that the action be dismissed with the notice of infraction declared null and void.

The lack of jurisdiction was recognized, and the case was referred to the Federal Court, now under number 1003895-08.2024.4.01.3601. Mato Grosso State Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Carlos Aparecido da Silva (Illegal deforestation at the Dois Irmãos farm) (Brazil, Mato Grosso State Court)

WTO: New consultation request regarding the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM Package) 

On May 12, 2025, the Russian Federation requested consultations with the European Union regarding the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM Package) and an alleged export subsidy under the Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowances Trading. Russia claims that the CBAM Package is inconsistent with several provisions of the GATT 1994, the accession protocols of Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, and Lithuania, and Articles 1.2, 1.3, and 3.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement. Additionally, Russia argues that the alleged subsidy violates Articles 1.1(a)(1) and 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement, as well as Articles VI and XVI of the GATT 1994. European Union and its Member States — Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (WTO, WTO Dispute Settlement Body)

WTO: New consultation requested regarding subsidies under the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act

On March 26, 2024, China requested consultations with the United States regarding certain subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which China claims are contingent on the use of domestic goods over imported goods or discriminate against goods of Chinese origin. These subsidies include the Clean Vehicle Credit and the Renewable Energy Tax Credits (such as the Investment Tax Credit for Energy Property, the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit, the Production Tax Credit for Electricity from Renewables, and the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit). China argues that these measures are inconsistent with Articles III:4 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMS Agreement, Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, and that the Clean Vehicle Credit violates Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.

On April 5, 2024, the United States accepted China’s request to enter into consultations, though it raised concerns about whether the items in question constituted a “measure” under Article 4 of the DSU and whether national security issues were involved.

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings: On 15 July 2024, China requested the establishment of a panel, which the DSB deferred on 26 July 2024. The panel was established on 23 September 2024, with several countries reserving their third-party rights. On 10 December 2024, China requested the Director-General to compose the panel, which was done on December 19, 2024. United States — Certain Tax Credits Under the Inflation Reduction Act (WTO, WTO Dispute Settlement Body)

European Commission: New complaint filed against Germany and Ireland concerning their National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs)

On November 7, 2024, a coalition of European non-governmental organizations (NGOs) formally submitted coordinated complaints to the European Commission,* seeking the initiation of infringement proceedings against France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden for alleged violations of their legal obligations under European Union (EU) law concerning their National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs).

These complaints are supported by evidence demonstrating that the NECPs of the aforementioned Member States are insufficient and fail to comply with the EU’s binding climate and energy targets. The NGOs contend that these plans lack adequate and effective measures to transform the stated commitments into tangible outcomes and fail to incorporate meaningful public participation in developing socially equitable policies. Despite the deadline for submission of NECPs having passed on June 30, 2024, only 14 Member States have complied, and the coalition asserts that these delays and deficiencies undermine the EU’s overarching climate objectives and the principle of a just transition for its citizens.

*Pursuant to EU law, the European Commission is mandated to ensure that Member States fulfill their legal obligations. Should the Commission determine that a Member State is in breach, it may initiate formal infringement proceedings to bring national legislation and practices into compliance with EU law. The Commission has 12 months to respond to these complaints. Germanwatch v. Germany (Germany, European Commission); Environmental Justice Network Ireland v. Ireland (Ireland, European Commission)

United Kingdom: New case challenges issuance of 28 licenses for oil and gas exploration

Oceana UK, represented by public interest law firm Leigh Day, filed a complaint on August 22, 2024 against the United Kingdom’s decision on the issuing of 28 licenses for oil and gas exploration. Between October 2023 and May 2024, the UK, through the North Sea Transition Authority, issued 82 oil and gas exploration licenses, with Oceana UK contending the unlawfulness of 28 of those licenses. The licenses cover 226 blocks in the North Sea, with over ⅔ of the licenses residing in marine protected areas. The 82 licenses issued are expected to result in 600 million barrels of oil equivalent, while oil spills were not considered in the impact assessments of the issued licenses. 

Oceana UK contends that these licenses were unlawful on several grounds, including failure to consider environmental risks, the dismissal of expert advice, and climate impact oversight. 21 out of the 28 licenses are inside designated marine protected areas, which typically protect wildlife like harbour porpoise, grey seals, and puffins. Oceana UK asserts that the potential for accidental oil spills in these areas was unlawfully excluded in the environmental impact assessments of the licenses, with the occurrence of “more than two oil or chemical spills every day last year from oil and gas developments in UK waters”. The spills over the last year resulted in over 82,000 kg of oil spilling into the sea, posing risks for nearby habitats. Oceana UK also outlines the need for environmental impact assessments to account for emissions, referencing the precedent law established by the Finch ruling. 

Oceana UK also contends that the dismissal of expert advice from independent government advisors was unlawful, referencing the UK government’s overlooking of advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Natural England when granting the licenses. Oceana UK asserts that this expert advice was not adequately considered in the environmental assessments conducted by the government. 

The case was heard in the High Court on 26-27 March 2025. Oceana UK v. Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (UK, High Court of Justice)

Brazil: New greenwashing inquiry against airline company

On January 23, 2025, the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) filed a judicial inquiry against Gol Linhas Aéreas S.A. This action is part of a set of two inquiries filed by IDEC alleging greenwashing and problems in the use of carbon credits from the voluntary market. In this case against Gol, the airline’s voluntary carbon offset actions through its ‘Meu Voo Compensa’ (My Flight Offsets) programme are being questioned. IDEC questions the transparency, effectiveness, and veracity of the company’s claims regarding the neutralisation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as the integrity of the carbon credits purchased and disclosed as sustainable. According to the initial petition, Gol’s greenwashing practice consists of using marketing and communication strategies to induce consumers to believe that its operations are environmentally responsible, without concrete, verifiable, and effective measures to justify such claims. An example of this conduct is the use of an aircraft identified as ‘Green Plane’ to reinforce its sustainable image, even though the aircraft did not have any technical or operational features that made it effectively more environmentally friendly. IDEC requires GOL Linhas Aéreas to respond to a set of questions related to transparency, the legal nature, and calculation and compensation methods of the My Flight Offsets programme, as well as the allocation of amounts paid by consumers and other environmental actions disclosed by the company.

On March 14, 2025, Gol Linhas Aéreas responded to the inquiry, denying the practice of greenwashing and maintaining that its sustainability actions are transparent, audited, and based on internationally recognised methodologies. The company highlights that it uses the GHG Protocol to calculate emissions and purchases carbon credits validated by the international certifier Verra, with tracking via blockchain. The company also reports that it has published sustainability reports audited by Ernst & Young, reaffirming its commitment to ESG practices and GHG reduction. Gol argues that carbon offsetting is a voluntary measure paid for by passengers, not a donation, and that its actions are unrelated to the Operation Greenwashing investigations, although, as a precaution, it has suspended its partnership with Moss, the climatech company previously responsible for the programme, and is in the process of hiring a new partner. Finally, it reiterates that its institutional communication seeks to inform, not mislead, consumers, defending the legitimacy of its environmental initiatives and requesting recognition of the regularity of its conduct and the absence of any violation of environmental and consumer rights. Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) vs. Gol Linhas Aéreas S/A (Disclosure of information and greenwashing) (Brazil, Sao Paulo State Court)

Brazil: New greenwashing inquiry against car rental company

On January 23, 2025, the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) filed a judicial inquiry against the car rental company Localiza Rent A CAR S/A. This action is part of a set of two inquiries proposed by IDEC alleging greenwashing and problems in the use of carbon credits from the voluntary market. In this case, Localiza is questioned about offering rental services with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions offsets through its ‘Carbon Neutrality’ and ‘Commitment to the Climate’ programmes. However, IDEC believes that this initiative may constitute greenwashing due to the imprecise origin of the carbon credits, the apparent lack of information on the real benefits, and the effectiveness of the methods used to achieve the stated objectives. IDEC believes that there are indications of greenwashing due to gaps in the information collected through the respondent’s website. Furthermore, the offer is not in accordance with consumer law, as it violates objective good faith, as well as the basic consumer right to freedom of choice and adequate and clear information, all of which are provided for in the Consumer Protection Code. The payment of an additional amount in the car rental contract to offset GHG emissions requires justification in order to be considered an offer that complies with consumer rights. However, consumers are misled due to a lack of adequate information and thus believe that the respondent will provide a service that has less impact on the environment. Greenwashing is characterised as unfair practices that downplay risks and threats to socio-environmental rights. Therefore, it is believed that the respondent uses this resource because GHG emission compensation programmes have a positive impact on its image. Firstly, because the service provided would be guided by ESG standards, generating a favourable image for the company. In addition, it reaches a fraction of consumers who base their consumption on social and environmental criteria. The purpose of the Judicial Inquiry is to enable Localiza to provide detailed explanations of its GHG emission compensation practices and to allow the respondent to correct any inconsistencies. The plaintiff requests that documents be provided to prove the veracity of the benefits of the programmes offered in the car rental service, as well as that the questions presented about the programmes be answered. Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) vs Localiza Rent A CAR S/A. (Disclosure of information and greenwashing) (Brazil, Sao Paulo State Court)