Climate Litigation Updates (March 2025, Part 1)

Starting this month, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law will collect and summarize 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 #192:

FEATURED CASES

Federal Magistrate Said Puerto Rico Municipalities’ RICO and Antitrust Climate Claims Should Proceed Against Fossil Fuel Companies

A federal magistrate judge in the District of Puerto Rico recommended that the district court deny fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and antitrust claims brought by Puerto Rico municipalities, but recommended dismissal of claims brought under Puerto Rico law. The magistrate described the municipalities as claiming that the defendants “engaged in a decades-long campaign to misrepresent the dangers of carbon-based and fossil fuel products which they marketed and sold” and that this conduct “ultimately led to the catastrophic destruction brought about by” Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. Regarding personal jurisdiction, the magistrate judge found that the municipalities adequately pleaded that the defendants marketed, promoted, and sold products in Puerto Rico in satisfaction of the “purposeful availment” test; that these alleged activities were sufficiently related to the municipalities’ claims of a disinformation campaign; and also that the exercise of jurisdiction was reasonable. The magistrate recommended further discovery as to the jurisdictional issues (including with respect to certain defendants’ activities in Puerto Rico). The magistrate also recommended that a determination of RICO jurisdiction be deferred until after completion of jurisdictional discovery. The magistrate recommended dismissal of Occidental Petroleum due to improper service. Regarding the defendants’ statute of limitations arguments, the magistrate recommended that the motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred be denied because the municipalities sufficiently alleged that the defendants “engaged in a continued pattern of unlawful acts or omissions which cause foreseeable damages” and, alternatively, recommended that the motion be denied based on the doctrine of equitable tolling due to the defendants’ alleged fraudulent concealment of a disinformation campaign. The magistrate also concluded that the complaint adequately alleged the elements of RICO claims, including proximate causation, conspiracy, and the existence of an “enterprise” based on allegations that the American Petroleum Institute’s (API’s) and Global Climate Coalition’s (GCC’s) purpose was “to engage in a propaganda campaign to misrepresent the effects of fossil fuels on climate change.” Although the magistrate found that the municipalities’ allegations fell short of the heightened pleading standard for fraud, the magistrate recommended that the court allow the municipalities to conduct discovery on the RICO claims, finding that the municipalities sufficiently pled that information pertaining to the racketeering activity was likely under the defendants’ control. The magistrate rejected, at this stage of the litigation, the arguments that because the RICO claims were based on allegations regarding membership in API and GCC and the defendants’ public statements on climate change, the First Amendment and Noerr-Pennington doctrine (which protects entities who “join together to influence government action—even if they seek to restrain competition or to damage competitors”) barred the claims. The magistrate noted that the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs would not be protected under the First Amendment or shielded by Noerr-Pennington immunity. The magistrate recommended dismissal, however, of claims under RICO that required that the harm to the municipalities be alleged to result from the defendants’ acquisition or control over the enterprises or the use or investment of income derived from racketeering activities. The magistrate also recommended dismissal of all RICO claims against API, finding that the municipalities could not seek a remedy against API both as an “enterprise” and as a “person” subject to RICO liability. The magistrate also found that the municipalities could only bring the claims “as to their own proprietary rights” and not on behalf of their residents. For the municipalities’ antitrust claim, the magistrate found that the pleading of the existence of an anticompetitive agreement and an antitrust injury was sufficient to survive dismissal. Although the magistrate concluded that federal law did not preempt the municipalities’ nine claims under Puerto Rico law, the magistrate recommended dismissal of all nine causes of action for failure to state a claim. Municipality of Bayamón v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:22-cv-01550 (D.P.R. Feb. 20, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

U.S. Supreme Court Rejected 19 States’ Attempt to Invoke Court’s Original Jurisdiction to Block Other States’ Climate Suits

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Alabama and 18 other states’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint to block California and four other states from pursuing their climate change-based cases against fossil fuel companies. The plaintiff states had contended that the lawsuits “threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.” They argued that the Court should exercise its original jurisdiction because there was no alternative forum in which they could seek relief. Justices Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial. Justice Thomas wrote that because Congress had given the Court “exclusive” original jurisdiction over “all controversies between two or more States,” “our jurisdiction in this context would seem to be compulsory.” Alabama v. United States, No. 22O158 (U.S. Mar. 10, 2025)

Minnesota Court Allowed State to Proceed with Climate Deception Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

A Minnesota District Court denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ motions to dismiss all but one of the claims brought by the State of Minnesota alleging that the defendants misled consumers and the public regarding fossil fuels’ contributions to climate change. The court denied American Petroleum Institute’s and ExxonMobil defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding both that the defendants consented to general jurisdiction by registering to conduct business in the state and also that specific personal jurisdiction was consistent with the notion of fair play and substantial justice. The court rejected the defendants’ contentions that federal common law or the Clean Air Act preempted the State’s claims. The court concluded that the Clean Air Act had displaced federal common law governing interstate air pollution but further concluded that even if federal common law still existed it would not preempt the state law consumer deception and failure-to-warn claims, which were not attempts to regulate transboundary air pollution. In addition, the court held that the Clean Air Act did not preempt the state law claims based on conflict preemption because the State’s claims of failure to warn and deceptive marketing would not interfere with Congress’s objective of federal regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. The court also rejected the argument that the foreign affairs doctrine preempted the State’s claims, finding that the claims would not be an obstacle to climate change-related negotiations with foreign nations. In addition, the court found that the case did not present nonjusticiable political questions and that the dormant Commerce Clause did not preclude the State’s claims. The court also found, at the pleadings stage, that the First Amendment did not protect the defendants’ allegedly misleading and fraudulent speech. In addition, the court declined to dismiss the State’s claims as time-barred. The court also found that the State sufficiently pled that the defendants’ alleged deception resulted in climate-related harms; sufficiently pled a failure to warn; alleged fraud with sufficient particularity; and sufficiently pled misrepresentation, fraud by omission, and intent to deceive. The court found that the State did not sufficiently allege that the defendants’ statements were made “in connection with the sale of any merchandise” and therefore did not State a claim under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. But the court found that the State did adequately state statutory consumer fraud claims under the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act and had sufficiently alleged a conspiracy. The court also rejected an argument that Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) barred the State’s case. The court concluded that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply to enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General. State v. American Petroleum Institute, No. 62-CV-20-3837 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025)

Hawaii Federal Court Said Insurer Had Duty to Defend Fossil Fuel Company in Climate Suits Under Policies Without Pollution Exclusions

The federal district court for the District of Hawaii ruled that under two policies that lacked pollution exclusions, an insurer had an obligation to defend a fossil fuel company in climate change-related lawsuits brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the County of Maui. First, the court found that the underlying lawsuits “possibly allege an occurrence,” or “accident,” that was covered under the policies based on the standard articulated by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court. Second, on the question of whether property damage occurred during the two policies’ terms, which ran from February 1, 1986 to February 1, 1988, the court was “skeptical” that the underlying complaints’ allegations of greenhouse gas emissions during that period equated to allegations of property damage but concluded that it was not necessary to reach that issue because the underlying complaints possibly alleged property damage during the policies’ terms. In particular, the court concluded that allegations “that sea level rise has been rising since the 1960s, causing flooding, and inundating low-lying property,” were “sufficient to raise the potential or possibility of coverage” under the policies, even if there were not allegations about “exactly when the flooding took place nor precisely how it damaged property.” The court also found that undated allegations of property damage were sufficient for the fossil fuel company to meet “its very light burden to prove the possibility of coverage” in order to establish the duty to defend. Third, the court found that the insurer could not plausibly argue that it was impossible that the underlying complaints’ requests for compensatory damages sought “damages because of property damage.” Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 1:22-cv-00372 (D. Haw. Feb. 27, 2025)

Fifth Circuit Granted Voluntary Dismissal of Federal Government’s Appeal of Decision Vacating Rule Requiring Carbon Dioxide Targets for On-Road Mobile Sources

The Fifth Circuit granted federal defendants’ unopposed motion for dismissal of their appeal of a district court judgment vacating a Federal Highway Administration rule that required states to set declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions from on-road mobile sources. The federal defendants-appellants said the Department of Transportation would continue to consider further administrative steps as to the challenged rule. Texas v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 24-10470 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025) 

California Plastic Pollution Lawsuit Against ExxonMobil Sent Back to State Court; Environmental Groups’ Lawsuit to Stay in Federal Court

The federal district court remanded to state court the State of California’s lawsuit regarding Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (ExxonMobil’s) contributions to “ever-increasing plastic pollution.” The court denied a motion to remand a similar lawsuit brought by environmental groups. Both the State and the environmental organizations’ lawsuits include allegations that ExxonMobil misled the public about the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of “advanced recycling.” In California’s case, the court rejected ExxonMobil’s contention that federal enclave jurisdiction existed “[s]imply because plastic pollution touches on federal enclaves” along California’s “waterways” and “shorelines,” as well as the contention that there was federal officer jurisdiction based on the U.S. government’s World War II-era contracts with ExxonMobil predecessors to produce rubber. The court also rejected ExxonMobil’s assertion of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction as a basis for federal jurisdiction both because such jurisdiction requires an independent basis for jurisdiction and also because it would be inapplicable. In the environmental groups’ lawsuit, the plaintiffs conceded that diversity jurisdiction was proper but argued that the federal court should abstain from considering their case based on Younger or Colorado River abstention. People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:24-cv-07594 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2025); Sierra Club v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:24-cv-07288 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2025)

Texas Federal Court Upheld ERISA Fiduciary Rule Allowing ESG Considerations as Tiebreakers

The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas again upheld the U.S. Department of Labor’s final rule allowing Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) fiduciaries to consider “collateral benefits” such as environment, social, and governance (ESG) factors “when deciding between competing investment options that each equally served the beneficiaries’ financial interests.” The court initially upheld the rule in September 2023 based on application of Chevron deference. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case in July 2024 for reconsideration after the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. On remand, the district found that the final rule’s “tiebreaking provision” did not violate ERISA’s text—which requires fiduciaries to act “solely” in the participants’ and beneficiaries’ interest and for the “exclusive purpose” of providing benefits to these parties—because the regulation “never permits fiduciaries to deviate from exclusively achieving financial benefits for the beneficiaries alone.” Utah v. Micone, No. 2:23-CV-016 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2025)

New York Federal Court Said Environmental Justice Organization and Heat Pump Trade Group Could Not Intervene to Defend Building Electrification Law

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion by an environmental justice organization and a trade association representing the geothermal heat pump industry to intervene in a lawsuit challenging New York City’s building electrification law. The court said that there was no dispute that the City adequately represented the proposed intervenors’ interest in upholding the law. The court also said it was not persuaded that there were “underlying factual issues” that the proposed intervenors could help in addressing. In light of the proposed intervenors’ “specialized knowledge,” however, the court invited them to serve as amici curiae. Plumbers of the City of New York v. City of New York, No. 1:23-cv-11292 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2025)

Florida Federal Court Dismissed Greenwashing Action Against Lululemon

The federal district court for the Southern District of California found that consumer plaintiffs lacked standing for their greenwashing suit against the athleisure apparel company Lululemon Athletica, Inc. (Lululemon). The plaintiffs alleged that Lululemon made false, deceptive, or misleading environmental claims about its products, including statements about its commitments to reducing carbon emissions associated with its global supply chain. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege any factual connection between the allegedly deceptive statements and the value of Lululemon products, and therefore did not allege an economic injury to support a claim for damages. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to allege a threat of imminent injury based on potential future purchases and therefore lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica, Inc., No. 24-cv-22651 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Ruled on Conservation Law Foundation Discovery Requests in Adaptation Suit Against Shell Entities; Parties to Connecticut Adaptation Lawsuit Agreed to Keep Only New Haven Terminal Operators as Defendants

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island ruled on four motions to compel discovery in Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) citizen suit seeking to hold Shell Oil Products US and certain affiliates liable for failing to prepare a bulk storage and fuel terminal in Providence for the effects of climate change. The court noted that it viewed “thorough and thoughtful” discovery rulings by the District of Connecticut in a similar lawsuit related to a New Haven facility as “relevant to the scope of discovery in the instant case.” The Rhode Island court allowed CLF to conduct a deposition of a Shell “metocean engineer” who had authored a case study regarding climate impacts on a facility in Louisiana on the Gulf of Mexico coast. The court agreed with the plaintiff that the engineer “likely possesses relevant information regarding the issue of best industry practices” and found that the defendants did not show any undue burden, and also rejected the defendants’ contention that CLF improperly sought an unretained expert opinion. The court denied CLF’s motion to compel more responsive answers to interrogatories that CLF said were relevant to their operator liability claims, and found that many of CLF’s requests for additional production of documents from non-party Shell affiliates were “overly broad and disproportionate to the needs of the case,” as were eight other document requests. The court did, however, order production of non-duplicate documents in response to some requests for documents from non-parties as well as production of documents in response to four “more narrowly tailored” requests regarding “relatively narrow subject matters.” Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US, No. 1:17-cv-0396 (D.R.I. Feb. 14, 2025)

In the Connecticut lawsuit, the parties on February 11, 2025 stipulated to dismissal of two Shell entities from the suit with prejudice, with three companies remaining as defendants as owners and operators in control of the New Haven facility at issue in the case. CLF also agreed to “irrevocably withdraw” its subpoena to Shell Pipeline Company LP and not to file any motion to amend its complaint to add this entity as a party. The parties also agreed to a plan for depositions and agreed that the parties to the Rhode Island and Connecticut lawsuits could use all discovery produced in the other case. Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00933 (D. Conn. Feb. 11, 2025)

California Federal Court Said Youth Plaintiffs Could Not Establish Standing for Constitutional Challenge to Federal Discounting Policies

The federal district court for the Central District of California granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal defendants’ motion to dismiss youth plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleging that EPA used federal policies regarding the use of discount rates in benefit-cost analysis violated the Constitution. The court said the plaintiffs based their “theory of harm” on EPA’s utilization of “Discounting Policies” (the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular No. A-4 and related EPA guidance) as part of OMB-mandated benefit-cost analyses; the plaintiffs alleged that the Discounting Policies under-weighted long-term benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in discrimination against children and in environmental harm to the plaintiffs due to failure to resolve the climate crisis. The court found the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the environmental harms were fairly traceable to the Discounting Policies and that their alleged discrimination harms amounted to “generalized grievances” that did not constitute injury-in-fact. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing. The court dismissed without leave to amend, finding that the amended complaint demonstrated that further amendment could not overcome “the structural lack of injury-in-fact and traceability” as to the plaintiffs’ claims. The court therefore dismissed without leave to amend. Genesis B. v. EPA, No. 2:23-cv-10345 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025)

Florida Federal Court Denied Emergency Injunction to Block Water Impoundment as Part of Corps of Engineers Everglades Restoration Program

The federal district court for the Southern District of Florida denied an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the creation of a water impoundment that is part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, which is intended, among other purposes, to improve resilience to climate change. The preliminary injunction was sought by a Nichiren Buddhism community and a related company that operates a religious retreat campus for the community near the planned impoundment. The court adopted a magistrate judge’s conclusion that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden “to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction requiring cessation of all work” on the impoundment project. The magistrate judge found that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were speculative. Soka Gakkai International-USA v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 0:24-cv-62452 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2025)

Utah Federal Court Said BLM Decisions on Now-Suspended Oil and Gas Leases Were Not Ripe for Review

The federal district court for the District of Utah dismissed as unripe a lawsuit filed by Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) challenging four oil and gas leasing decisions covering 145 leases in Utah’s Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin regions. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) made the leasing decisions from 2018 to 2019; leases issued pursuant to all four decisions were currently suspended. Although the court found that SUWA had standing to challenge the leasing decisions based on allegations of injury to a member, the court determined that BLM’s leasing decisions were not final since the leases had been suspended. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 2:23-cv-00804 (D. Utah Feb. 4, 2025)

North Dakota Federal Court Vacated 2024 Amendments to NEPA Regulations

In a lawsuit in which 21 states challenged the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) 2024 amendments to its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, the federal district court for the District of North Dakota held that NEPA did not give CEQ authority to issue binding regulations. In addition, the court found that CEQ exceeded its authority by making changes to language regarding NEPA’s purpose, by including global effects as a factor for consideration, and by requiring review of categorical exclusions at least every 10 years. The court also found that the CEQ regulatory amendments would be arbitrary and capricious in various respects, though it rejected the plaintiff states’ argument that the 2024 rule changed “fundamental aspects of NEPA” that they had relied on pertaining to greenhouse gas emission quantification. The court vacated the 2024 amendments, leaving in place the 2020 version of the regulations. The court wrote that it “cannot think of a more serious deficiency than an agency acting without Congressional authority” and that even if another court found that there was authority, “the pervasive errors the Court has found through its analysis under the purported authority is equally disconcerting” and “seemingly reflect a motive to change NEPA into something it is not.” Iowa v. Council on Environmental Quality, No. 1:24-cv-00089 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025)

South Carolina Federal Court Declined to Consider Extra-Record Report on Development’s Flooding Impacts

In a challenge to a Clean Water Act permit authorizing the filling of wetlands for construction of a mixed-use development, the federal district court for the District of South Carolina denied the plaintiffs’ motion for consideration of extra-record evidence. One of the documents the plaintiffs sought to submit was a report that they argued would provide missing data to supplement the environmental assessment’s (EA’s) analysis of flooding impacts and impacts from docks. The plaintiffs said the report included explanations of technical information in the EA about “what Base Flood Elevation requires for the site, the flaws in FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and how sea level rise will impact stormwater runoff on the site.” The court agreed with the defendants that the EA was “replete with discussion” of the project’s potential flooding impacts and that the extra-record report would not explain information not adequately explained in the record or show that the Corps failed to consider relevant evidence. South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 2:22-cv-02727 (D.S.C. Jan. 30, 2025)

Oregon Federal Court Found Failure to Consider Climate Impacts on Winter Steelhead in Review of Plan for Summer Steelhead Releases

The federal district court for the District of Oregon found violations of the Endangered Species Act in the federal review of releases of hatchery-raised summer steelhead into the Upper Willamette River by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The plaintiffs alleged that the releases would jeopardize winter steelhead. The plaintiffs’ arguments included that the biological opinion for the hatchery management plan failed to evaluate how the impacts from climate change would affect “already depressed winter steelhead populations in degraded habitat.” The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the biological opinion failed to evaluate “the consequences to winter steelhead of projected worsening conditions” or to assess whether winter steelhead “can sustain impacts from the release of hatchery summer steelhead on top of climate change effects.” The court therefore granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on this issue. Willamette Riverkeeper v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 6:21-cv-00034 (D. Or. Jan. 21, 2025)

Court of International Trade Upheld Imposition of Countervailing Duties on South Korean Steel Producers

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the U.S. Department of Commerce’s redetermination that the allocation of 100% of credits to steel producers in South Korea’s cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions provided a “countervailable subsidy” to the producers that resulted in imposition of a countervailing duty order. The Commerce Department made the redetermination on remand from a December 2023 CIT decision that found that the agency did not adequately support its conclusion that the subsidy provided by the South Korean program was “specific” to a particular sector or industry, as required by the statutory definition of “countervailable subsidy.” CIT found that on remand the Commerce Department supported its determination that the South Korea greenhouse gas program criteria were de jure specific by explaining that the operational characteristics that determined eligibility for the subsidy (emissions intensity and dependency on international trade) were not neutral eligibility standards. Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 1:22-cv-00029 (CIT Jan. 16, 2025)

Virginia Supreme Court Declined to Consider Youth Plaintiffs’ Climate Case Against State Defendants

The Virginia Supreme Court denied youth plaintiffs’ petition for appeal of an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming dismissal of their lawsuit alleging that the Commonwealth of Virginia defendants’ permitting of fossil fuel infrastructure caused and contributed to the climate crisis and caused injuries to the plaintiffs in violation of their substantive due process and public trust doctrine rights. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing for their substantive due process claim and that sovereign immunity barred the public trust claim. The Supreme Court stated that it was “of the opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of.” Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 240684 (Va. Feb. 25, 2025)

California Supreme Court Declined to Review Personal Jurisdiction Ruling in Climate Cases Against Fossil Fuel Companies; Plaintiffs Appealed CITGO’s Dismissal

On February 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ petition for review of a California trial court’s determination that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in lawsuits brought by the California Attorney General and California localities seeking to hold the companies liable for allegedly participating in a misinformation campaign regarding the harmful climate impacts of their products. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of Citgo for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 18, County of San Mateo, County of Marin, City of Imperial Beach, County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, City of Richmond, and San Mateo County of Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District filed a notice of their appeal of the trial court’s December 2024 ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant CITGO Petroleum Corporation. Fuel Industry Climate Cases, No. S288664 (Cal. Feb. 11, 2025)

Appellate Court in Michigan Upheld Public Service Commission Approval of Line 5 Replacement Project

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) conditional approval of an application by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge) to replace and relocate a portion of its Line 5 fuel pipeline to a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Among the arguments rejected by the court was a contention that the PSC inadequately analyzed impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The court was not persuaded by the argument that the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions ignored the effect the replacement project would have on supply and demand and therefore “failed to take into account that facilitating the continuation of Line 5 would result in an increase in GHGs.” The court found that the PSC had supported its conclusion regarding greenhouse gas emissions by referencing testimony in evidence that said increased prices from alternative transportation methods would not curb usage of petroleum products. The court also rejected the contention that the PSC was required to adopt and apply a standard and methodology for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5, No. 369156 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2025)

California Appellate Court Upheld 2020 Emissions Regulation for Ocean-Going Vessels

The California Court of Appeal held that a trial court properly denied a petition for writ of mandate challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels at Berth. The regulation limits emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, greenhouse gas, and ammonia from equipment on ocean-going vessels while at berth. CARB adopted the regulation in August 2020, and a Superior Court upheld the rule in 2023. The appellate court found that the petitioner did not establish that CARB lacked evidentiary support or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that complying with the regulation’s emissions capture and control or shore power requirements would be feasible. In addition, the Court of Appeal found that CARB substantially complied with the Administrative Procedure Act and did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act. Western States Petroleum Association v. California Air Resources Board, No. B327663 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2025)

D.C. Court Allowed Jurisdictional Discovery in Greenwashing Action Against Avocado Producers

The District of Columbia Superior Court denied three defendants’ motion to dismiss an action alleging that they engaged in false and deceptive advertising by representing that their avocados were sourced “responsibly and sustainably.” The court granted the plaintiff’s request to conduct limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleges that contrary to the defendants’ representations regarding the sustainability of their products, the sourcing and production of their avocados contributes to deforestation and water depletion in Mexico, and to climate change and habitat and biodiversity loss. The action is brought under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as costs and disbursements, including attorney and expert fees. Organic Consumers Association v. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., No. 2024-CAB-004864 (D.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025) 

Federal Court Said Washington Officials Were Immune from Preemption Challenge to State Energy Code

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred a preemption challenge to amendments to the Washington State Energy Code that established minimum performance standards and requirements for construction and construction materials. The court concluded that the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity did not apply to the defendants, who were members of the Washington State Building Code Council and the Attorney General of Washington. The court found that the Council Members who promulgated the amendments did not have either the power to enforce the Energy Code or supervisory power over the local officials responsible for enforcing the Energy Code. The court also found that the Attorney General’s “generalized authority” to file suit if cities and counties failed to follow the Energy Code was not sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. The court dismissed the case without prejudice but without leave to amend because “a suit dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds cannot be salvaged.” Rivera v. Anderson, No. C24-0677 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2025)

Dismissal of Building Industry’s State Court Lawsuit to Compel Changes to Washington State Energy Code Quickly Followed by New Lawsuit

On February 14, 2025, the Washington Superior Court dismissed a building industry lawsuit seeking to compel the Washington State Building Code Council (SBCC) to conduct emergency rulemaking to amend the Washington State Energy Code in response to a 2024 ballot initiative regarding natural gas access (I-2066). The Washington State Standard reported that the judge said that he hoped the Building Industry Association of Washington’s (BIAW’s) lawsuit “does put the council on notice.” BIAW filed a new lawsuit on February 21 that sought judicial review of the SBCC’s February 15 written denial of the petition for emergency rulemaking submitted by BIAW on December 17, 2024. BIAW contended that due to the passage of I-2066, a Washington statutory provision had been amended to remove language regarding a “broader goal of building zero fossil fuel greenhouse emission homes and buildings” and to provide that the Energy Code “may not in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.” BIAW alleged that the current Energy Code did not comply with the amended statute and that the denial of the emergency rulemaking petition was arbitrary and capricious. Building Industry Association of Washington v. Washington State Building Code Council, No. 24-2-04269-34 (Wash. Super. Ct. Feb. 14, 2025); Building Industry Association of Washington v. Washington State Building Code Council, No. 25-2-00700-34 (Wash. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 21, 2025)

North Dakota Supreme Court Denied Greenpeace Request for New Venue for Trial in Case Brought by Dakota Access Pipeline Developers

On February 24, 2025, a jury trial began in North Dakota District Court in the Dakota Access Pipeline developers’ lawsuit seeking to hold Greenpeace International and related entities (Greenpeace defendants) liable for damages allegedly incurred as a result of the defendants’ protest activities. Trial dates were scheduled through March 28, 2025. In a press release, Greenpeace International described the lawsuit as “one of the world’s most brazen examples of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).” The AP reported that an Energy Transfer spokesperson said in a statement that “[i]t is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that.”

On March 5, the North Dakota Supreme Court denied the Greenpeace defendants’ petition for a supervisory writ directing the district court to change the venue of the trial from Morton County—where the Greenpeace defendants said residents’ everyday lives were “significantly disrupted” by the protests at Standing Rock—to another county. The Greenpeace defendants argued that jury questionnaires, voir dire, and a 2022 survey of potential jurors, as well as “pretrial publicity [that] fanned the flames of potential jurors’ fear and anger,” showed that the empaneled jurors were not actually impartial and that Morton County was a “fundamentally unfair venue.” The Greenpeace defendants contended that the venue was “potentially ruinous” because in the event “this biased panel” found them liable for the $900 million sought by the developers, the supersedeas bond needed to secure a stay of a judgment “would effectively destroy” the defendants. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct.), No. 20250065 (N.D.)

New York Court Enjoined Buffalo Highway Project for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement

In a lawsuit challenging New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) approvals for a highway project in Buffalo, the New York Supreme Court annulled permits and NYSDOT’s negative declaration finding that the project would not have significant adverse environmental impacts. The court found that “[n]o rational person can conclude, based on the record before this Court, that this project would not have an adverse impact on the affected community.” The court cited “undisputed potential adverse health effects that will occur from the greenhouse emissions, traffic, blasting, and other related impacts associated with heavy industrial construction.” The court ordered NYSDOT to prepare an environmental impact statement and permanently enjoined NYSDOT from proceeding with the project until it complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In the same decision, the court denied a motion to dismiss a separate proceeding alleging that NYSDOT violated the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act and the petitioners’ rights to clean air and a healthy environment under the New York Constitution. The court found that the petitioners “set forth convincing allegations that this project will affect the disadvantaged community around the construction site.” In particular, the court found that the record showed that greenhouse gas and other construction emissions would increase as a result of the project and also found that NYSDOT’s claim “that somehow and at some time this project will reduce emissions” was “debatable.” East Side Parkways Coalition v. New York State Department of Transportation, No. 808702/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2025); Western New York Youth Climate Council v. New York State Department of Transportation, No. 808662/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2025)

D.C. Court Allowed Climate Washing Suit to Proceed Against Beef Producer

The District of Columbia Superior Court denied Tyson Foods, Inc.’s (Tyson’s) motion to dismiss a greenwashing action brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) in which the plaintiff alleged that Tyson made false or misleading statements about its commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and by advertising a “climate-smart beef” program. The court concluded that it was fair to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Tyson and found that the plaintiff stated plausible claims for relief under the CPPA under the precedent in Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co. Regarding the net zero by 2050 claim, the court found that the plaintiff claimed a “fundamental mismatch between the allegedly minimal steps Tyson is taking and the actions that would be necessary to achieve its net-zero goal”; the court said this “vast discrepancy” paralleled the facts in Earth Island. Regarding the “climate-smart” beef program, the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations—that Tyson did not define the term “climate-smart beef,” that the company did not release data to support the claim, and that the company sourced some of the beef from an industrial feedlot—were sufficient to show that the climate-smart beef representations might give consumers a misleading impression. The court also held that the First Amendment did not bar the plaintiff’s claims since the statements at issue were “clearly commercial speech.” But the court said that if the plaintiff was ultimately successful, the court would take care in fashioning relief so as not to infringe on Tyson’s First Amendment rights. Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2024-CAB-005935 (D.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 3, 2025)

New York Court Said Town Residents Had Standing to Challenge Tree-Cutting Law that They Alleged Would Worsen the “Climate Emergency”

In a lawsuit in which residents of the Town and Village of Mamaroneck in New York challenge a Town tree-cutting law, the New York Supreme Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The court concluded that the Town residents had standing, rejecting the contention that their concerns regarding flooding, climate, and insect life were speculative, unsubstantiated, or conclusory. The court dismissed the petition as to the Village of Mamaroneck resident because he no longer lived in the Town and did not proffer other allegations that he engaged in recreational activities in and around the Town. The petitioners allege in their lawsuit that the Town failed to consult with experts on the law, which they said would largely make tree-cutting permissible as of right. They alleged that the Town “ignored all the science that experts and residents presented, all of which showed that the law would worsen the Town’s existing and acknowledged ‘climate emergency.’” They asserted that the Town acted arbitrarily and capriciously, violated the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Town of Mamaroneck Waterfront Revitalization Law, the public trust doctrine, and the Charter of the Forest. Herbst v. Town of Mamaroneck, No. 59167/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 7, 2025)

NEW CASES, MOTIONS, AND OTHER FILINGS

Supreme Court Scheduled Oral Argument in Case Concerning Clean Air Act Waiver for California Vehicle Emissions Standards

The U.S. Supreme Court set oral argument for April 23, 2025 in the case concerning fuel producers’ standing to challenge EPA’s Clean Air Act preemption waiver for California’s Advance Clean Car regulations. Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, No. 24-7 (U.S.)

Lawsuits Filed to Compel EPA Response to FOIA Requests About Endangerment Finding and Vehicle Emissions Standards

On March 3, 2025, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel disclosure of correspondence and other records related to the 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding greenhouse gases and to vehicle emissions standards. 

In a January 20 executive order, President Trump directed the EPA Administrator to assess the “legality and continuing applicability” of the Endangerment Finding. EDF alleged that it submitted a FOIA request on January 29, 2025 seeking “all correspondence and records of all members of the EPA transition team and political appointees relating to the Endangerment Finding” and that EPA had not made the required determination on the request by the February 27 deadline but had instead placed the request on the “complex” processing track with an estimated completion date of May 30, 2025. EDF’s complaint cited reports from late February indicating that the Administrator had recommended reversal of the Endangerment Finding. EDF alleged that “[a]ny action to destabilize the Finding and constrain EPA’s ability to reduce climate pollution would have significant, harmful consequences for communities across the country, who are already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change.” Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-00617 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 3, 2025)

In the other FOIA complaint, EDF alleged that the Trump administration had indicated “an intent to undermine, if not seek to eliminate, EPA’s motor vehicle pollution standards and to terminate Clean Air Act preemption waivers that allow California to adopt clean transportation standards.” In particular, the complaint cited President Trump’s executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” in which he stated a policy to “eliminate” an “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and directed agencies to develop and implement plans to suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions that were “unduly burdensome” to domestic energy resources. EDF alleged that it submitted a FOIA request on January 27, 2025 seeking “(i) all correspondence and records with or between sixteen EPA transition team members and political appointees related to changes to Clean Air Act vehicle pollution reduction programs; and (ii) all correspondence between any of those sixteen individuals and any external, non-governmental stakeholders (including but not limited to seven specific industry stakeholders) related to changes to Clean Air Act vehicle pollution reduction programs.” EDF alleged that EPA had not made the required determination on the request by the statutory deadline. Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-00621 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 3, 2025) 

Business Groups Challenged Constitutionality of New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act

Four trade associations and business groups filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (the Act), which the plaintiffs alleged was “a plainly unconstitutional law imposing $75 billion in strict liability on a targeted group of energy companies for their lawful conduct and the lawful conduct of third parties overwhelmingly undertaken in other jurisdictions.” The complaint alleged that the law is intended to impose strict liability for alleged impacts of climate change based on energy companies’ “purported shares of global, lawful greenhouse gas emissions based on completely unsubstantiated ‘attribution science.’” The plaintiffs asserted that the Act was precluded by the U.S. Constitution and federal law on multiple grounds, including because federal law controls liability for harms arising from interstate greenhouse gas emissions and because “the inherent structure of the Constitution of the United States recognizes the equal sovereignty afforded to all States.” They also asserted that the Clean Air Act preempts the Act and that the Act violates the Due Process Clause, the dormant Commerce Clause, the foreign Commerce Clause, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A separate challenge to the Act by 22 states was already pending in the Northern District of New York. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. James, No. 1:25-cv-01738 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2025) 

Climate Washing Action Filed Against Distributor of Clif Kid Snack Products

A climate washing lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleged that the manufacturer and distributor of Clif Kid products—“an explicitly child-centered version of the traditional Clif Bar”—made deceptive and untrue claims regarding the products’ environmental benefits, including by choosing “to emblazon the Product’s packaging with a representation that it is ‘Climate Neutral.’” The plaintiff alleged that reasonable consumers would believe that this label meant that manufacturing and marketing of the product “does not exert a negative impact on the environment nor contribute to climate change or degradation.” The plaintiff alleged that, in fact, manufacturing and transportation of the Clif Kid products result in “substantial” annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the emissions of 12,596 gasoline-powered automobiles. The complaint also alleged that the defendant’s reliance on the purchase of carbon offsets and credits to achieve carbon neutrality was “unjustified” due to “fundamental flaws in the offsetting market and the kinds of projects in which Defendant purportedly invests.” The plaintiff alleged that she and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the Clif Kid products or would have paid “substantially less” had they known the climate neutral claim was not true. The complaint alleged that the climate neutral claim was the type of “unqualified, general environmental claim for which Defendant cannot substantiate all reasonable interpretations” that the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides warn companies against making. The complaint asserted claims of breach of express warranty, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The relief sought included declaratory relief; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; and attorney fees and costs. Salguero v. Mondelez International, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02139 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2025) 

Endangered Species Act Lawsuits Sought Federal Actions on Climate Change-Threatened Species

Since the last update, we have added four new cases to the database in which plaintiffs are seeking or challenging federal action on climate change-threatened species under the Endangered Species Act:

• Center for Biological Diversity filed a suit in the federal district court for the District of Maryland asserting that the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to issue a timely 12-month listing determination on the organization’s petition to list the smalltail shark. The complaint alleged that the smalltail shark—which is “found in estuaries and nearshore waters of the western Atlantic Ocean from Brazil to the Northern Gulf of Mexico”—had experienced an 80% population decline in the past three decades and that “its continued survival is threatened by climate change, overfishing, habitat degradation, and contamination exposure.” Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 8:25-cv-00661 (D. Md., filed Feb. 27, 2025)
• Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination that the sand-verbena moth did not warrant listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In the complaint, filed in the federal district court for the Western District of Washington, CBD alleged that only six confirmed populations of the moth remained because shoreline development had destroyed the moth’s dune habitat and invasive plants had crowded out the yellow sand-verbena on which it depends. The complaint further alleged that sea level rise would inundate much of the moth’s remaining habitat, posing an additional threat to the moth’s long-term viability and that FWS had projected that four or five of the moth populations would be entirely extirpated by 2100, “depending on whether there is a low- or high-end greenhouse gas emissions outcome.” CBD asserted that FWS violated the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act, including by unlawfully determining that 2100 was not the foreseeable future. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 3:25-cv-05160 (W.D. Wash., filed Feb. 26, 2025)
• Center for Biological Diversity and three other organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Oregon alleging that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) failed to issue timely 12-month findings on an August 4, 2022 petition to list the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal Chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a July 17, 2023 petition to list the Washington Coast spring-run Chinook salmon under the ESA. The complaint alleged that NMFS had made positive 90-day findings that the petitions presented substantial information that listing might be warranted, including due to changes in ocean conditions resulting from climate change. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:25-cv-00258 (D. Or., filed Feb. 18, 2025)
• WildEarth Guardians filed an Endangered Species Act lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s December 2022 decision not to list three plant species found only in the area surrounding Arches National Park in southeastern Utah. The complaint referred to the three species—Cisco milkvetch, stage station milkvetch, and Isely’s milkvetch—as the “Moab-3” and alleged that the “predominant threat” they face is climate change. The complaint alleged the “rugged terrain” the Moab-3 inhabit “is expected to endure particularly brutal changes in its climate, with a scientific consensus that climate change will drive more frequent and more extreme drought, further parching the region in the years to come.” The complaint alleged that FWS’s decision “ignored and obfuscated climate change impacts as well as other threats to these rare, endemic plants and their ecosystem, rendering this decision arbitrary, capricious, contrary to the best scientific and commercial data available, and otherwise not in accordance with” the Endangered Species Act. WildEarth Guardians v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-00452 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2025)

Environmental Group’s FOIA Lawsuit Sought Presidential Transition and DOGE Documents

On February 27, 2025, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies and individuals within OMB to disclose records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) including presidential transition documents and United States DOGE Service (DOGE) and United States DOGE Service Temporary Organization (DOGETO) records that CBD alleged “affect air and water quality; climate change, imperiled plants and wildlife; public lands; and environmental justice issues.” CBD alleged that it had not received timely determinations on, or records responsive to, FOIA requests submitted on December 9, 2024 and January 27, 2025. CBD alleged that the records’ relevance was “extremely time sensitive given DOGE’s ongoing efforts to refashion the federal government and workforce in fundamental ways with no or minimal transparency.” CBD also claimed that DOGE and DOGETO were in violation of FOIA’s affirmative disclosure mandates that require agencies to “inform the public as to the various categories of information available for public scrutiny and the specific means of requesting information under FOIA.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Office of Management & Budget, No. 1:25-cv-00165 (D.D.C., filed Feb. 27, 2025) 

Climate Washing Class Action Said “Carbon Neutral” Claims for Apple Watches Were Misleading

Individuals who purchased Apple Watches that were advertised as “carbon neutral” products filed a climate washing class action against Apple Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the carbon neutrality claims were false and misleading because the claims were “predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy” of two carbon credit projects that would not result in actual carbon reductions: (1) a project to prevent deforestation on land in Kenya that the plaintiffs alleged had been protected from deforestation since 1983 and (2) a project in China that the plaintiffs alleged involved planting trees on land that was “already heavily forested.” The plaintiffs alleged that consumers had paid price premiums as a result of Apple’s misleading claims and had received products “whose environmental claims rely on ineffective and redundant offset projects that fail to provide genuine carbon reductions.” The complaint asserted violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, as well as claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; injunctive relief barring Apple from labeling, advertising, or packaging the products as “carbon neutral”; and attorney fees and costs. Dib v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-02043 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2025) 

North Dakota Challenged Resource Management Plant Amendments that Limited Future Federal Coal Development

The State of North Dakota filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of North Dakota challenging the amended Resource Management Plan (RMP) for federal lands in the state approved by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the final days of the Biden administration. North Dakota alleged that the amended RMP imposed “draconian and irrational restrictions on the development of traditional energy resources,” including by prohibiting future development of federally owned coal interests outside a four-mile radius from current development. The State alleged that this prohibition would prohibit development of more than 90% of the known federal coal acreage in North Dakota and have an “extremely substantial” impact on development of State- and privately owned coal interests. The State claimed that the RMP and the final environmental impact statement underlying it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The NEPA-related allegations included that BLM failed to take a hard look at the impacts of a decrease in mining efficiency, including impacts on mining emissions. Under the APA, the State contended, among other arguments, that BLM improperly relied on President Biden’s Executive Order 13990 on “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis” and the 2023 Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases Guidance to justify the amended RMP, thereby “promoting climate change goals over FLPMA’s multiple use mandate.” The State alleged that the executive order and guidance were not binding law and that “their pronouncements about global climate damages justifying domestic rulemakings cannot contradict FLPMA’s statutory mandates.” North Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00042 (D.N.D., filed Feb. 25, 2025)

EPA Asked Federal Court to Dismiss Lawsuit Seeking to Compel Issuance of Renewable Fuel Standard Volumes for 2026

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a motion to dismiss as unripe a lawsuit brought by biofuel trade groups to compel promulgation of a rule establishing Renewable Fuel Standard applicable volumes for the 2026 compliance year. EPA argued that the plaintiffs sent the required notices of intent to sue prior to any purported failure by EPA to meet the statutory deadline. Clean Fuels Alliance America v. Zeldin, No. 1:24-cv-03572 (D.D.C. Feb. 24, 2025) 

Plaintiffs Challenged Department of Agriculture “Purge” of Climate Change-Related Websites

Three nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had unlawfully directed the “purge” of climate change-focused webpages. The complaint alleged that the USDA Director of Digital Communications sent an email on January 30, 2025 ordering USDA staff to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change” by close of business on the following day and to identify and sort other webpages related to climate change. The complaint alleged that “scores of webpages” were removed without public notice or explanation, including webpages with “resources on which farmers relied to access financial and technical assistance for implementing conservation practices”; webpages that published or linked to “datasets and interactive tools on which farmers, landowners, researchers, and other members of the public relied to understand and combat climate-change-related risks and vulnerabilities, to search for federal funding opportunities, and to assess the efficacy of USDA programs”; landing pages that served as repositories of links to more specific pages about USDA climate-focused programs; and webpages with policies and interpretations for discharging USDA responsibilities. The plaintiffs alleged that USDA failed to comply with its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA); took action that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law in contravention of the Administrative Procedure Act; violated affirmative obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to make certain materials available; and violated the FOIA mandate to “index” all records that must be affirmatively disclosed in an electronic format. The plaintiffs asked the court to order USDA to restore the unlawfully removed webpages, to enjoin USDA from further implementing the directive to archive or unpublish climate change-focused webpages, and to order USDA to comply with PRA duties to provide adequate notice before removing or substantially modifying other climate change-focused webpages and to ensure public access to USDA’s public information. Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:25-cv-01529 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb 24, 2025)

California Avocado Farms Filed Greenwashing Action Against Avocado Importers

Four owners and operators of avocado farms in southern California filed a greenwashing action in the federal district court for the Central District of California against companies that import Mexican avocados. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants represented to consumers that their imported avocados were sustainably and responsibly sourced when in fact they are sourced from Mexican orchards “where the local environment is being decimated by uncontrolled deforestation, severe water shortages, soil degradation, and biodiversity and habitat loss driven by U.S. demand for sustainably sourced avocados.” The complaint contained allegations that the defendants’ sourcing of avocados from orchards on deforested land contributes to climate change by “disruptive the natural carbon cycle of native forests.” The plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ sustainability representations were misleading to consumers, with consumer confusion “often compounded at the point of sale, as many retailers do not distinguish or separate California-grown avocados from Mexican-grown avocados.” The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants violated California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law and also asserted an unjust enrichment claim. The relief sought by the plaintiffs included orders requiring the defendants to remove references to “sustainable” and/or “responsible” source practices and to inform consumers that their sourcing practices are not environmentally sustainable or responsible. The plaintiffs also sought restitution and disgorgement of monies received as a result of unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practices; monetary and statutory damages; and reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including attorney fees. Kachuck Enterprises v. Mission Produce, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01523 (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 21, 2025) 

Environmental Group Lawsuits Challenged President Trump’s Order Reopening Outer Continental Shelf Lands for New Oil and Gas Leasing

Environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging President Trump’s executive order that purported to reverse President Biden’s withdrawals of certain areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf in the Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico from future oil and gas leasing. The organizations contended that President Trump’s order violated the separation powers by exceeding his authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and intruding on Congress’s power under the Property Clause and that he lacked authority for the reversal under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). They asked the court for declaratory relief and an injunction blocking the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce from complying with or relying on the executive order’s provisions rescinding the withdrawals. Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-00038 (D. Alaska, filed Feb. 19, 2025)

Environmental organizations—a number of which also were plaintiffs in the new lawsuit—also filed a motion in a lawsuit filed in 2017 to challenge President Trump’s revocation of President Obama’s withdrawals of certain Outer Continental Shelf areas in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans from oil and gas leasing. The organizations asked the federal district court for the District of Alaska to reinstate its order and judgment holding that the 2017 revocations exceeded President Trump’s authority under OCSLA. The Ninth Circuit in 2021 vacated the district court’s judgment, finding that the appeals were moot after President Biden rescinded President Trump’s revocation and directing the district court to dismiss the organizations’ case without prejudice. In their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the organizations argued that the “extraordinary circumstance” of President Trump’s reinstatement of his prior revocation of President Obama’s withdrawals warranted relief from the dismissal of the case. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00101 (D. Alaska Feb. 19, 2025) 

Environmental Groups Challenged Corps of Engineers Permit for Surface Coal Mine

A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the Southern District of West Virginia alleged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for a surface coal mine (the Turkeyfoot Surface Mine) violated the Clean Water Act and that the Corps failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Corps issued the permit in August 2023. The plaintiffs’ claims included that the Corps conclusion, as part of its public interest review under the Clean Water Act, that greenhouse gas emissions would be minimal because the project’s coal would be used in the coking process to manufacture steel and not to generate electricity was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law. The plaintiffs also cited this conclusion as a basis for their claims that the Corps failed to take a hard look at the project’s impacts and that the Corps’ conclusion that the project would not have a significant impact was not supported. Coal River Mountain Watch v. Putnam, No. 3:25-cv-00103 (S.D. W. Va., filed Feb. 19, 2025) 

Challenge to Idaho Gold Mine Approvals Said Endangered Species Act Analyses Failed to Adequately Consider Climate Change Effects

Environmental organizations challenged federal reviews and approvals for the Stibnite Gold Project on federal public lands in central Idaho. The complaint, filed in the federal district court for the District of Idaho, described the project as involving construction and operation of a “massive” gold mine for at least 20 to 25 years. The organizations made claims under the Forest Service Organic Administration Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Materials Act of 1947, the Surface Resources Act of 1955, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The organizations’ Endangered Species Act claims were based in part on allegations that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to adequately consider the project’s effects together with the effects of climate change on protected species. The complaint alleged that the agencies failed to adequately consider or analyze (1) potential harms from wolverine habitat fragmentation caused by climate change during the project’s lifespan; (2) adverse effects on bull trout from the project’s temperature effects together with climate change impacts; (3) the combined effects of the project and climate change on whitebark pine in and around the project area; and (4) the adverse effects of the project in combination with climate change on Chinook salmon and steelhead. Save the South Fork Salmon v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:25-cv-00086 (D. Idaho, filed Feb. 18, 2025)

Challenge to Casino Project Said Endangered Species Act Review Overlooked Potential Climate Change-Related Inundations of Project’s Retention Pond

A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenged federal approvals for the development of a “massive” casino, hotel, event center, and retail complex by the Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe. The complaint alleged that the new casino resort would be located approximately 1.6 miles from the existing casino resort that the Rancheria operates on lands that the U.S. Department of Interior previously took into trust for the benefit of the Rancheria. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs on July 1, 2024 granted the Rancheria’s application to take the Strawberry Fields site just outside the City of Redding into trust for gaming and for the Rancheria to proceed with the new casino project. The plaintiffs—two tribes and a nonprofit association—asserted claims under multiple statutes, including a claim under the Endangered Species Act that was based in part on allegations that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ analysis of potential adverse effects on listed fish species or their critical habitat did not assess the likelihood of a retention pond that was part of the project “being inundated, and spilling into the Sacramento River, in a present and future marked by increasingly intense storm events driven by climate change.” Wintu Tribe of Northern California v. Department of Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00329 (D.D.C., filed Feb. 4, 2025)

Organizations Said BLM’s “Piecemeal” Approvals for Drilling Permits in San Joaquin Valley Violated Federal Laws

In a lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California, Center for Biological Diversity and four other organizations challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of 25 permits for drilling new oil and gas wells on public lands in the San Joaquin Valley. The plaintiffs alleged that BLM approved the permits in December 2024 and January 2025 “without waiting for this court to resolve the current ongoing challenge to BLM’s flawed review of drilling permits” and without analyzing the cumulative pollution impacts of the wells it was permitting. They alleged that “BLM’s repeated, piecemeal permit approvals without due regard for cumulative impacts represent a death by a thousand cuts that federal law is meant to prevent.” The complaint asserted that BLM violated the Clean Air Act, the public participation and substantive requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (including by failing to take a hard look at the drilling permits’ direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions), the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:25-cv-00140 (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 4, 2025)

Case Filed Challenging Approval for California Attorney General to Employ Outside Counsel for Climate Case Against Oil Companies

A nonprofit that serves as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for 4,500 legal professionals employed by California State departments, agencies, boards, and commissions filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the State Personnel Board’s approval of personal service contracts entered into by the Office of the Attorney General to employ a private law firm to assist in its lawsuit seeking to hold five major oil companies liable for climate change-related harms. The petitioner alleged that the Board’s decision irreparably harmed it and its members by authorizing the outsourcing of legal work that the petitioner members could and should have performed. The petition contended that the Board erred as a matter of law in determining that the contract was justified under California Government Code § 19130. California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment v. California State Personnel Board, No. 25WM000029 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 21, 2025)

Wisconsin Case Challenged State’s Employment of “Special Assistant Attorney General” to Work on Environmental, Climate, and Clean Energy Cases

A complaint filed in Wisconsin Circuit Court sought to terminate the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) agreement with New York University (NYU) that the plaintiffs alleged authorized a Legal Fellow employed by the NYU School of Law State Energy and Environmental Impact Center to work as a Wisconsin Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG). The plaintiffs alleged that the SAAG was “paid exclusively by the Center and its special interest backers” and that the agreement required DOJ to use the SAAG’s services to further the Center’s goals of defending, enforcing, and promoting “strong laws and policies in the areas of climate, environmental justice, environmental protection, and clean energy.” The plaintiffs—an alliance of dairy farms, a milk marketing cooperative, and a Wisconsin resident who previously was a DOJ attorney and official—asserted that the agreement with NYU was ultra vires, unlawful, and unconstitutional. Wisconsin Dairy Alliance, Inc. v. Kaul, No. 2025CV000022 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Feb. 20, 2025)

Trump Administration Sought to Suspend Cases Challenging Biden Climate Rules; D.C. Circuit Declined to Hold Hydrofluorocarbon Rule in Abeyance

Since Inauguration Day, many of the lawsuits challenging Biden administration climate change-related rules have been held in abeyance to allow the Trump administration to review agency actions. The following cases are among those in which courts have granted requests to suspend proceedings.

• On February 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit suspended briefing on its own motion in the proceedings challenging EPA’s emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and later. On March 4, the court granted private petitioners’ motion to hold the proceedings in abeyance, which the Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) opposed. Kentucky v. EPA, No. 24-1087 (D.C. Cir.)
• On February 18, 2025, the D.C. Circuit suspended briefing on its own motion in the proceedings challenging the greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles—Phase 3. On March 4, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted private petitioners’ motion to hold the cases in abeyance. ZETA opposed the motion. Nebraska v. EPA, No. 24-1129 (D.C. Cir.)
• On February 28, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s unopposed motion to hold cases challenging the Inflation Reduction Act waste emissions charge rule in abeyance. Independent Petroleum Association of America v. EPA, No. 25-1021 (D.C. Cir.)
• On February 14, 2025, the Sixth Circuit granted the federal government respondents’ motion for abeyance in challenges to fuel efficiency standards for upcoming model years for passenger cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. In re NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars & Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks & Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond, No. 24-7001 (6th Cir.)
• On March 4, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion to stay proceedings in a challenge to EPA’s Clean Air Act waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations. American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, No. 25-106 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025)
• On February 14, 2025, the Eighth Circuit granted a motion to hold in abeyance the federal government’s appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Waste Prevention Rule. The district court hearing the challenge to the Waste Prevention Rule also granted a motion to hold the case in abeyance. North Dakota v. U.S. Department of Interior, No. 24-3299 (8th Cir.), No. 1:24-cv-00066 (D.N.D.)
• On February 11, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s request to hold challenges to emissions standards for the oil and gas sector in abeyance. Texas v. EPA, No. 24-1054 (D.C. Cir.)
• On February 19, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s unopposed motion for abeyance in proceedings challenging greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants. West Virginia v. EPA, No. 24-1120 (D.C. Cir.)
• The federal district courts for the District of Alaska and District of Utah granted motions to stay proceedings in cases challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. Alaska v. Haaland, No. 3:24-cv-00161 (D. Alaska Feb. 13, 2025) (motion to stay proceedings for 60 days granted); Utah v. Haaland, No. 2:24-cv-00438 (D. Utah Feb. 3, 2025) (motion for stay of proceedings granted and pending motions administratively denied without prejudice); American Farm Bureau Federation v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 2:24-cv-00665 (D. Utah Feb. 3, 2025) (motion for stay of proceedings granted)

Other developments in cases challenging Biden administration actions included the following:

• In the cases challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate disclosure rule in the Eighth Circuit, the SEC submitted a letter to the court notifying it of the Acting SEC Chairman’s statement noting the “recent change in the composition” of the SEC and the fact that a majority of current Commissioners “voted against” the climate disclosure rule. The Acting Chair “recognized that this change and the ‘recent Presidential Memorandum regarding a Regulatory Freeze’ ‘bear on the conduct of this litigation.’” The Acting Chair directed SEC staff to request that the court not schedule oral argument “to provide time for the Commission to deliberate and determine the appropriate next steps in these cases.” Iowa v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 24-1522 (8th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025)
• The D.C. Circuit denied EPA’s motion to hold in abeyance cases challenging EPA’s final rule regarding the allowance allocation methodology for 2024 and later years that will be used to implement the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act. The petitioners and intervenor-respondents had opposed the abeyance motion. The intervenors argued that the constitutional questions raised by the petitioners were for the court, not EPA, to decide; that the court’s opinion on the legality of EPA’s methodology was of “crucial importance” to regulated entities on an ongoing basis; and that the case, for which oral argument had already been held, was ripe for decision. The petitioners argued that the requested abeyance could interfere with the court’s ability to grant meaningful relief in time for future compliance periods; they also argued that EPA’s “generic allegation that a new administration might revise its past decisions is too vague and speculative to justify delay of this proceeding.” IGas Holdings, Inc. v. EPA, No. 23-1261 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 2025)
• On January 16, 2025, before the change in administrations, the D.C. Circuit granted a joint motion to continue holding in abeyance cases challenging EPA’s final rule that amended the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requirements for the petroleum and natural gas systems source category to support implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act’s waste emissions charge. The parties requested that the abeyance be continued to allow time for any petitions seeking review of EPA’s partial denials in December 2024 of certain administrative requests for reconsideration. Independent Petroleum Association of America v. EPA, No. 24-1242 (D.C. Cir.)

Parties Weighed In on Whether Planned Withdrawal from Paris Agreement Mooted FOIA Case Regarding Development of “Nationally Determined Contribution” 

In an appeal challenging the U.S. Department of State’s redaction of names and official email addresses in its disclosure of records related to the development of the U.S.’s “nationally determined contribution” under the Paris Agreement, the Fifth Circuit asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the question of whether President Trump’s executive order directing the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement mooted the case. The Department of Justice contended that the decision to withdraw diminished any public interest in knowing the names or email addresses of employees who corresponded about the State Department’s recommendations. The plaintiff-appellant argued that neither the withdrawal decision nor the transition to a new administration mooted the appeal. On February 5, the day after oral argument, the Department of Justice informed the court that the State Department’s new leadership had determined that the names of two individuals previously withheld could be released but that their email addresses and names and email addresses of other employees would continue to be withheld. Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of State, No. 24-50189 (5th Cir.)

Lawsuit Alleged that New York Renewal of Power Plant Air Permit Violated State Climate Law

Sierra Club and two other organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) issuance of a new Clean Air Act Title V permit for the Caithness gas-fired power plant on Long Island. The petitioners alleged that DEC failed to comply with the requirements of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), including by failing to conduct an evaluation of whether the permit would be inconsistent or interfere with attainment of the CLCPA’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements or to provide the required detailed justification or to identify any alternatives or mitigation to ameliorate greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the petitioners asserted that DEC failed to evaluate whether the permit would impose a disproportionate burden on surrounding disadvantaged communities or consider mitigation to reduce the burdens on (or to benefit) those communities. The petitioners also asserted that it was arbitrary and capricious to rely on the plant’s previous permit to “effectively exempt” the plant from CLCPA requirements. Sierra Club v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 601635/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 22, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

United Kingdom: Greenpeace and Shell settle suit brought by Shell after oil platform protest

In February 2023, Shell and platform builder Fluor filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace International, and nine activists, after activists occupied a moving Shell oil platform. That protest saw activists occupy Shell’s Penguins floating production storage and offloading unit for 13 days over January and February 2023. The Penguins platform is the first newly operated vessel for Shell in the northern North Sea in 30 years. At peak production, the project is expected to yield the equivalent of 45,000 barrels of oil per day, and Shell has suggested it could open up further areas for exploration.

Initially, Shell claimed $2.1 million in damages over the protests in the North Sea, also calling for an indefinite block on all protests at Shell infrastructure at sea anywhere in the world. In December 2023, in its court filing, Shell reduced its claim to $1 million USD (c£800,000). The lawsuit calls for an indefinite block on all protests at Shell infrastructure anywhere in the world, or the company would make claims that could reach $8.6m (£7m)

In December 2024, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK agreed with Shell to settle the suit. The Greenpeace defendants faced over $11 million USD in damages and legal costs as a result of the lawsuit. As part of the final settlement, they will accept no liability and pay no money to Shell, instead agreeing to donate £300,000 to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI). They have also agreed to avoid protesting for a period at four Shell sites in the northern North Sea. The Greenpeace defendants have agreed not to travel within 500m of three Shell sites for a period of five years and one Shell site for a period of ten years. All of these sites are in the North Sea. Shell v. Greenpeace (United Kingdom High Court of Justice)

DECISIONS & SETTLEMENTS

Brazil: Court grants the preliminary injunction to suspend the effectiveness of the “Soy Moratorium” ban due to potential harm to environmental sustainability and violation of constitutional principles

In September 2024, the political parties Partido Comunista do Brasil, Rede Sustentabilidade, Partido Verde and Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (PSOL) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a preliminary injunction, seeking the declaration of unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Law 12,709/2024 of the State of Mato Grosso. The law came into force on January 1, 2025, and aims to terminate the sectoral agreement known as the “Soy Moratorium,” recognized as one of the most successful programs reconciling the development of large-scale agricultural production with environmental sustainability. This agreement regulates the granting of tax incentives and the allocation of public land to agribusiness companies with internal purchasing policies to avoid acquiring agricultural goods (soy, corn, cattle, etc.) produced in recently deforested areas. 

The plaintiffs argue that, regarding formal unconstitutionality, the matter falls under the exclusive initiative of the Executive Branch. As for material unconstitutionality, they claim that the law penalizes legal entities that adopt sustainable purchasing policies and favors suppliers that promote the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest, which would violate the principles of equality and free enterprise enshrined in the Federal Constitution. It was also emphasized that this law violates the protection of acquired rights, perfected legal acts, the defense of the environment as a fundamental principle of the national tax system, the right to an ecologically balanced environment, the duty to protect the environment, and the principle of prohibiting setbacks in environmental protection. It was highlighted that this law represents a setback in the fight against climate change, considering the commitments made under the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, which hold supralegal status. 

The plaintiffs requested, as part of the preliminary injunction, the granting of the requested precautionary measure to suspend the effects of the aforementioned articles of Law 12,709/2024 of the State of Mato Grosso. In the final judgment, they seek a ruling in favor of the ADI to declare the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned articles of the Law.

In a preliminary decision, the Reporting Justice found that the legal plausibility of the request for urgent relief had been demonstrated and granted the precautionary measure to suspend the effectiveness of State Law 12,709/2024. Mato Grosso State Law against the Soy Moratorium(Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

ICSID: In Keystone XL Pipeline dispute, arbitral tribunal ruled that Annex 14-C only extended the arbitration mechanism, not NAFTA’s substantive protections

The dispute concerns the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project intended to transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries. The project, partly financed by Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission (APMC), faced repeated setbacks due to shifting U.S. political decisions. The initial Presidential Permit application (2008) was denied in 2012, prompting a second application, which was also rejected under the Obama administration, leading to an ICSID Arbitration between the parties. However, after the Trump administration approved the permit in 2017, the parties terminated the arbitration and waived future claims related to prior events. The permit was reissued in 2019 but was revoked in January 2021 after President Biden took office. With NAFTA replaced by USMCA in July 2020—and Canada opting out of investor-state arbitration—the claimants initiated a new arbitration in November 2021 under Annex 14-C of the USMCA as a NAFTA legacy claim.

The jurisdictional arguments in TC Energy & TransCanada v. United States (2) focused on whether Annex 14-C of the USMCA allowed claims for breaches occurring after NAFTA’s termination on June 30, 2020, but within the three-year transition period (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023). The claimants argued for an expansive interpretation, asserting that Annex 14-C permitted claims based on breaches occurring during the transition period as long as they were filed before June 30, 2023. They maintained that the ordinary meaning of Annex 14-C, its explicit reference to NAFTA Chapter 11, and the principle of good faith supported their position. Additionally, the claimants invoked estoppel and unclean hands, arguing that the United States had induced them to withdraw an earlier NAFTA claim with the promise of a Presidential Permit, only to later revoke it.

In contrast, the United States (respondent) argued for a restrictive interpretation, contending that only breaches occurring before NAFTA’s termination could be arbitrated under Annex 14-C. The U.S. maintained that NAFTA’s substantive protections expired on June 30, 2020, and that the transition period merely extended the dispute resolution mechanism, not the underlying obligations. The U.S. also relied on international law principles, particularly Article 70 of the VCLT, which states that once a treaty is terminated, its obligations no longer apply unless expressly preserved. The U.S. further emphasized that allowing claims for post-2020 breaches would conflict with the USMCA’s purpose of replacing NAFTA and create uncertainty over applicable legal standards.

The tribunal majority (Mourre & Crook) upheld the restrictive interpretation and declined jurisdiction, ruling that Annex 14-C only preserved the arbitration mechanism, not NAFTA’s substantive protections. The majority based its decision on several key findings:

1. Ordinary treaty interpretation (VCLT Article 31) indicated that NAFTA’s substantive obligations ended on June 30, 2020, and only the arbitration process was temporarily extended.
2. Contextual evidence, including footnotes in Annex 14-C and other USMCA provisions, confirmed that no provision extended NAFTA’s investment protections beyond its termination date.
3. Treaty termination rules (VCLT Article 70) supported the conclusion that a treaty’s substantive provisions do not survive termination unless expressly stated.
4. Good faith and estoppel arguments were rejected, as the tribunal found no evidence that the U.S. had misled the claimants into believing that NAFTA’s protections would continue post-2020.

In dissent, Arbitrator Alvarez argued for the expansive interpretation, stating that Annex 14-C’s reference to NAFTA Chapter 11 implied that its substantive protections should remain in force throughout the transition period. He maintained that the ordinary meaning of the treaty text, footnotes in Annex 14-C, and negotiation history supported the claimants’ position. He also criticized the majority’s ruling for adding a condition not found in the treaty text, arguing that NAFTA’s investment protections should have applied for the full three-year transition period.

Ultimately, the tribunal declined jurisdiction over the claim, ruling that breaches occurring after NAFTA’s termination were not covered under Annex 14-C. The claimants were ordered to pay the arbitration costs, marking a significant decision on the scope of NAFTA legacy claims under the USMCA.

The Tribunal did not analyze the merits of the case as it declined jurisdiction to hear the case based on the reasons above set.

Ultimately, the tribunal majority upheld the restrictive view, ruling that Annex 14-C preserved only NAFTA’s arbitration mechanism, not its substantive protections. A dissenting opinion, however, supported the expansive view, arguing that NAFTA’s investment protections should have applied throughout the transition period. TC Energy Corporation and Transcanada Pipelines Limited v. United States of America (II) (ICSID)

Brazil: Injunction granted to suspend a permit allowing tree removal in urban areas until environmental and climate change concerns are evaluated 

In January 2025, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) filed a Public Civil Action (CPA) with a request for an injunction, against the Municipality of São Paulo and Sebastião Côrtes Incorporadora Spe LTDA., aiming to prevent the imminent risk of tree cutting and/or pruning due to a real estate development project by Sebastião Côrtes Incorporadora Spe LTDA. It is informed that this lawsuit concerns a forest, the removal of which began in January 2025, which has existed since the 1950s and consists of approximately one hundred mature and large-sized trees, home to various bird species, and potentially containing a water spring within the property located in a private area in the Perdizes neighborhood in São Paulo. This forest is purportedly protected as it includes a Permanent Preservation Area (APP) and Permanent Preservation Vegetation (VPP), in addition to being situated on land geomorphologically classified as a drainage headwater, which is highly susceptible to landslides, erosion, and flooding. It is emphasized that in the context of climate change, flooding becomes much more likely, further underscoring the importance of preserving the area. Urban regulations are cited, which mention the need for cities to adapt in light of climate change. The request is made for the granting of preliminary injunctive relief, to: (i) impose on the developer the immediate cessation of tree removal, continuation of any construction work on the site, earthmoving, deposition of construction materials, or other activities aimed at the construction of Sales Stands or similar structures, under penalty of a daily fine; (ii) suspend the Permit issued by the Municipality, as well as the Term of Adjustment of Conduct (TAC) executed for the intervention at the site; and (iii) impose on the Municipality the obligation to reassess the authorization, taking into account the discrepancies pointed out in the technical opinion of CAEX-MPSP regarding the level of protection of the area. In January 2025, the judge granted the injunction. MPSP vs. São Paulo Municipality and Sebastião Cortês Incorporadora Spe LTDA (Forest suppression in Perdizes, São Paulo) (Brazil, São Paulo State Court)

Brazil: Court partially granted injunctive relief for climate damages due to deforestation 

In January 2021, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Mato Grosso (MPMT) filed a Public Civil Action (CPA), with a request for an injunction, against Joel Rubin, seeking compensation for material and moral damages resulting from the deforestation of 296.2541 hectares in a Legal Reserve (RL) area on Fazenda Silva I, located in the municipality of Nova Maringá, in Mato Grosso. The deforestation occurred without authorization from the environmental agency between 2015 and 2018. It is mentioned that the damage caused by the emission of greenhouse gases resulting from deforestation violates the provisions of the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Policy on Climate Change (State Law 582/2017), contributing to global climate change. It is argued that the Brazilian legal system enshrines the principle of preserving climate integrity and warns of the intensification of global warming effects. It is alleged that environmental civil liability is strict, and the obligation to repair is propter rem. In the preliminary injunction, the plaintiff requests, among other measures, the prohibition of economic use of the area during the litigation, the restoration of the degraded or altered area, the suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines, and the registration of the CPA in the property’s deed. As a final request, the plaintiff seeks compensation for material environmental damages, estimated at R$ 12,169,649.70, and for moral damages, to be determined by the court.

In January 2021, the court partially granted the urgent injunctive relief, limiting it to the registration of the lawsuit in the property’s deed. In September 2021, the defendant filed his response arguing that the property where the deforestation occurred was sold by him in 2017 to Milton Paulo Cella and, therefore, he is not the party responsible for the deforestation nor the proper party to be named as the defendant in the lawsuit. On the merits, the defendant requested the total dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. He argued in favor of restoration of the area over the payment of compensation, the impossibility of cumulating compensation for material and moral damages, and the absence of moral damages.

In its reply, the MPMT requested the amendment of the initial complaint to include Milton Paulo Cella and Diogo Ricardo Bavaresco as defendants, as they acquired the deforested area, which was accepted by the defendant. Due to the connection of this lawsuit with others pending against the defendant in the Federal Court of the First Region, the case was transferred to the Federal Court under case number 1002350-88.2024.4.01.3604. MPMT v. Joel Rubin (Deforestation in Nova Maringá, Mato Grosso) (Brazil Mato Grosso State Court)

New Zealand: Supreme Court grants leave for appeal in case against Minister of Energy and Resources

In 2021, Students for Climate Solutions brought a case against the Minister of Energy and Resources. The plaintiff argued that the defendant Minister, in granting petroleum exploration permits under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA), had failed to adequately consider the effects of the exploration on climate change. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that: (1) climate change was a mandatory relevant consideration for the purposes of New Zealand administrative law; (2) that the failure to consider climate change rendered the decision unreasonable; and (3) that the minister had failed to have proper regard for the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document.

The Court rejected all three grounds of review. On the first ground, the Court found that the CMA was intended in part to promote the exploitation of natural resources, and that climate considerations were absent from the statutory scheme (which was instead designed to promote fossil fuel mining). Secondly, the Court found that the Minister’s decision was not unreasonable. And finally, the Court found that the decision did not violate principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court accepted that the CMA should be interpreted, as far as possible, consistently with Treaty principles. However, in this case the Court found that the Minister sufficiently considered such principles, and they had been appropriately weighed against other factors – the Minister was not required to engage in any broader policy assessment. The Court also expressed concern that the relevant Māori authorities were not represented in the proceedings.

The Court also made general observations about the significance of climate change in the scrutiny of judicial review applied under New Zealand law. The Court both rejected a submission by the plaintiff that a more intense level of scrutiny was necessary, as well as a submission by the defendant that greater deference should be applied given the complex nature of climate change. 

SFCA appealed to New Zealand’s Court of Appeal. The Court unanimously rejected the challenge on May 7, 2024. The majority observed that climate change was not an explicit consideration listed under the factors the Minister was required to consider under s 29A of the Crown Minerals Act. It further rejected SFCA’s argument that climate change considerations were impliedly required by the Act’s purpose, relying instead on the Crown Minerals Act’s legislative history to determine that the Act was intended to: (1) support mineral exploration and mining for New Zealand’s economic benefit; and (2) allow for petroleum exploration in the Taranaki region in the interests of facilitating a “just transition”. The majority of the judges took no position as to whether a decision-maker under the Crown Minerals Act was permitted to consider climate change, as set out in s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The Court specifically distinguished the Minister’s obligations from that of the decision-maker in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6), an Australian case, where the relevant statute expressly required the decision-maker to consider principles of “ecologically sustainable development”. However, Justice Mallon, in a concurring opinion, took the view that s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act does permit a decision-maker in this context to consider New Zealand’s overall 2050 emissions target, emissions budget, and relevant emissions reduction plans.

On the Treaty of Waitangi challenge, the Court of Appeal accepted that climate change might be relevant as a component of the Minister’s overall obligation toward Māori. However, it was sufficient that the Minister had considered localized impact on Māori iwi (tribes) in the neighboring area, rather than climate change’s long-term disproportionate impact on Māori as a whole. 

On February 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. Without limiting the scope of the appeal, the Court has directed counsel to address whether the climate change considerations set out in section 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 are mandatory, permissive, or irrelevant considerations when granting a petroleum exploration permit. Students for Climate Solutions Inc v. Minister of Energy and Resources (New Zealand, Supreme Court) 

NEW CASES

Environmental NGOs Filed Constitutional Appeal Challenging Spain’s Climate Plan

On May 28, 2021, Greenpeace Spain, Oxfam Intermón, Ecologistas en Acción, and Coordinadora de ONG para el Desarrollo filed suit alleging that the Government of Spain’s climate plan was insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals and the 1.5C temperature target. In March 2021, Spain approved the National Energy and Climate Plan 2021-2030. Plaintiff NGOs challenged the plan on the grounds that it was not ambitious enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals and did not uphold public participation guarantees required for an adequate environmental assessment. The case was filed by most of the same plaintiffs as those in a similar case also challenging the National Energy and Climate Plan. On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court admitted the case.

After the decision n. 1079/2023 of the Spanish Supreme Court rejecting Greenpeace and others’ claims, the claimants filed a constitutional appeal before the Spanish Constitutional Court on the grounds that the Spanish Supreme Court did not duly examine the alleged violations of human rights due to climate change. Considering the Verein Klimasenniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland case, the claimants argue that the Spain’s climate plan violates Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the Spanish Supreme Court should have reviewed its compatibility with the protection of human rights. Furthermore, they note that the Spanish Supreme Court did not examine the alleged violations due to the separation of powers principle. Moreover, they state that the lack of duly review by the Supreme Court decision of the alleged human rights violations, constitutes a violation of Article 24 Spanish Constitution (right to a fair trial). Greenpeace v. Spain II (Spain, Constitutional Court)

Brazil: Case filed challenging carbon credits’ commercialization and lack of benefit-sharing from generated carbon credits

In September 2024, Francisco dos Santos Sampaio filed a Popular Environmental Action (Ação Popular Ambiental - APop), along with a request for urgent relief, against the Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos (FEMARH, the Roraima State Environmental Agency) and Glicério Marcos Fernandes Pereira, who at the time was the president of the environmental agency. The lawsuit challenges the irregular hiring of a private company for the commercialization of carbon credits in conservation units in the Baixo Rio Branco region of Roraima. The plaintiff alleges the lack of public participation in the hiring process and, in particular, the absence of prior consultation with the traditional communities that inhabit the region and contribute to its preservation. It is further claimed that there was no proper benefit-sharing from the carbon credits generated, disregarding the rights of these populations. Other alleged irregularities include a lack of transparency and favoritism in the bidding process, resulting in environmental and social harm. The lawsuit emphasizes that the actions in question violate administrative morality, the rights of local populations, and environmental balance. As part of the preliminary injunction, the plaintiff requests the immediate suspension of the contracts and activities resulting from the public call to prevent irreversible damage. On the merits, the plaintiff seeks (i) annulment of the contracts and the public call; (ii) conducting a new administrative procedure with the participation of traditional communities and the implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms; and (iii) compensation for the environmental and social damages caused. Francisco dos Santos Sampaio v. FEMARH and Glicério Marcos Fernandes Pereira (Carbon Credits and Violation of Prior Consultation) (Brazil, Roraima State Court)

Brazil: Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office demands the inclusion of environmental, climate, indigenous, and quilombola impact studies in the licensing of port and waterway projects

On July 2024, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a public civil action against the state of Pará and the municipality of Santarém, seeking the mandatory inclusion of environmental, climate, indigenous and quilombola (Afro-Brazilian descendants of enslaved people) impact studies in the licensing process for port and waterway projects in the region of the municipality of Santarém/PA. The plaintiff says that the municipality has been progressively incorporated into the Tapajós-Xingu Logistics Corridor, which includes commodity export corridors in the Madeira and Tocantins river basins and involves the implementation of various infrastructure projects with social and environmental risks. The lack of impact studies has caused serious environmental and social damage, such as deforestation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems and a threat to the livelihoods of traditional communities, including indigenous peoples, quilombolas, artisanal fishermen, riverine communities and extractive communities. The plaintiff argues that the operation of multiple ports in the same region can generate cumulative and synergistic effects, increasing pressure on the climate, and that it is essential to consider the assessment of the climate dimension of possible impacts in the environmental licensing of projects. It therefore requests that the State of Pará and the Municipality of Santarém be ordered to adapt their environmental licensing procedures for port and waterway works in Santarém/PA, with a mandatory prior environmental impact study (EIA/RIMA), a study of quilombola (ECG) and indigenous (ECI) components, a climate impact study and free, prior and informed consultation of the traditional peoples and communities potentially impacted. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. State of Pará and Municipality of Santarém (Tapajós – Xingu Logistics Corridor) (Brazil, Pára Federal Court)