Climate Litigation Updates (March 23, 2026)

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes monthly summaries of developments in climate-related litigation. We also add these developments to The Climate Litigation Database on an ongoing basis. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE LITIGATION DATABASE FOR UPDATE #209

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Supreme Court Granted Certiorari in Boulder’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies

On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted three fossil fuel companies’ petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion allowing the County Commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder (together, Boulder) to proceed with their state-law claims that the companies are liable for climate change-related injuries suffered by Boulder. Boulder’s suit, filed in 2018, seeks damages and other relief and asserts causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment. Boulder alleges that the companies “knowingly caused and contributed to the alteration of the climate by producing, promoting, refining, marketing and selling fossil fuels at levels that have caused and continue to cause climate change, while concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers associated with fossil fuels’ intended use.” In their petition for writ of certiorari, the companies—Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation—asked the Supreme Court to consider the question of “[w]hether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” In its order granting certiorari, the Court asked the parties to brief both this question and also the additional issue of whether the Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear the case. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2026)

Since the Court’s granting of certiorari, parties and courts in some of the other pending climate cases against fossil fuel companies have responded to this development:

• In the State of Hawai‘i’s lawsuit, the defendants asked the Hawai‘i trial court to continue the stay of proceedings that was in place due to the United States’ pending lawsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin Hawai‘i’s lawsuit. The defendants argued that it “will promote judicial economy and the interests of justice to continue to pause proceedings here to permit the Supreme Court to provide potentially dispositive guidance regarding a core threshold issue in this case.” The defendants also argued continuing the stay was warranted due to defendant Chevron’s filing of a motion to enforce a 2002 judgment in a case that resolved claims brought by the State of Hawai‘i arising from alleged deceptive manufacture, marketing, and sale of petroleum products. The defendants argued that the resolution of Chevron’s motion could dispose of this case as to Chevron and that other defendants in this case also intend to file similar motions in the other case. In addition, the defendants argue that the court should continue the stay until the United States’ lawsuit in federal court is resolved. State of Hawai‘i v. BP p.l.c., No. 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct.)
• In the case brought by the New Jersey Attorney General and two other New Jersey officials, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued an order holding the plaintiffs’ appeal of the February 2025 dismissal of the case in abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Boulder case. The court also rescinded a February 20, 2026 invitation to submit supplemental briefs addressing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. Oral argument previously had been scheduled for May 12, 2026. Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., A-001641-24T2 (N.J. App. Div.)
• In the cases brought by the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe and the Makah Indian Tribe, the fossil fuel industry defendants on February 25, 2026 requested that the Washington Superior Court stay all proceedings. The court proceeded with a hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases on February 27. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 23-2-25215-2 (Wash. Super. Ct.)
• In the appeals by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County of the trial courts’ dismissals of their cases, the Maryland Supreme Court denied fossil fuel companies’ motion to stay its consideration of the appeals. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., No. 11 (Md. Mar. 19, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

North Carolina Trial Court Said Town of Carrboro’s Climate Case Against Duke Energy Raised Nonjusticiable Political Questions

A North Carolina Superior Court dismissed the Town of Carrboro’s climate lawsuit against the public utility company Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy). The court described Carrboro’s suit as alleging that Duke Energy “misled the American public for decades about the effects of fossil fuel consumption on the environment” and that “as a result, the public transition to alternative forms of energy was delayed,” which materially contributed to climate change harms suffered by the Town. The court concluded that Carrboro had standing to bring the action but found that the Town’s claims were nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Supreme Court’s three-factor test for the political question doctrine. First, the court found that energy policy was “textually committed” to branches of government other than the judiciary and that issues regarding fossil fuel-related emissions were delegated to the Utilities Commission and to the Department of Environmental Quality. Second, the court found courts “lack the capacity to resolve … through traditional methods of judicial adjudication” the “multitude of unanswerable questions raised by Carrboro’s claims and theory of recovery,” including questions regarding “the unknowable issue of precisely how much influence Duke Energy’s alleged acts of deception had on energy choices made by individual members of the American public.” The court also found that Carrboro “ignores the impacts of fossil fuel-related emissions by billions of persons in other countries throughout the world.” The court wrote that “[t]he very nature of carbon emissions existing as gases that are diffused throughout the atmosphere across the globe makes any attempt to attribute a specific source of emissions to a specific climate change-related impact a futile endeavor.” The court also found persuasive the application of the political question doctrine in three climate cases in other jurisdictions: Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., California v. General Motors Corp., and City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co. Although the court dismissed the case under the political question doctrine, the court also concluded that it was likely that “some portion” of Carrboro’s claims were preempted by federal law. Town of Carrboro v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 24CV003385-670 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 12, 2026)

Federal Court Declared Texas Statute’s Prohibitions on State Business with Companies that “Boycott” Fossil Fuel Companies Unconstitutional

The federal district court for the Western District of Texas enjoined enforcement of a Texas law enacted in 2021 (Senate Bill 13 (SB 13)) that prohibited State of Texas entities from investing in or contracting with companies that “boycott” fossil fuel-based energy companies. As a threshold matter, the court ruled that the organization that challenged the law, American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), satisfied the test for associational standing for claims against the divestment provision of SB 13 based on the standing of two ASBC members that had been blacklisted. The court found that the interests ASBC sought to protect in the lawsuit were “‘germane’ to ASBC’s mission of encouraging sustainable investing and business practices” and that ASBC members did not need to participate in the suit given that ASBC sought only prospective and injunctive relief, as opposed to individualized damages. The court also concluded that ASBC had standing for a facial First Amendment challenge to SB 13’s contracting provision. On the merits, the court ruled that SB 13 violated the First Amendment because it was “facially overbroad” since its provisions affected “a broad range of protected activities,” including “speaking about the risks posed by fossil fuels, advocating against reliance on fossil fuels, and associating with like-minded organizations.” The court further concluded that SB 13 was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “because it fails to provide persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited and does not provide explicit standards for determining compliance with the law.” The defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay pending appeal. American Sustainable Business Council v. Hegar, No. 1:24-cv-01010 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2026)

Vanguard Group and State Plaintiffs Settled Antitrust Case Challenging Alleged Use of Coal Holdings to Reduce Coal Output; BlackRock and State Street Remain as Defendants

State plaintiffs and The Vanguard Group, Inc. (Vanguard) reached a settlement in the states’ lawsuit alleging that Vanguard and two other institutional investors violated antitrust laws by collectively using their shareholdings in domestic coal producers to reduce coal output. Vanguard, which expressly denied that it had engaged in any unlawful act, agreed to pay $29.5 million into an escrow account established by the plaintiff states. Vanguard also agreed to abide by “Passivity Commitments” for five years regarding its stewardship of “U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds,” which were defined as Vanguard-advised exchange-traded funds, collective investment trusts, and mutual funds domiciled in the U.S. The settlement agreement provided that “Vanguard Investment Stewardship, or any group that may succeed it by taking over its responsibilities for stewardship of U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds, shall pursue engagement activities with portfolio companies and cast shareholder votes relating to U.S. Equity Investments made by U.S. Vanguard-Advised Funds solely to further the financial interests of investors in those funds,” which is defined as seeking “the best long-term investment returns for investors in each fund.” The settlement agreement set forth specific obligations, including that Vanguard “will not advocate to any portfolio company that it take any particular course of conduct to reduce carbon emissions” and that Vanguard will withdraw from the Principles for Responsible Investment and will not participate in any organization that advocates for setting specific output or emissions targets or that requires members to make commitments to achieve climate-focused objectives. The specific commitments also included obligations not explicitly related to climate or ESG such as requiring that Vanguard “will not dispose or threaten to dispose of securities of portfolio companies as a condition or inducement of specific action or nonaction by such company.” The settlement agreement also provided that Vanguard would use commercially reasonable efforts to offer proxy voting choice to investors and encourage investors to participate. In addition, Vanguard agreed to provide certain discovery materials. Texas v. BlackRock, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026)

Texas Federal Court Awarded $4.6 Million in Attorney’s Fees to Plaintiff Who Challenged Influence of ESG Interests in American Airlines Employee Retirement Plans

The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas awarded approximately $4.6 million in attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who prevailed on a claim that American Airlines, Inc. and the American Airlines Employee Benefits Committee (collectively American) had breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by allowing corporate interests in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives and their investment manager’s ESG interests to influence their management of employee retirement plans. The court found that American had “sufficient culpability to warrant granting attorney’s fees” even though the court did not award damages. The court also found that other factors favored awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff, including that American had the ability to pay, that an attorney’s fee award would provide an incentive to American and other companies “to better adhere to the duty of loyalty,” and that “the case grappled with a significant and novel issue of whether ERISA permits asset managers to invest Plan assets with ESG-related goals rather than the exclusive financial interests of the Plan participants.” The court also denied American’s motion for reconsideration of the final judgment but clarified multiple points of the injunction. Spence v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00552 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2026)

D.C. Federal Court Vacated EIS for Wyoming Oil and Gas Project for Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives

The federal district court in the District of Columbia vacated the 2020 environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD) for the Converse County Oil and Gas Project in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, finding that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to conduct an adequate analysis of reasonable alternatives. In particular, the court found that BLM violated its obligation under NEPA to “rigorously evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives” by eliminating a greenhouse gas reduction alternative and an alternative that reduced the pace of oil and gas development. The court found that vacatur was warranted because BLM’s errors “were the type that prompts ‘substantial doubt’ that the agency chose correctly” and because the federal defendants and the intervenors failed to show that vacatur of the EIS and ROD would be so disruptive as to justify departing from the normal remedy of vacatur. The court also considered the environmental harm from keeping the EIS in place, noting that the project was “already emitting and will continue to emit significant levels of greenhouse gases that will contribute to climate change and impart other significant environmental harm, impacting human health, sensitive natural resources, landscapes, and wildlife.” The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint, finding that the new claims related to 2025 environmental assessments, categorical exclusions, and applications for permits to drill that were “superficially similar” to the 2020 actions challenged in this case but rested on separate procedures and documents and constituted new, final agency actions. The court also found that allowing the plaintiffs to supplement the complaint would prejudice the defendants and intervenors. Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:22-cv-02696 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2026)

Department of Agriculture Agreed to Provide Climate Information to Plaintiffs to Resolve Litigation that Challenged the Removal of Data from Agency Websites

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York so-ordered a stipulation and order of settlement and dismissal in a lawsuit brought in February 2025 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the removal of climate change-related information from the USDA website after President Trump’s inauguration. In May 2025, the parties notified the court that USDA would restore the content. In the February 2026 stipulation setting forth the terms of the dismissal of the case, USDA agreed to provide the plaintiffs with certain data sets used to generate the Forest Service Climate Risk Viewer and to provide certain records created since the publication in April 2023 of an initial inventory of mature and old-growth forests on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order 14072, “Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local Economies.” The records USDA must provide include “records of continued work on the definitions of mature and old-growth forests, the Forest Inventory Growth Stage System methodology, the special resolution of the inventory, and the data enabling or supporting increased accuracy or a finer spatial resolution.” USDA also agreed to maintain public access to the Climate Risk Viewer until the release of records is completed. Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:25-cv-01529 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2026)

After Trump Administration Withdrawal from Columbia River System MOU, Oregon Federal Court Granted Preliminary Injunction Requiring Government to Increase Spill Levels; Failure to Consider Climate Change Cited

The federal district court for the District of Oregon granted motions for preliminary injunction filed by National Wildlife Federation and other organizations (NWF) and by the State of Oregon seeking to require the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal defendants to increase spill levels and implement other measures in the operation and maintenance of the Columbia River System’s dams and reservoirs to protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. NWF and Oregon filed their motions after the Trump administration withdrew from a 2023 memorandum of understanding that specified interim parameters for the system’s operation. In its decision on the motion, the court rejected the federal defendants’ arguments that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and lacked authority to enter an injunction. In considering the factors for a preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the 2020 biological opinion (BiOp) for the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) under the Endangered Species Act and the related record of decision under the National Environmental Policy Act failed for at least four reasons, including because the BiOp did not properly account for climate change in its analysis of whether FCRPS operation would jeopardize continued existence of salmonids. The court found that the federal defendants’ contention that the BiOp only needed to consider harms caused by the proposed action was “missing the crux” of the plaintiffs’ argument, which was that harm caused by the proposed action “is significantly greater when climate change is considered.” The court wrote that if FRCPS operation “kills more salmonids because they are weakened by the effects of climate change, or if the amount of salmonids killed by FCRPS operations is more of a threat to the sustainability of the species because they are dying in greater numbers due to climate change, that is the reality in which [the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)] must assess the effects of the Proposed Action.” The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that NMFS did not properly assess the proposed action’s effects with climate change. The court also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief due to the vulnerability of salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The court further found that the balance of the equities and the public interest weighed heavily in favor of preliminary relief, citing the threats to the species and harms to the tribes of the Columbia River Basin. The court noted that it was not granting certain components of the plaintiff’s requested injunction, which would ameliorate countervailing harms identified by the defendants. The court denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:01-cv-640 (D. Or. Feb. 25, 2026)

California Federal Court Dismissed Climate Washing Cases Regarding Carbon Neutrality Claims for Apple Watches and Vape Products

The federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims that Apple Inc. made false and misleading representations that its corporate global emissions since 2020 and certain Apple Watches were carbon neutral. The plaintiffs alleged that these representations relied on carbon credits that were insufficient to offset emissions to render Apple’s corporate emissions or its Apple Watches carbon neutral. The plaintiffs also alleged that Apple failed to retire sufficient carbon credits to fully offset Apple Watches’ emissions in 2024. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that Apple’s claims of carbon neutrality were false. The court found that the plaintiffs offered only “conclusory allegations” that Apple retired an insufficient number of credits and that the plaintiffs did not support their allegations that the credits purchased by Apple inflated or miscalculated the amount of carbon offset with allegations that they used a validated and verified methodology. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 21 days, but they elected not to amend and filed a notice requesting that the court enter final judgment. Dib v. Apple Inc., No. 25-cv-02043 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026).

The federal district court for the Northern District of California also dismissed climate washing claims by consumers who purchased “Vuse” brand vaping products marketed as “carbon neutral.” The consumers challenged the validity of the third party-verified carbon offset credits on which the carbon neutrality claim relied. The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs lacked standing, finding that the consumers alleged a “pocketbook injury” caused by their purchase of vape products at a premium price based on the defendants’ carbon neutral marketing. The court found, however, that the plaintiffs failed to state claims under California’s consumer protection laws because they did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would adopt the plaintiffs’ specific interpretation of carbon neutrality requiring no additional carbon emissions to the atmosphere and an “independent, primary-source verification of the carbon-offset project amounts.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to allege that defendants lacked a “reasonable basis” for the carbon neutrality claims and that the consumers’ complaint “fails to provide a sufficient factual basis to bridge the gap between a technical disagreement over a carbon-offset projects and a plausible claim of consumer deception.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and that they abandoned their claims of breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The court also concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a United Kingdom-based investment holding company that was an indirect parent company of two of the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that the subsidiaries were alter egos of the UK-based company and that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that jurisdictional discovery was necessary. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed another defendant from the case at the end of January 2026. The court granted the consumers leave to amend their complaint as to claims the California consumer protection law and express warranty claims, but on March 5 the plaintiffs gave notice that they did not intend to file an amended complaint and asked the court to enter final judgment. On March 10, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 3:25-cv-04521 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026)

Maine Federal Court Denied Community Solar Developers’ Request that It Block Maine Law’s Imposition of Project Charge for Participation in Net Energy Billing

The federal district court for the District of Maine denied community solar project sponsors’ challenge to a Maine law that imposed a charge on community solar developers participating in Maine’s Net Energy Billing (NEB) Program. The plaintiffs contended that the new charge constituted an unconstitutional per se taking of private property and alleged that it would “upend Maine’s progress toward achieving its sustainability goals.” The court found that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the project charge was an unconstitutional taking. The court concluded that the charge was neither an impermissible monetary exaction under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine nor a governmental directive of payments from a specific and identifiable fund of money. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs could not sustain a per se takings claim because their participation in the NEB Program was voluntary. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm because they would be able to recover any monetary damages resulting from the charge. In addition, the court found that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed against a preliminary injunction. Gray Yarmouth Road Solar LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, No. 1:25-cv-00952 (D. Me. Feb. 17, 2026) 

Pennsylvania Gas Producer and News Publication Reached Settlement in Gas Producer’s Defamation Action

On September 23, 2025, CNX Resources Corporation (CNX), a Pennsylvania natural gas producer, filed a defamation lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Capital & Main, which the complaint alleged was “a California-based environmental media outlet that is funded by renewable energy interests.” The complaint alleged that Capital & Main published a “hit piece” about CNX’s “Radical Transparency” program, which the complaint describes as involving monitoring and real-time reporting on air quality, waste, and water quality at certain gas well pads. The complaint alleged that the article “serves as the mouthpiece for certain … climate and renewable energy activists to make false and defamatory statements regarding CNX” and a report on the Radical Transparency program. The complaint alleged that “[w]hile Capital & Main and the renewable energy activists quoted in the Article may have the right to criticize the methodology of the Report or the conclusions drawn in the Report, the Article became legally actionable when it published purportedly fact-based statements accusing CNX of such serious business misconduct as alleged fabrication of data and alleged securities market manipulation in connection with the release of the Report.” CNX sought damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, such other relief as the court deemed appropriate. On February 12, 2026, the parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit after they agreed to a settlement. The stipulation did not report on the terms of the settlement, but CNX announced the settlement on its “Positive Energy Hub” site, stating that Capital & Main had added the following editor’s note to the article: “Capital & Main did not state, and did not intend to imply, that CNX fabricated any reported data in its Radical Transparency program. Further, Capital & Main did not state, and did not intend to imply, that CNX engaged in manipulation of the stock market or any improper attempts to influence its ratings or stock values. Capital & Main has no facts or basis to believe that any fabrication of data or market manipulation occurred.” CNX Resources Corp. v. Capital & Main, No. 2:25-cv-01471 (W.D. Pa., filed Sep. 23, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Entered Judgment Declaring that Secretary of Energy’s Climate Working Group Was Subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act 

On January 23, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists’ motion to compel disclosure of the names of federal government employees who reviewed and provided comments on the report prepared by the Climate Working Group convened by the Secretary of Energy to “provide clarity and balance” regarding climate science. Two days earlier, the court granted in part the organizations’ request to compel disclosure of records withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege under Freedom of Information Act Exemption 5. On January 30, the court entered a judgment declaring that the Climate Working Group was not exempt from Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements; declaring that the court was satisfied that the federal government had remedied the informational injury by disclosing records; and dismissing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a defendant because there was “no persuasive evidence of conduct violative of the FACA on the part of any entity outside of the Department of Energy and Secretary Wright.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Jan. 23 and 30, 2026)

New Hampshire Federal Court Enjoined State’s Termination of Its Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

The federal district court for the District of New Hampshire granted a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Commissioners of the New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services from ceasing implementation or enforcement of the State of New Hampshire’s vehicle inspection and maintenance program unless the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants final approval of a revised Clean Air Act state implementation plan (SIP) removing the program. The State enacted a law abolishing the program in June 2025, and the State subsequently took steps to wind down the program effective January 31, 2026. The court found that the parent company of the vendor that contracted with the State to provide the services and equipment for inspections showed a substantial likelihood of standing. The court further found that the company was likely to succeed on the merits of its Clean Air Act claim that the Commissioners were “in violation of” the SIP and that the company would likely succeed in showing it complied with the Clean Air Act’s notice requirements for citizen suits. In addition, the court found that the company demonstrated that in the absence of a preliminary injunction it would suffer substantial injuries that could not remedied by money damages at the end of the case. The court also concluded that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction. On February 10, the Commissioners filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal. The court denied the motion to stay on February 25, 2026. Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc. v. NH Department of Safety, Commissioner, No. 1:25-cv-00508 (D.N.H. Jan. 27, 2026)

California Federal Court Barred Off-Highway Vehicle Use in Desert Tortoise Habitat

The federal district court for the Northern District of California issued a decision on the remedy to address violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act in connection with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) designation of a route network for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in the West Mojave Desert. The violations identified in the court’s October 2024 ruling included that BLM failed to analyze the greenhouse gas impacts among alternatives. The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for partial vacatur of the route network, finding that closure of desert tortoise critical habitat to OHVs was appropriate. The court remanded and vacated or partially vacated the record of decision, biological opinion, and incidental take statement for further proceedings. Center for Biological Diversity v. Culver, No. 21-cv-07171 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2026)

Federal Government Agreed to Make Determination Regarding Whether Smalltail Shark Is Endangered or Threatened

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed to a settlement resolving a lawsuit to compel NMFS to make a 12-month finding on whether listing of the smalltail shark as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. CBD filed the lawsuit—in which CBD alleged that the species is threatened by climate change, overfishing, and other factors— in February 2025, more than two years after it submitted a listing petition and almost two years after NMFS issued a 90-day finding that listing “may be warranted.” In the settlement agreement, NMFS agreed to submit to the Office of the Federal Register by August 12, 2026 a 12-month finding as to whether listing is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by other pending proposals. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 8:25-cv-00661 (D. Md. Jan. 30, 2026)

Endangered Species Act Lawsuit Withdrawn After Fish and Wildlife Service Acted on Listing Petition for Rare Flower

Center for Biological Diversity voluntarily withdrew an Endangered Species Act lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) after FWS published the required 90-day finding in response to CBD’s April 2024 petition to list the gray cat’s eye as threatened or endangered. FWS published a finding on January 26, 2026 in which it announced that CBD’s petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. In its complaint, CBD alleged that the flower, which is found only on dunes along the Columbia River in central Washington, faces threats that include climate change-related disruption to groundwater regimes. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:25-cv-00620 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2026)

D.C. Federal Court Declined to Compel New Environmental Review for Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure

The federal district court for the District of Columbia declined to compel the Secretary of the Interior and two other federal officials to update environmental assessments for the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure. The court concluded that although Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) had standing to bring the suit, the organization did not establish a discrete and mandatory duty that the court could order the defendants to perform. The court also found that the lawsuit presented an impermissible programmatic challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. CBD’s 2024 lawsuit alleged that the Interior Department had “under-studied” environmental concerns associated with “delinquent and decommissioned-in-place infrastructure,” including “substantial risks to the Gulf, including oil spills, methane leaks, and the leaching of toxic chemicals.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:24-cv-02014 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2026)

California Federal Court Again Dismissed U.S. Avocado Growers Claims Alleging Mexican Avocado Suppliers Violated Law by Engaging in Unsustainable Sourcing Practices

The federal district court for the Central District of California again dismissed U.S. avocado growers’ claims against distributors and suppliers of Mexico-grown avocados in which the U.S. growers alleged that the defendants misrepresented the sustainability of their avocados. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants source their avocados from recently deforested land, which exacerbates water scarcity, contributes to climate change, and leads to habitat and biodiversity loss. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after the court dismissed their claims in September 2025. In its decision granting the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court again concluded that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege standing for a California False Advertising Law or fraud-based Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim because they did not allege they themselves relied on the alleged misrepresentations regarding sustainability and the plaintiffs made only generalized assertions of third-party consumer reliance. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful business practices and misrepresentation-based unfair business practices also failed. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead a UCL violation based on “unfair, anticompetitive conduct” in the amended complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs “have only shown injury to themselves as competitors, but not injury to competition,” with their allegations that the defendants’ sourcing practices were “exploitative” and anticompetitive. In addition, the court again dismissed the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. The court granted leave to amend their UCL claim based on alleged anticompetitive conduct but not their misrepresentation-based claims. Kachuck Enterprises v. Mission Produce, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01523 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026)

North Dakota Court Entered Judgment Against Greenpeace Organizations for $345 Million in Case Brought by Dakota Access Pipeline Developers and Owner

A North Dakota District Court entered a final judgment ordering Greenpeace International (GPI), Greenpeace, Inc., and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. to pay more than $345 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Greenpeace organizations were found to be liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, and tortious interference with business, and aiding and abetting in connection with protests of the pipeline. The court also directed that the developers and owner shall recover 11% interest starting from March 19, 2025 (the date of the jury verdict) until the judgment is paid. In a statement, the Greenpeace organizations announced they would seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. A petition for a supervisory writ is currently pending in the North Dakota Supreme Court in which the developers and owner ask the Supreme Court to direct the district court to block GPI from proceeding with an action against them in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Feb. 27, 2026)

Washington Voluntarily Dismissed Challenge to Termination of Climate Resilience Funding

On January 20, 2026, the State of Washington voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) termination of two awards of funding that the State alleged it was “relying on to help communities disproportionately exposed to the adverse effects of climate change become more resilient.” The federal district court for the Western District of Washington had granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction barring termination of the awards in October 2025. A spokesperson for the Washington State Attorney General’s Office told Law360that the State “decided to reevaluate this case in light of the ever-changing legal landscape surrounding funding terminations” and that the State continued to believe the termination of the awards was unlawful and would challenge such unlawful actions “in all available forums.” On January 26, the defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal of the preliminary injunction and requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate the district court’s decision granting the injunction. The defendants said that the State had authorized them to represent that the State consented to dismissal and vacatur. The court granted the motion on January 28. Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 2:25-cv-01507 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 20, 2026)

Virginia Withdrew Appeal of Order Finding State’s Withdrawal from RGGI Unlawful

On March 5, 2026, Southern Environmental Law Center announced that the Virginia Court of Appeals had acknowledged the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and its director’s withdrawal of their appeal of a November 2024 trial court decision holding that the defendants’ regulatory action removing Virginia from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was unlawful. SELC’s press release stated that returning Virginia to RGGI had been a priority for Governor Abigail Spanberger and Attorney General Jay Jones, both of whom took office in January 2026, and that recently enacted budget legislation required reentry to the program. Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board v. Association of Energy Conservation Professionals, No. 0234-25-3 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2026)

After Reaching Agreement to Put Power Plant on Path to New Air Permit, Operator Withdraws Appeal of Decision that Said New York Climate Law Authorized Denial of Permit

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), three environmental organizations, and the operator of a natural gas-fired power plant used for behind-the-meter cryptocurrency mining stipulated to the dismissal of the power plant operator’s appeal of a trial court decision that vacated DEC’s denial of an application to renew the facility’s air permit. The operator appealed the trial court’s judgment to the extent the court concluded DEC had authority under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) to deny the permit. The operator also challenged other aspects of the trial court’s decision, including its finding that DEC rationally determined that the permit renewal was inconsistent with the CLCPA’s greenhouse gas reduction mandates and its interpretations of the analysis required by the CLCPA. The operator agreed to withdraw its appeal after reaching an agreement with DEC pursuant to which the operator would submit a supplement to its permit renewal application that would include greenhouse gas emissions limits and reporting requirements as new permit conditions. The agreement stated that DEC had determined that the required emissions limits would establish the facility’s consistency with the CLCPA’s statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits. The agreement set forth the framework for the review of the permit. Greenidge Generation LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. CA 25-00153 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 11, 2026)

D.C. Superior Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Greenwashing Suit Concerning Bottled Water Products

The District of Columbia Superior Court denied Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Core Nutrition, LLC’s motion to dismiss Plastic Pollution Coalition’s (PPC’s) lawsuit claiming that the companies falsely and deceptively marketed Core bottled water products as sustainable and “BPA free.” PPC alleged that the defendants made sustainability representations that included representations related to climate benefits, including that the use of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) “saves large amounts of energy and greenhouse gas emissions when compared to virgin or vPET.” PPC alleged that the sustainability representations were misleading, including because the process of making recycled plastic is “expensive and requires large amount of energy, water, equipment, and infrastructure,” only a “very small portion” of plastic material is actually recycled, and plastics have carbon-intensive and water-intensive life cycles. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the complaint failed to state a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act and that the recycling claims were barred by the First Amendment. On February 18, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings because they were discussing potential resolution of the matter. Plastic Pollution Coalition v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., No. 2025-CAB-003321 (D.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2025) 

Illinois High Court Upheld Authorization for Transmission Line to Carry Wind Energy

Reversing an intermediate appellate court, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) granted to Grain Belt Express, LLC (GBX) for construction and operation of a high-voltage direct current transmission line to carry electricity generated by wind generating facilities in Kansas. The Supreme Court held that the Public Utilities Act did not require a showing of present capability “of financing the proposed construction without significant adverse financial consequences for the utility or its customers” as a condition precedent to the issuance of a CPCN. The Supreme Court noted that the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act enacted in 2021 amended the Public Utilities Act to authorize a “qualifying direct current applicant” to apply for a CPCN without owning any physical plant, equipment, or property. The Supreme Court found that the Illinois Commerce Commission’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Act as not requiring demonstration of “a current and present ability to finance” a project was consistent with the plain and unambiguous language of the statute and also was aligned with “the legislature’s express commitment to reduce the state’s dependency on fossil fuels and move to renewable energies.” In addition, the Supreme Court found that GBX presented substantial evidence that supported the ICC’s determination that GBX was capable of financing the project without significant adverse financial consequences. Concerned Citizens & Property Owners v. Illinois Commerce Commission, Nos. 131026, 131032 (Ill. Jan. 23, 2026)

Washington Court of Appeals Said Site-Specific Assessment of Timber Sale’s Climate Impacts Was Not Required

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed a Washington Superior Court order requiring the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to assess the site-specific climate impacts of the proposed harvesting of 100 acres of forest land held in trust by the State. The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners did not meet their burden to show that DNR’s reliance on a “landscape level” analysis of climate change impacts and carbon emissions of the timber harvest was clearly erroneous. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners did not meet their burden to show that DNR erred by relying on a 2019 final environmental impact statement rather than on a 2020 carbon inventory or a 2019 letter that developed a modified and expanded life-cycle assessment of forest sector emissions and sequestration from plots in Washington, Oregon, and California. The court indicated that DNR considered those studies but found them to be distinguishable. The Court of Appeals also rejected the petitioner’s contentions that DNR failed to take a hard look at greenhouse gas emissions, the loss of carbon sequestration capacity, or increased vulnerability to climate change. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that DNR was required to conduct an alternatives analysis under the State Environmental Policy Act because the timber sale “presents a situation involving a choice between uses,” e.g., cutting down trees versus setting aside mature forest components as carbon reserves. Center for Sustainable Economy v. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, No. 86667-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2026) 

In Challenge to Authorization for Natural Gas Facility, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Said It Would Not Create Environmental Review Regime by “Judicial Fiat” 

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s opinion and order concluding that a natural gas “reliability station” in the Township of Marple would not pose an unusual safety risk, produce unreasonable noise levels, include air pollution sources with emissions exceeding federal and state standards, or violate any climate standards under the Commission’s jurisdiction and should be exempt from the Township's zoning ordinance. The court described the proposed project’s purpose as “to ensure adequate natural gas service in the event of extreme weather events and ‘other parameters.’” The court rejected the Township’s contentions that the Commission failed to conduct a “constitutionally sound environmental review” under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment. The court stated that “[o]ur General Assembly has not chosen to enact an environmental policy statute”—i.e., a “little NEPA”—“and we may not impose one by judicial fiat.” The Commonwealth Court noted intervenors’ “greenhouse gas concerns with respect to leaks, downstream combustion, and alternatives” but said that “whether the use of natural gas ‘is wise or whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result are matters left to the legislature, and not the courts.’” Township of Marple v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Nos. 1385 C.D. 2024, 1423 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Feb. 2, 2026)

Parties to CEQA Challenge to Data Center Project Agreed to Settlement Requiring Mitigation Measures

On December 11, 2025, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the City of Pittsburg, California, and real parties in interest requested that the California Superior Court stay proceedings in CBD’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge to the City’s approval of the Pittsburg Technology Park Specific Plan, a three-phase master planned development that included an approximately 368,551-square-foot data center in the first phase. The City, the real parties in interest, and CDB agreed to the incorporation of enhanced mitigation measures to address the project’s greenhouse gas, air quality, biological resources, water and energy demand, and noise impacts. The mitigation measures included rooftop solar and electric charging infrastructure requirements, participation in a renewable energy program to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity, and the owner’s payment of $750,000 to a foundation to distribute funds for sustainability and regional climate resiliency projects. Center for Biological Diversity v. City of Pittsburg, No. N24-2162 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 11, 2025)

U.S. NEW CASES AND OTHER FILINGS

Refrigerant Producer Sought Supreme Court Review of AIM Act Nondelegation Doctrine Question

A company that produces refrigerants filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the question of whether Congress violated the Vesting Clause of Article I of the Constitution in the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) by giving an executive agency (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) “unbounded discretion to choose which private parties are entitled to participate in a multibillion-dollar market” for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The petition contended that the AIM Act—which requires a phasedown of HFC production and consumption—failed to provide any “intelligible principle” to guide EPA’s exercise of discretion as required by the Court’s nondelegation doctrine. The company argued that in determining that Congress had provided sufficient guidance for EPA’s exercise of discretion, the D.C. Circuit had “committed an Article III violation by reading into the Act the guidance Congress did not supply.” RMS of Georgia, LLC, d/b/a Choice Refrigerants v. EPA, No. 25-1079 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2026)

Lawsuits Filed in D.C. Circuit to Challenge EPA Rescission of Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Repeal of Vehicle Emission Standards

On February 18, 2026, 17 public health and environmental organizations filed the first lawsuit challenging EPA’s final rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding for motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act and repealing all greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles and engines for model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. On the same day, a second lawsuit was filed by 18 young people, represented by Our Children’s Trust, which has brought a number of climate suits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments. Their petition indicates that they intend to raise arguments under the U.S. Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In their press release, the youth petitioners say they will argue that the final rule violates their rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment, their right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, and separation of powers because “EPA acted outside its authority by abandoning pollution control in favor of the economic interests of certain industries, overriding Congress’s mandate.” On March 6, West Virginia and other states filed a motion to intervene as respondents, arguing that they had a “direct and unique interest” in the proceedings due to the economic costs of the vehicle emissions standards and the questions raised regarding how climate-related matters should be addressed. They also argued that the federal respondents would not adequately represent their interests, including because they were “in a better position to counter anticipated arguments from other States about the consequences of the Final Rule and climate change for States themselves.” On March 19, Massachusetts, 24 other states and territories, the District of Columbia, and 12 local governments filed a petition for review challenging the final rule. Three other petitions for review have been filed, one by the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which describes itself as a nonprofit “association of companies committed to advocating for the advancement of the electric vehicle supply chain”; another by Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis, a faith-based community organization in St. Louis, and Missouri Coalition for the Environment; and a third by Service Employees International Union. American Public Health Association v. EPA, No. 26-1037 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 18, 2026); Venner v. EPA, No. 26-1038 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 18, 2026); Business Climate Initiative Action d/b/a the Zero Emission Transportation Association v. EPA, No. 26-1039 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 20, 2026); Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis v. EPA, No. 26-1043 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 26, 2026); Service Employees International Union v. EPA, No. 26-1051 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 12, 2026); Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 26-1061 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 19, 2026)

D.C. Circuit Requested Additional Briefing After En Banc Oral Argument in Challenge to EPA Inflation Reduction Act Funding Freeze

On February 24, 2026, the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) appeal of a district court’s preliminary injunction (1) barring EPA from effectuating terminations of grants under the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA’s) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and (2) requiring the disbursement of frozen funds for two GGRF programs. A split D.C. Circuit panel vacated the preliminary injunction in September 2025, and the court granted a petition for rehearing en banc in December 2025. For a discussion of the oral argument and the case’s potential outcomes, see this Climate Law Blog post. Two days after the oral argument, one of the plaintiffs-appellees filed a letter noting that the question of the impact of Section 60002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the grant programs “arose repeatedly” during the argument and contending that the court should order supplemental briefing to address the question, given that the issue had not been briefed because of the timing of Section 60002’s enactment. On March 9, the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs to address the ramifications of the repeal of the IRA’s GGRF provision by Section 60002. In particular, the court asked the parties to address whether a claim of violation of the GGRF provision and/or the U.S. Constitution continued to provide a valid basis to affirm all or part of the preliminary injunction. Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir.)

Washington State and Environmental Groups Challenged Department of Energy Order Requiring Coal-Fired Power Plant to Remain Operational

The State of Washington and five environmental organizations filed petitions for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s December 16, 2025 order requiring that a coal-fired generation unit at the TransAlta Central Generation electric generating facility in Centralia, Washington, be made available for operation until March 16, 2026. The unit had been slated to cease operation in December 2025. The Secretary of Energy declared that an emergency existed in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Northwest assessment area resulting from increasing demand and accelerated retirement of generation facilities. In its request for rehearing, the State had argued that the order violated the Federal Power Act, was arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, would undermine energy markets and harm consumers, and failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Among the harms cited by the State in its request for rehearing was that the order would make it harder for Washington to achieve its greenhouse gas emissions reductions mandates. The environmental organizations’ request for rehearing also argued that the order violated the Federal Power Act, including because DOE did not ensure the order was consistent with state environmental laws to the maximum extent practicable, including laws governing the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions. Washington v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 26-1252 (9th Cir., filed Mar. 3, 2026); Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 26-1261 (9th Cir., filed Mar. 4, 2026)

Environmental Groups Challenged LNG Export Authorization for Louisiana Project

Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Department of Energy order granting long-term authorization for export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement nations from the Ventura Global CP2, LLC LNG project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and also challenging DOE’s NEPA categorical exclusion for “Export of natural gas and associated transportation by marine vessel.” The petitioners challenged the categorical exclusion as it was applied in the export authorization and also on its face. In their motions to intervene and protest before DOE, both Sierra Club and NRDC argued, among other things, that the proposed exports would cause environmental harm, including greenhouse gas emissions, across the entire LNG lifecycle, which both NEPA and the Natural Gas Act required DOE to consider. Sierra Club v. Wright, No. 26-1036 (D.C. Cir., filed Feb. 17, 2026) 

Lawsuit Alleged that Insurer Unlawfully Excluded from Proxy Materials a Shareholder Proposal Requesting Report on Seeking Compensation from Parties Responsible for Climate Change

The nonprofit shareholder representative As You Sow filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the insurance company Chubb Limited to include As You Sow’s climate change-related shareholder proposal in the proxy materials for Chubb’s 2026 shareholder meeting. The complaint described the proposal as asking Chubb to “commission a report assessing whether it would benefit Chubb and its insureds for Chubb to pursue compensation from responsible third parties to offset the cost of insuring against losses stemming from climate change.” The complaint alleged that Chubb gave notice to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2026 that it intended to exclude the proposal from its proxy materials on the grounds that the proposal qualifies for an exception to the rule requiring inclusion in proxy materials of properly submitted proposals. The exception cited by Chubb applies to proposals that deal with matters relating to the company’s “ordinary business operations.” As You Sow v. Chubb Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-00734 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 3, 2026)

Former Cushman & Wakefield Employee Filed ERISA Suit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties Due to 401(k) Plan’s Exposure to Climate Risk and Other Factors

A former employee of Cushman & Wakefield, US, Inc. (Cushman), the commercial real estate services company, filed a civil enforcement action against Cushman and the Cushman & Wakefield Investment Committee alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by selecting and retaining investment options in Cushman’s 401(k) plan “in spite of numerous glaring red flags, including chronic underperformance, dangerous aggregation of climate change-related financial risk, unreasonably high fees, and limited market acceptance.” The plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the 401(k) plan whose individual accounts are or were invested in the Plan’s Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund (Westwood Fund) from January 1, 2021 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleged that Cushman, despite being “acutely aware” of climate-related financial risks and having a “long track record” of managing such risks to protect shareholder value and its clients’ portfolios, had “exposed employee retirement savings to significant, unreasonable climate-related financial risk—apparently failing to employ any climate risk management strategy at all.” The complaint alleged that the inclusion of the Westwood Fund as a fund option in the 401(k) plan was a “prime example of this failure.” The complaint alleged that the Westwood Fund “boasts an unsavory combination of financial underperformance and unreasonably high fees, while at the same time exposing investors to massive amounts of climate-related financial risk that threaten to wipe out years of savings under any number of highly plausible scenarios.” The complaint asserted claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to monitor plan investments and remove imprudent investments as well as their duties of prudence and loyalty under ERISA. In addition, the complaint asserted claims that the Investment Committee engaged in prohibited transactions with Fidelity Investments, which provided services to the 401(k) plan, and Fidelity Management Trust Company, which was a trustee and provided services to the plan. The complaint also asserted that Cushman failed to monitor the Investment Committee. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief as well as an order requiring payment of an amount or surcharge necessary to make the 401(k) plan whole for losses resulting from the breaches. Other relief sought included appointment of a special master to oversee development and implementation of a revised investment policy statement (IPS) for the 401(k) plan that provides procedures specific to “standards for climate-competency and emergent risk management assessment” within the Investment Committee and specific climate-risk mitigation and monitoring requirements for plan menu options, as well as non-climate-related procedures. The complaint asked the court to require the defendants to assess investment options based on the IPS and remove investment options deemed imprudent. Kvek v. Cushman & Wakefield, US, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00736 (W.D. Wash., filed Mar. 3, 2026)

Stockholder Derivative Action Charged that BlackRock Directors Pursued Environmental Goals at Expense of Investors’ Interests

A stockholder in BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock) filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that BlackRock directors breached their fiduciary duties by pursuing environmental goals rather than acting solely in stockholders’ financial interests. The complaint alleged that the directors authorized coordinated conduct with other institutional investors to use their ownership stakes in coal producers to suppress coal output and that these actions had exposed the company “to massive antirust liability and financial exposure,” including in an antitrust action brought by Texas and 12 other states. The complaint also alleged that the directors deceived investors about the company’s ESG (environmental, social, and governance) practices and that the defendants failed to disclose that they were “motivated by nonfinancial, ideological goals that caused foreseeable financial and reputational harm” to BlackRock, including the divestment by state pension funds. In addition to asserting that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, the complaint also asserted that the directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to make disclosures in 2025 proxy materials regarding the BlackRock board’s allegedly inadequate risk oversight and regarding the alleged “conspiracy to unlawfully restrain trade and coerce a reduction in coal output,” including failure to disclose that BlackRock was a defendant in the states’ antitrust lawsuit. The complaint also asserted that the directors were unjustly enriched by their unlawful conduct. The complaint requested that damages be awarded to BlackRock and that the court direct BlackRock and the defendants take steps to improve corporate governance and internal procedures, award BlackRock restitution, and award the plaintiff attorney and expert fees and other costs. The defendants indicated that they would file a motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York. On March 9, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order regarding the schedule for that motion. Crognale v. Fink, No. 6:26-cv-00085 (E.D. Tex., filed Feb. 9, 2026)

Virginia Energy Department Filed Breach of Contract Action After Termination of Solar for All Funding

The Virginia Department of Energy (Virginia Energy) sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for allegedly breaching Virginia Energy’s grant agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Solar for All zero-emissions technologies program. The complaint alleged that by February 2025, EPA and Virginia Energy had entered into the agreement, and EPA had obligated funding to Virginia Energy. The complaint alleged that in August 2025, EPA canceled the Solar for All program, unilaterally terminated the grant agreement, and withdrew more than $144 million of grant funds from the account in which Virginia Energy received the grant award. The complaint alleged that EPA “purportedly acted based on its misguided understanding of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which repealed the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund provision pursuant to which the Solar for All program was established but rescinded only “unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out that section.” Virginia Energy contended that EPA erroneously interpreted the OBBBA to rescind all Solar for All appropriations and also that EPA’s interpretation did not constitute grounds for termination under the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. Virginia Energy asserted claims of breach of the express terms of the grant agreement and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint requested money damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; and reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorney fees. Virginia Department of Energy v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-00268 (Fed. Cl., filed Feb. 17, 2026)

States Filed Lawsuit Alleging Trump Administration Unlawfully Eliminated Energy and Infrastructure Programs

Thirteen states filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Secretary of Energy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and OMB took unlawful actions to eliminate energy and infrastructure programs and projects established and funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration utilized executive actions as a “back-up plan” to eliminate the energy and infrastructure programs and to terminate and abandon the plaintiffs’ awards under these programs after the administration failed to convince Congress to rescind previously obligated funds. The complaint alleged that those executive actions included a May 2025 Department of Energy memorandum (DOE Memo) setting forth DOE’s process for evaluating “financial assistance on a case-by-case basis to identify waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.” The plaintiffs contended that DOE used the DOE Memo “as the pretext for terminating and abandoning Plaintiffs’ awards, thus advancing President Trump’s directives to eliminate clean-energy and infrastructure programs and place coercive pressure on Blue States.” The complaint alleged that the defendants’ actions harmed the plaintiffs, including by depriving them of funds to undertake projects to meet state climate goals. The complaint asserted that the defendants’ actions violated separation of powers; were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious and in violation of procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act; and constituted ultra vires executive action. The complaint also asserted First Amendment and equal protection claims on behalf of a California limited liability company that was an awardee under a cooperative agreement. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief, including injunctions requiring DOE to cease any pending review pursuant to the DOE Memo, undoing termination or abandonment of any of the awards at issue in this case, and barring future action based on the DOE Memo. They also asked the court to vacate the DOE Memo. California v. Wright, No. 3:26-cv-01417 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 18, 2026)

Environmental Groups Filed Amended Challenge to Oil and Gas Leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth filed a third amended and supplemental complaint on February 17, 2026 challenging the most recent iteration of the Integrated Activity Plans (IAP) for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and an oil and gas lease sale scheduled for March 18, 2026. The complaint alleged that “[t]he projected proliferation of oil and gas activities under the 2025 IAP will dramatically increase harmful impacts to the Reserve’s ecosystems and the climate, significantly affecting the people and wildlife in the Reserve and beyond.” The complaint alleged that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management scheduled the lease sale in reliance on a 2020 final environmental impact statement and 2025 environmental assessment that did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The complaint also asserted that biological opinion issued for the 2025 IAP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the complaint asserted claims under the Constitution’s Property Clause, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 3:20-cv-00206 (D. Alaska Feb. 17, 2026)

Trump Administration Appealed Massachusetts District Court Order Finding Wind Energy Orders Unlawful

On February 17, 2026, the federal government filed a notice that it would appeal the December 2025 judgment of the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts finding that federal orders pausing wind energy authorizations were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The district court vacated the orders. New York v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-11221 (D. Mass. Feb. 17, 2026)

Environmental Groups’ Challenge to Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Fire Restoration Project Alleged Failure to Consider Project’s Impacts to Pinyon Jay in Combination with Climate Change

Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit asserting that the U.S. Forest Service violated NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act when it approved a fire restoration project in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest that the plaintiffs alleged authorized 30,000 acres per year of logging and burning over the next 15 to 20 years. The complaint alleged that the project was likely to adversely affect nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act, their critical habitat, and two species proposed for listing. The complaint alleged that the environmental assessment (EA) for the project included only a “vague, landscape-level discussion” that failed to provide a “site-specific understanding of on-the-ground conditions” that was critical to the survival of the wildlife species. The complaint focused on the pinyon jay, “one of the fastest declining bird species in the United States,” alleging that the EA and project documents failed to consider the impacts of the proliferation of non-native and invasive species on the pinyon jay or how climate change would impact the species in combination with the project. Native Ecosystems Council v. Stansfield, No. 2:26-cv-00331 (D. Nev., filed Feb. 10, 2026)

Lawsuit Challenged Approvals for Vegetation Management Treatments on BLM-Managed Lands in Southwest Montana 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies and three other organizations filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Montana challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) authorizations for vegetation management treatments throughout the 905,000 acres in southwest Montana managed by BLM’s Dillon Field Office. The plaintiffs alleged that the BLM defendants deferred selection of specific activities as part of the project “in a way that undermines informed decision-making and meaningful public participation” in violation of NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Among the failures cited in the complaint was an alleged failure to disclose and analyze the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change in the project area and how climate change would continue to affect the project area and the authorized activities’ effectiveness. The complaint also alleged that the BLM defendants failed to take a hard look at the project’s effects on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage, including effects associated with the project’s “widespread prescribed fires.” The plaintiffs also alleged that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had concluded that the project was not likely to jeopardize the threatened whitebark pine in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. James, No. 2:26-cv-00002 (D. Mont., filed Jan. 12, 2026)

Mineral Estate Owners Alleged that California Law Restricting Oil and Gas Drilling Was Unconstitutional Taking

A brother and sister who own rights to minerals located on and underneath two parcels in Santa Barbara County filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California asserting that a California law (SB 1137) prohibiting drilling of new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of “sensitive receptors” constituted an unconstitutional taking. Their complaint alleged that “SB 1137 is the latest apex of a long line of attacks on the use of natural resources within California to further the state government’s quest to curb anthropogenic climate change.” The complaint alleged that the law effectively prohibited productive use of the plaintiffs’ mineral estate and thereby eliminated any economically beneficial use of that estate. The complaint further alleged that the law “unfairly requires mineral estate owners to bear the burden of the State’s policy choices regarding climate change.” The plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin enforcement of SB 1137 insofar as it banned issuance of permits for the plaintiffs to drill new oil wells, redrill or deepen existing wells, or permanently alter casing of existing wells. They also requested declaratory relief and attorney fees and costs. NB: The United States filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California challenging SB 1137 on January 14, 2026. Morgan v. Ito, No. 8:26-cv-244 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 27, 2026)

Federal Government Sought to Stay Proceedings After Court Enjoined Orders Suspending Work on Offshore Wind Projects

On February 2, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted motions by the State of New York, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and the developer of the Sunrise Wind Project for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) stop work order suspending work on the project. On February 27, the federal government filed a motion requesting that the court stay the cases through April 9. The government said that the stop work order had been issued “to facilitate review of any potential mitigation measures to address then-new information from the Department of War that implicates national security concerns,” that the stop work order would expire on March 22, and that the end of the review “may result in a further decision from BOEM.” The government argued that despite uncertainty regarding the timing of future BOEM action, proceeding with litigation would potentially waste the court’s and the parties’ resources. Sunrise Wind LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00028 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2026); New York v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00072 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 9, 2026)

The federal government filed a similar motion on February 25 in cases challenging the stop work order suspending activities at the Empire Wind Project. New York, NYSERDA, and the Empire Wind Project developers opposed the stay. Both the New York State plaintiffs and the developers argued that a stay would result in continued commercial uncertainty that would threaten the project. The court had granted a motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the stop work order on January 15. On March 9, the court denied the federal government’s request for a stay, finding that harm due to the government was minimal and that concerns about potential future actions was “too speculative, at this stage, for considerations of judicial economy to weigh in its favor.” Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00004 (D.D.C.); New York v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00071 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 9, 2026)

Recent Endangered Species Act Lawsuits Regarding Species Facing Climate Change Threats

• Lawsuit Sought Final Listing Rule for Eastern Hellbender. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Arizona to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue a final listing rule for the eastern hellbender, the largest amphibian in North America. It inhabits streams of the eastern and midwestern United States and reaches nearly two feet in length. The complaint alleged that the species’ abundance has “drastically declined” in most areas of its range, driven by “myriad human-caused impacts,” including sedimentation from multiple sources, dam construction and other stream impoundments, mining, and direct mortality for purposes such as scientific collections or from careless human behavior. The complaint alleged that climate change is expected to exacerbate trends with negative impacts on the hellbender such as warming stream temperatures and lower flow regimes, and that more frequent and intense flooding exacerbated by climate change are an additional threat. In response to a 2010 listing petition and multiple lawsuits, FWS proposed to list the eastern hellbender as endangered in December 13, 2024. CBD alleged that the deadline for the final rule was December 13, 2025, and asked the court to set a deadline for publication of a final rule. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:26-cv-00093 (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 17, 2026)
• Lawsuit Sought Final Listing Rule for Monarch Butterfly. Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a final listing rule and critical habitat designation for the monarch butterfly. The plaintiffs alleged that recent studies found that the butterfly “could face migratory collapse in less than 20 years because climate change is making butterflies’ winter habitat unsuitable”; the complaint also cited threats from industrial agriculture herbicide spraying and development and from neonicotinoid insecticides. FWS proposed to list the butterfly as threatened and to designate critical habitat in seven California counties on December 12, 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that the deadline under the Endangered Species Act for issuing a final rule was December 12, 2025. They asked the court to order the defendants to issue a final rule by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 3:26-cv-01281 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 12, 2026)
• Lawsuit Asked Court to Compel 90-Day Finding on Petition to Saltmarsh Sparrow. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a 90-day finding in response to CBD’s April 22, 2024 petition to list the saltmarsh sparrow as endangered or threatened. CBD alleged that it submitted the petition after FWS failed to take voluntary action for several years after initiating a discretionary status review in 2019. The complaint alleged that the species’ population has dropped by 87% over the last 30 years and that the “most urgent and immediate threat facing the sparrow is habitat loss caused by rising sea levels.” The sparrow inhabits coastal salt marshes in the Eastern United States. The complaint alleged that other threats to the species include coastal development, oil spills, and predation. CBD asked the court to order FWS to issue a 90-day finding by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:26-cv-00391 (D.D.C., filed Feb. 11, 2026)
• Lawsuit Asked Court to Require Critical Habitat Designation for Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia asking the court to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize critical habitat designation for the Southern Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the fisher, a medium-sized furry carnivore in the same family as weasels, mink, martens, and otters. The complaint alleged that habitat destruction and climate change had contributed to range-wide decline of the species. FWS listed the Southern Sierra Nevada population as endangered in May 2020 but failed to designate critical habitat within the timeline required by the Endangered Species Act. CBD asked the court to direct FWS to finalize critical habitat designation by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:26-cv-00116 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 15, 2026)
• Lawsuit Sought to Compel Critical Habitat Designation for North American Wolverine. A coalition of wildlife conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Montana to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate critical habitat for the distinct population segment (DPS) of North American wolverine in the lower 48 states. The plaintiffs alleged that the DPS was listed as threatened in November 2023 but that FWS had yet to initiate the process of designating critical habitat as required by the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that FWS’s listing determination was primarily due to “ongoing and increasing impacts of climate change and associated habitat degradation and fragmentation.” Friends of the Bitterroot v. Burgum, No. 9:26-cv-00013 (D. Mont., filed Jan. 14, 2026)
• Lawsuit Challenged Decision Not to List Turtle as Threatened or Endangered. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination in March 2022 that the Rio Grande cooter—a turtle that lives in portions of New Mexico, Texas, and northern Mexico—did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that “[l]ong-term aridification and other extreme weather events driven by climate change threaten the turtle at all stages of its life.” The complaint asserted that FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, including by “failing to address the only study specifically modeling climate change impacts on the turtle’s habitat, and failing to rationally explain its decision to exclude the impact of climate change on the feminization of turtle eggs.” The complaint alleged that the study predicted loss of 76% to 90% of the turtle’s present suitable habitat by 2050 in scenarios based on a moderate or severe increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The complaint alleged that instead of considering this study, FWS “relied on broad, generalized geographical projections.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:26-cv-00043 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 8, 2026)
• Lawsuit Filed to Compel 90-Day Finding on Horseshoe Crab Listing Petition. Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia to compel the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a 90-day finding on a February 2024 petition to list the American horseshoe crab under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that the horseshoe crab was one of the oldest living species but that its populations have “crashed” in the past three decades and its habitat is “rapidly disappearing.” Threats identified in the complaint included overharvesting and threats to spawning beaches from development, dredging, erosion, pollution, climate change, and sea level rise. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 1:26-cv-00008 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 5, 2026)

Lawsuit Challenging New York City CSO Outfall Project Alleged Failure to Consider Project’s Ability to Function in the Face of Climate Change Impacts

Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court challenging the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s issuance of a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for a project involving construction of chlorination and dichlorination facilities to treat combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges to Flushing Creek at two outfalls. In their memorandum of law, the organizations claimed that the negative declaration failed to take a hard look at the project’s potential significant adverse impacts, including the project’s “ability to function safely and effectively in the face of the impacts of climate change, particularly more frequent and intense precipitation events” and storms exacerbated by the effects of sea level rise. Guardians of Flushing Bay v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, No. 702957/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Feb. 1, 2026)

Lawsuit Alleged that Approvals for Semiconductor Manufacturing Complex in New York Failed to Comply with State Environmental Review and Climate Laws

An unincorporated association of residents who live near the planned site for a large-scale semiconductor manufacturing complex (the Micron Project) in Onondaga County, New York, and a not-for-profit organization “dedicated to ensuring that public investments create high-quality jobs, protect public health, and advance equitable and sustainable economic development” filed a lawsuit in a New York State trial court seeking to annul the adoption of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Micron Project as well as all approvals granted based on the FEIS. The petitioners also sought to annul the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) determination that the Micron Project was justified despite its inconsistency with the greenhouse gas emissions reduction mandates of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The petitioners contended that DEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by accepting three areas of mitigation—installation of solar panels, installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and allocations of funds for additional projects—as sufficient to mitigate emissions. The petitioners asserted that because it relied on the funding of unidentified projects, DEC’s justification failed to identify real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable mitigation measures. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the petitioners also made climate change-related arguments, including that the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency failed to include an assessment of the Micron Project’s greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with the CLCPA in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) as required by the final scoping document and that the failure to include the draft CLCPA analysis in the DEIS deprived the public of an opportunity to comment. The petitioners contended that a supplemental environmental impact statement should have been required. Neighbors for a Better Micron v. Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency, No. 900751-26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 16, 2026)

Petitioners Raised Sea Level Rise Concerns in CEQA Challenge to Residential Development in Newark

San Francisco Baykeeper and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court asking the court to set aside the City of Newark’s certification of a final environmental impact report (FEIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Mowry Village Project, as well as related approvals for the residential development, which would include 203 single-family detached homes. The alleged shortcomings in the environmental review included a failure to adequately analyze the issue of “coastal squeeze,” which the FEIR defined as “the loss of natural habitats or deterioration of their quality arising from placement of structures along the shoreline, preventing landward transgression of those habitats that would naturally occur in response to sea level rise.” The petitioners alleged that the FEIR failed to respond to scientific papers submitted in public comments “that emphasize coastal squeeze’s threat to natural habitats from the prevalence of coastal infrastructure such as the Project’s coastal armoring and associated flood control infrastructure,” and also failed to address the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s comments regarding how the Project would exacerbate coastal squeeze. Another issue identified by the petitioners was an alleged failure to describe and analyze components of the project that would provide protection against sea level rise; the petition alleged that those components “have significant implications for how sea level rise effects could be managed or exacerbated by the Project, and themselves have potentially significant effects not analyzed by the EIR.” In addition, the petitioners alleged that the FEIR did not address the risk of groundwater rise mobilizing hazardous materials. San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Newark, No. _ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 9, 2026)

Lawsuit Challenged Resiliency Project in Lower Manhattan

Two nonprofit organizations and two residents of Battery Park City in lower Manhattan filed a lawsuit in September 2025 in a New York Supreme Court challenging the Battery Park City Authority’s (BPCA’s) approval of the second phase of the Battery Park City Coastal Resiliency Project. The petition alleged that the Resiliency Project “radically transforms the parks and public spaces of Battery Park City, in order to establish a new flood protection system comprised of flood walls, gates, and drainage infrastructure” to protect residents and businesses from sea level rise and coastal flooding. The petitioners asserted that BPCA violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act, including by improperly segmenting the review of the two phases of the project and by failing to timely complete the first phase of the project with appropriate mitigation measures. The petitioners also alleged that by failing to examine the Resiliency Project’s cumulative impacts, including cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the BPCA violated the Green Amendment of the New York Constitution. In addition, the petitioners asserted that the BPCA alienated parkland without legislative approval in violation of the public trust doctrine. Battery Alliance v. Battery Park City Authority, No. 162911/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION ADDITIONS TO THE DATABASE

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Australia: Greenwashing case against Santos dismissed

On Aug. 25, 2021, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), a shareholder advocacy organization, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Santos Ltd, an Australian oil and gas company, alleging that Santos had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to statements about the climate impacts of its products and its emissions reduction plans. ACCR challenged representations made in Santos’ annual reports, investor briefings, and corporate communications that described natural gas as a “clean fuel” providing “clean energy,” and that stated the company had a clear and credible plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.

ACCR argued that these representations mischaracterized the climate impacts of natural gas and overstated the credibility of Santos’ transition strategy. According to ACCR, describing natural gas as “clean fuel” or “clean energy” failed to account for the substantial greenhouse gas emissions associated with the extraction, processing, and combustion of gas, including methane leakage. ACCR also alleged that Santos’ statements regarding its pathway to net zero were misleading because the company planned to expand gas production while relying heavily on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and other assumptions that were not adequately disclosed. The claim was brought under provisions of the Australian Consumer Law and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce and in relation to financial products and services.

Following a trial, the Federal Court dismissed ACCR’s application. In a judgment delivered on Feb. 17, 2026, Justice Markovic held that the impugned statements did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The Court examined each alleged representation and emphasized the importance of evaluating the statements in their full context, including the surrounding disclosures and the intended audience of investors and market participants. The Court found that Santos’ statements describing natural gas as “clean fuel” or “clean energy” were not misleading when read in context, noting that they were often accompanied by explanations acknowledging the emissions associated with natural gas and framing gas as comparatively cleaner than other fossil fuels such as coal.

The Court also addressed ACCR’s challenge to Santos’ statements that it had a credible pathway to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. Justice Markovic characterized these statements as forward-looking representations about future matters. Under Australian law, such representations are not misleading if the defendant had reasonable grounds for making them at the time. The Court concluded that Santos had established reasonable grounds for its statements, including its internal planning, modeling, and proposed use of measures such as carbon capture and storage, electrification of operations, and offsets. The Court further noted that the relevant corporate disclosures included qualifications and explanations of uncertainties, which reduced the risk that investors would interpret the statements as guarantees of future outcomes.

Accordingly, the Court held that ACCR had not established that Santos had contravened the Australian Consumer Law or the Corporations Act, and the proceeding was dismissed. Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos Ltd (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

NEW CASES

New Zealand: Parties question whether the Crown’s response to climate change has been consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi

Wai 3325 is a kaupapa priority inquiry of the Waitangi Tribunal, granted from two cases of Wai 3262 and Wai 2607. On February 15, 2024, it was directed that this would be a new record of inquiry, referred to as ‘the Climate Change Priority Inquiry’, with reference number ‘Wai 3325.’ 

In a kaupapa inquiry, the tribunal looks into whether the Crown’s response to climate change is consistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal can provide non-binding recommendations to the New Zealand Government. The claims in Wai 3325 include alleged breaches of Te Tiriti/the Treaty relating to a wide range of climate policy and decisions, including forestry, adaptation, and New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme. A broad cross-section of Māori interests are involved, including whānau, hapū, iwi, business, and advocacy groups.

Overall, the inquiry is focused on four overarching issues:

(1) What are the physical, spiritual, cultural, social, health, and economic impacts of climate change on Māori? This includes current and future impacts. 

(2) What relevant Tiriti/Treaty principles should the Crown consider when addressing the impacts of climate change on Māori? 

(3) Has the Crown’s conduct (including actions and omissions) in response to climate change been consistent with Tiriti/Treaty principles? 

(4) What recommendations should the Tribunal make in terms of how the Crown should conduct itself consistently with Tiriti/Treaty principles when forming future climate change policies? 

Wai 3325 is ongoing. Wai 3325: Climate Change Priority Inquiry (New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal). 

Brazil: Federal Prosecutors brings action opposing the authorization of pre-operational assessment in Block FZA-M-59

In September 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), opposing the authorization of pre-operational assessment (APO) in Block FZA-M-59. Block FZA-M-59 is located in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, a stage prior to the license for drilling offshore oil wells. MPF seeks to annul Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin, issued by the President of IBAMA, which granted the authorization and the non-issuance of an operating license for well drilling until the licensing irregularities are remedied. 

MPF argues that the aforementioned Decision Order is null and void because it contradicts environmental licensing regulations, international obligations, and a technical opinion from the agency itself, which recommended the denial of the license due to serious flaws in the Oiled Fauna Protection and Care Plan (PPAF). MPF also bases the nullity on the absence of an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS); the failure to conduct prior, free, and informed consultations with the affected indigenous, quilombola, traditional fishing, and riverside communities; and the failure to consider some of these communities in the environmental studies, despite the prediction of various impacts on them, in violation of ILO Convention No. 169 and the Federal Constitution. 

The plaintiff further argues that the licensing documents do not consider extreme weather events, violating IBAMA regulations, the National Policy on Climate Change, and the Forest Code. The argument is that the authorization granted violates the precautionary and preventive principles, representing a serious risk to the populations and coastal ecosystems of the Amazon River mouth, a region that shelters mangroves and reefs. It maintains that IBAMA's decision ignores the global climate emergency and the international commitments undertaken by Brazil, such as the Paris Agreement, and that the expansion of oil exploration goes against the energy transition and decarbonization policy, perpetuating an unsustainable model based on fossil fuels, which affects Brazil's credibility on the international climate agenda, especially on the eve of COP-30. Thus, the authorization granted without climate impact studies and without AAAS would put Brazil in breach of its commitments to mitigate climate change. 

In provisional relief, MPF requests (i) the immediate suspension of Order No. 33/2025/Gabin, or, subsidiarily, the prohibition of granting the Operating License (LO) until the necessary environmental and climate studies are carried out, as well as free, prior and informed consultation with the affected communities; (ii) the prohibition of Petrobras or related companies from entering the villages located in the Uaçá, Galibi and Juminã Indigenous Territories without prior authorization from FUNAI. On the merits, it requests the definitive annulment of the order and the acts resulting therefrom and the suspension of the licensing until the identified nullities are remedied.

The preliminary injunction was partially granted by the 1st Federal Civil Court of the SJAP, which upheld the authorization of the APO, but ordered Petrobras to refrain from direct contact with indigenous and traditional communities without the presence of FUNAI. The MPF filed an interlocutory appeal with the TRF1 (1025450-83.2025.4.01.0000), seeking the complete suspension of the authorization.

IBAMA, on the other hand, requested the complete dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, with recognition of the legality of Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin and the regularity of the environmental licensing. It argued that the challenged act was technically sound and without any illegality. Finally, it requested the full maintenance of the licensing and the denial of the injunction sought by the MPF. Petrobras also requested that the claims be dismissed, based on the lack of factual and legal grounds to support them. Petrobras defends itself based on the legality of the environmental licensing process conducted by IBAMA, the absence of procedural irregularities or violation of indigenous rights, and its maintained compliance with all applicable legal and technical requirements. Ministério Público Federal vs. IBAMA e Petrobras (Suspension of the license for the Pre-Operational Assessment in the Amazon River mouth area) (Brazil, Amapá Federal Court)

Ireland: Environmental NGO challenges the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information for redacting parts of government’s strategy-related documents

Friends of the Irish Environment, an environmental group, challenged the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI) to fully release the four records relating to the government’s Food Vision 2030 Strategy. The record also includes the assessment of climate and environmental impacts of the strategy. However, the “Impacts” section is currently entirely redacted.

Relying primarily on the Access to Information on the Environment (AIE) Regulations, the plaintiff seeks the annulment of the Commissioner’s August 26, 2025, ruling. The Commissioner, in its ruling, allowed the government to restrict access to the discussions and decisions at Cabinet meetings about Food Vision 2030, based on statutory and constitutional confidentiality provisions. The plaintiffs, however, now challenge whether the withheld information is genuinely “particularly sensitive”, if the refusal adequately considers public interest, and whether constitutional Cabinet confidentiality should override EU transparency requirements. The plaintiff further contends that the government released records only after a delay, failing to comply with the AIE deadlines. Friends of the Irish Environment Company Limited by Guarantee v Commissioner for Environmental Information (Ireland, High Court)

Guatemala: River-dependent communities seek judicial protection of the Madre Vieja River

River-dependent communities sought judicial protection of the Madre Vieja River, alleging pollution and over-extraction associated with large-scale agricultural operations, and that State authorities failed to enforce environmental and water-protection obligations. Courts issued orders and measures aimed at protecting access to water and reducing river degradation, shifting the dispute into an implementation phase focused on compliance and enforcement. The litigation is an example of climate rights-based water protection efforts in Guatemala in the context of increasing water scarcity and environmental stress. Madre Vieja River Communities v. Government of Guatemala (Guatemala, Constitutional Court)

South Africa: Shareholders sue company for its refusal to circulate non-binding shareholder resolutions on climate change and ESG issues

Shareholders of Thungela Resources Limited (Thungela), Just Share NPC, Aeon Investment Management, and Fossil Free South Africa brought an application in the High Court, challenging Thungela’s refusal to circulate and table three non-binding shareholder resolutions. The resolutions are on climate change and related environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues at its 2023, 2024 and 2025 annual general meetings. The applicants contend that Thungela’s refusal breached sections 65(3) and 62(3)(c) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, which entitle qualifying shareholders to propose resolutions and require companies to include them in AGM notices. The applicants seek declaratory relief (i) that Thungela breached its obligations under the abovementioned laws; and (ii) of Applicants’ rights and Thungela’s obligations, to ensure Thungela’s future compliance with its obligations. Just Share NPC, Aeon Investment Management (Pty) Ltd, Fossil Free South Africa v Thungela Resources limited, Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (South Africa, High Court)

Brazil: MPF sues companies and a government agency for failing to properly monitor pesticide residues

On November 18, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for a preliminary injunction of a precautionary and inhibitory nature, against Nortox SA, Syngenta Proteção de Cultivos Ltda., several other companies, and the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). The action was based on the environmental damage resulting from soil and water pollution caused by pesticides. The pesticides in question contain atrazine as an active ingredient and are produced, imported, or marketed by the defendant companies, whose monitoring of residues must be adequately promoted by the environmental agency. 

The widespread use of atrazine in Brazilian agriculture and the serious environmental and health concerns that it brings are highlighted. Atrazine is banned in 44 countries (including the entire European Union), and exposure to the substance is associated with a range of deleterious effects on human health. In addition to its intrinsic toxicity, it is noted to have high persistence in the environment—i.e. does not degrade easily—and high mobility in soil, often being transported to rivers and groundwater. The plaintiff cites technical reports underscoring the presence of atrazine in the Dourados River Hydrographic Basin, located in an area of intense agricultural activity, and its degradation products (metabolites) not being restricted to the area of atrazine application. The scientific research finds that there is a shortcoming in CONAMA Resolution 357/2005, as it does not establish maximum permitted values. Relying on these documents, the plaintiff states that technical assessments have confirmed the presence of atrazine and its derivatives in multiple water sources of various indigenous communities affected by agribusiness activities in the state. 

The plaintiff further states that the damage caused by the use of pesticides is not distributed neutrally, and disproportionately affects rural workers, Afro-descendant populations, indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and vulnerable riverside populations, characterizing a pattern of environmental racism. Such is expressly repudiated in the Belém Declaration (2025) and incompatible with the duties of equality and non-discrimination in environmental and climate matters. The MPF clarifies that the situation of chemical contamination must be interpreted in light of the commitments made by Brazil in the aforementioned declaration, which recognizes that historical and persistent patterns of discrimination, coupled with unequal access to decision-making processes, produce differentiated exposures to pollution, climate risks, and nature loss. 

The MPF argues that Advisory Opinion (AO) 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, although focused on the climate emergency, provides a legal roadmap directly applicable to large-scale chemical environmental damage, establishing guidelines on due diligence and the regulation of business activities. According to the plaintiff, the defendants’ conduct and the state's omission in controlling and monitoring atrazine conflict with the duty of enhanced diligence, precaution, and corporate transparency established in AO 32/2025, which reinforces the need for accountability, the adoption of structural measures for full reparation, cessation and non-repetition, and correction of a structural pattern of disproportionate exposure of vulnerable groups to chemical contamination. Furthermore, the MPF highlights the aggravation of the damage due to the ineffectiveness of traditional water treatment methods, exposure to the product in the workplace, the finding of its use in the production of crops, and the risk assumed by the defendant companies in imposing a long-term contamination on society and the environment. 

In preliminary proceedings, the granting of provisional urgent relief is requested to order the defendant companies to (i) present a detailed work plan for the complete diagnosis of the contamination of the Dourados River Hydrographic Basin; (ii) have their assets frozen in the amount of R$ 300,000,000.00; and that IBAMA implement a pesticide residue monitoring program in the Dourados River. On the merits, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for (i) the implementation of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan to remediate/mitigate atrazine contamination in the soil and waters of the river basin, (ii) payment for collective moral damages and irreversible environmental damages, in the amount of R$ 300,000,000.00 and, specifically in relation to IBAMA, that the agency be obliged to immediately implement environmental monitoring programs for atrazine and initiate the procedure for reassessing its registration. Federal Public Prosecutor's Office v. Syngenta Protection of Crops Ltda. and others (Environmental damage caused by pesticides containing atrazine) (Brazil, Mato Grosso Federal Court)

Brazil: NGOs seek greater scrutiny in granting an operating license for offshore drilling activity

On October 22, 2025, eight NGOs filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), Petrobras, and the Federal Government, with a request for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs aim to suspend and subsequently annul the Operating License (LO) 1,684/2025 for the Offshore Drilling Activity in Block FZA-M-59, located at the mouth of the Amazon River. The NGOs claim that LO 1,684/2025 had technical weaknesses and irreparable flaws in its licensing process. The NGOs seek this suit to bind IBAMA to refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects without a complete assessment of their environmental viability, both in the Amazon River mouth basin and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin. 

The plaintiffs argue for a need to assess the direct and indirect (climate) impacts of the activity, with the provision of complete data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from current and already contracted oil production in the country. The plaintiffs claim that the assessment should verify the compatibility between Brazilian climate emission reduction targets and the carrying capacity of the climate system for the project's emissions. It is pointed out that Block FZA-M-59 is located in an area of notorious environmental sensitivity and vulnerability to oil spills, near mangroves and coastal dunes and the Great Amazon Reef System, ecosystems whose preservation is fundamental to mitigating the current climate emergency scenario. In addition, an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS) of the region where the block is located has never been carried out to evaluate the socio-environmental attributes of the region and define its suitability for oil exploration.

Another argument raised concerns the lack of updated and complete studies on the oceanographic composition of the region, especially its hydrodynamic base, which has strong and unpredictable currents and high levels of sediment brought by the Amazon River—a factor that was ignored in the licensing process and is directly related to oil sinking and reef impact—exacerbating the flaws in the oil dispersion model and making an efficient response to a spill accident impossible. On this point, it is highlighted, from an adaptation perspective, that the studies ignored the growing vulnerability of the Amazon River mouth to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme events, and the licensing process should assess both how the oil exploration project will exacerbate the climate crisis and how the exacerbation of this crisis itself will increase the operational and environmental risks of the project. 

The plaintiffs emphasized that the necessary Indigenous and Quilombola Component Studies were not carried out, nor was there free, prior and informed consultation with the Indigenous peoples, Quilombola and traditional communities affected by the project. They also argued that IBAMA's stance in authorizing the operating license is contrary to socio-environmental interests and the technical assessment of its own employees and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which have repeatedly recommended its rejection. They alleged that the licensing process was based on intense and incessant political influence. Furthermore, the advisory opinions published by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice on the duties of States in the context of climate change were highlighted. 

The plaintiffs requested, as a preliminary injunction, the suspension of the effects of Operating License 1.684/2025 to prevent and/or halt any and all drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59. On the merits, they requested: (i) the annulment of the LO due to the flaws and technical deficiencies of the EIA-RIMA and the environmental licensing process; (ii) that IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin without first attesting to the complete environmental viability of the project (including considering direct and indirect climate damage, as well as the relationship of the project with Brazilian climate goals) and without having carried out free, prior, informed and good-faith consultation with the affected populations and traditional communities. Observatório do Clima e outros vs. IBAMA, Petrobras e União Federal (Revocation of the Operating License for drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River) (Brazil, Pará Federal Court)

Brazil: Political parties file a direct action of unconstitutionality against a state law on soy beans

In December 2024, the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), the Sustainability Network, the Green Party, and the Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a preliminary injunction, seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Law 5,837/2024 of the State of Rondônia. 

The state law came into force on July 26, 2024, and aims to prevent the application of the sectoral agreement known as the “Soy Moratorium” within the state of Rondônia. The agreement, which is voluntary for companies in the soybean chain, establishes measures to prevent the purchase of soybeans from deforested areas of the Amazon after July 22, 2008. After it was established in 2006, the law has proven to be an important example of reconciliation between the interests of large-scale agricultural development and environmental and climate sustainability.

The plaintiffs allege that the law is unworkable, as it prohibits the granting of tax incentives and public land to companies in the agro-industrial sector that have internal purchasing policies related to the terms of the Soy Moratorium. The plaintiffs allege that the rule is materially unconstitutional because it violates the principles of free enterprise, free competition, and equality, given that the law distorts the very logic of the market by punishing legal entities that adopt sustainable purchasing policies and do not promote the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. However, it is argued that the multisectoral agreement has proven to promote rather than limit soybean production in the country. 

They argue that the state law violates acquired rights, perfect 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 prohibition of regression in environmental protection. Furthermore, the plaintiffs note that the law constitutes a setback in the fight against climate change, since tackling climate change is directly related to combating deforestation, also in view of the commitments made in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. 

A preliminary injunction is requested to suspend the effects of the aforementioned articles of Law 5.837/2024 of the State of Rondônia. A final judgment is requested to uphold the ADI and declare the contested articles of State Law 5.837/2024 unconstitutional. ADI 7775 (Law Against the Soy Moratorium in Rondônia) (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Gas company initiates arbitration against the Dutch government for its decision to phase out gas extraction

On December 23, 2025, Shell plc initiated an Investor-State arbitration against the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) (claim registered at ICSID on January 15, 2026). The arbitration arises out of measures adopted by the Dutch government in connection with the decision to phase out gas extraction from the Groningen field. 

According to information disclosed by the Dutch government, Shell claims to be an indirect shareholder of the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM) and alleges that the Netherlands has breached its obligations under the ECT. Shell seeks full compensation for the damage it claims to have suffered as a result of the State's measures. 

The arbitration follows a prior consultation phase between Shell and the Dutch government, during which the parties explored the possibility of an amicable settlement. After two consultation meetings held in 2025, Shell decided to proceed with international arbitration. At this stage, the arbitral tribunal had not yet been constituted, and no procedural decisions or pleadings had been made public. 

It is worth noting that this case forms part of a broader set of disputes between the Netherlands, NAM, and its shareholders Shell and ExxonMobil, including parallel domestic proceedings and other international arbitrations under the ECT concerning similar measures. 

The Dutch government has stated that it intends to fully contest the claims brought by Shell in the arbitration. Shell PLC v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (ICSID)

Brazil: More case updates on the federal prosecution’s public civil actions against parties who deforested Amazon

Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) filed 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) under the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, which aims, among other objectives, to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon. The lawsuits were filed against several defendants, including individuals and legal entities, held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. 

The actions are based on satellite monitoring of deforestation and seek to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas. The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. MPF explicitly refers to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) resulting from illegal deforestation. 

Among the final requests, the MPF seeks: i) An order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation; ii) An order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂; iii) An order requiring payment for collective moral damages; iv) Restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); v) Allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.

In addition to the cases listed in the December 9, 2025, Climate Litigation Updates, below cases were added to the database: 

Cases filed in the Amazonas Federal Court

• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Adenir Mello; Fred Natan Bernabe; Deijanira Souza da Silva and Pedro Ricarte Teixeira da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Antonio Rodrigues Vieira Junior; Fabiana Nunes Machado; Jessica Machado Lemos and Valeria de Matos Vieira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Dalton Cavalheiro Pfau and Debora Talita Rolim Kasulke

Cases filed in the Mato Grosso Federal Court

• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Andre Parreira da Silva; Fernando Teza Mazzola and Jose Feliciano Pinto
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Eclair Diavan
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Ademilson Luiz Rosa; Edna Silva Brito de Lima; Francisco Guarnieri de Lima and Ilza Massam Nichols
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Altemar Jose Nodari; Celia Viana de Souza; Joao Denilson Fabricio; Jose Braulio Junqueira de Andrade Neto and Jose Carlos Maria de Souza
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Erisvaldo de Oliveira Silva; Luilson Ramos Gomes; Manoel Pereira dos Santos and Valmir Kleiton Vasconcelos Fernandes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Antonio Rodrigues de Franca Filho; Fernando Fernandes da Cruz; Francisco José da Costa; Marilza de Castro Costa and Samuel Faria de Moraes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Eugenio Domingues da Silva; José Rosado; Moacir Domingues da Silva and Moacir Domingues da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Baltazar de Medeiros; Moacir Geraldino; Elaine Cristina Geraldino Mckernan and Pablo do Nascimento Tessarolo
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Ezequias de Oliveira Pereira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Ezequiel de Oliveira Furtado
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Benedito Jose da Silva and Grasiele Boff
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Ana Paula Souza de Andrade; Ireneu Orth; Luiz Antonio Giroldo and Marlene Terezinha Borghetti
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Marcia Maria Borges de Almeida
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Gilmar Antonio Rech and Valdir Ostetti
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Felipe Vicente Dalben; Joao Luiz Pedrassani; Marcio Reinoldo Froeder; Naldira Pedrassani and Rogerio Antonio Perin
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Armando Fernando Matos; Jose Fernandes Xavier Garcia and Lenivalda Rodrigues de Sousa
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Joao Maria da Conceicao Natal; Josaias Vieira de Santana and Teresinha Teles de Santana
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Clenoir Fiabane; Denise Lucia Petry Lima; Joao Paulo Tatmatsu Rocha and Ronaldo Marcondes Rocha
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Daniel Winter
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Edirco Soares de Amorim
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Bruno Cappellari; Joao Carlos Kotovicz; Maria de Fatima Silva Santos; Reinaldo Goncalves Santos and Sergio Henrique Lavratti Pereira
• Cases filed in the Rondônia Federal Court
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v.Joao Fidelis de Brito; Eldo Gabriel Rodrigues; Josiel Silva Facina Oliveira and Natalia Cristina do Valle Rodrigues
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Lucas Vinicius Jacomasso; Marcus Adriano Evangelista Ferreira; Nilson Coelho de Souza and  Osmar Alves
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Claudinei Luiz Ferreira; Fabricia Ramos Pinheiro; Maria Jose Romano Alves de Castilho and  Ocimar Jose De Limas
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Leocir Copercini; Marcos Antonio Ramos and Maria da Conceicao Farias da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Cesar Menegol; Marcia Regina Cadore; Marcos Rogerio Schmidt Olsen and Walter Cezar da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Flavio Rocha de Freitas; Hernane Elias da Rocha; Maxcione Rosa Dutra and Thiago Domingos Pereira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Gelson da Silva Reis; Nilton Gomes de Oliveira; Rogerio Wendt and Signelio Rodrigues Nunes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Eunice Picinato; Francisco Ferreira Cabral;Francisco Jorge Soares Ibanes and Iara Pecinato da Silva Schmoller
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Fabio Demarco; Rosinelia das Neves Lages;  Valdecir De Siqueira and Valdirene Ulice Gomes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Everaldo da Silva Cabral; Junior Jose Clebis; Luiz Bernardo and Maria Osvaldina de Souza
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alexandre Nuernberg Masiero; Joao Batista Rosa da Silva; Jonisval Daros Bercan and Juraci Celestino de Oliveira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Fabio Eorico Ferreira; Jose Cardoso Pereira; Josue Francisco Gomes Filho and Raquel Bispo de Souza
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alain Jevan Leonel; Dirceu Sato; Izaque Rodrigues Mateus and Jacinto Carlos dos Santos
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Claudeonor Bispo dos Santos; Edinaldo Luiz de Farias; Eliziane Gomes Carneiro and Rafael Rosa da Costa
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Hans Werner Heinrichs; Izabel Martins Sobrinho; Nikasio da Costa Alves Argolo and Nilson Florintino
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Marcos Alves dos Santos;Maria Amelia Nobrega do Nascimento and Milson Amorim Moda
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Edvaldo Estevao Menezes; Joao Rocha; Luiz Bernardo and Vaninho Marques Alves da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alceu Fuzari Souza; Edeler Cornelio Fuzari Junior; Ildo Pedro Pelissari and Larson Rafael Conti
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Francileuda Damiao de Oliveira Ferreira; Leonirto Rodrigues dos Santos; Maria Jose Rocha and Sebastiao Geraldo Moreira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Edison Massaru Suganuma; Joao de Freitas; Jose Francisco da Silva and Lucimar Teixeira da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Pedro Jacob Polita
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Cesar Ronhiski; Fabricio Moreira da Silva; Nilva Margarida Marcon and Sirleno Schappo
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Francisco Alves dos Santos; Francisco Carlos Gularte; Maria Salete Pozzebon and Sebastiao Soares Teles
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Antonio Bilenki; Davi Paiva; Ivanilde Pinheiro da Silva and Vanilton Saraiva Moreira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Claudete Aparecida Hipoliti; Cleber Antunes da Silva; Jorge Carlos Cardoso Carneiro and Lorealdo Antonio Jose Antonieto Cezario
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Amilton Luciano Fernandes Barbosa; Antonio Costa Coelho; Fernanda Cabral de Freitas and Jardel Rosa de Oliveira
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Frederico Simon Camelo
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Gilmar Schaparini; Ivete Salete da Rosa Muller; Jorge Schaparini and Roberto Rocha de Freitas
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Reinaldo Adriano Almeida Rodrigues
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Helton Cardoso Pignataro; Ivanilda Francisca de Souza and Jose Luiz Zamparoni
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Analice Galhardi Andrade; Claudete Furquim de Sousa and Zely Ignez Pietsch
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Elisangela Maia Mellero; Jacqueline Cristiane Muniz; Jorge Augusto Barbosa Muniz and Marcos Antonio Lopes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alessandro Cesar da Silva; Elaine de Paula E Silva Barbosa; Juraci Custodio and Paulo Roberto Garcia Maioli
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Claudia Santana Gomes Daeuble; Devanir Antonio da Silva and Maria Ines Gimenez Felix
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Charles Gabriel Ventura de Queiroz; Irisvone Luiz de Magalhaes and Odilon Lopes 

Cases filed in the Pará Federal Court

• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Adeilton de Souza Lima; Cesamo Caldeira Mota; Ezequias Pereira de Brito And Sebastiao Sales Ferreira Menezes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alline Freire Santos; Benedita Mendes de Oliveira; Ermindo Marcos Serafini and Jean Marcos Serafini
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Angelino Araujo da Silva; Fernando Mendes Rocha; Gustavo Galvao Balieiro and Herly Fagundes Galvao
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Maiko Santos Araujo; Telemaco Garcia Nunes; Valdinei Gomes da Silva and Maria do Carmo Dias
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Diomiro Alves Vilela; Jose da Silva Lira; Manoel Cruz de Almeida and Ronaldo Lobao Lopes
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Bartolomeu de Sousa; Edevan Rodrigues da Silva Santos and Jose Rocha de Sousa
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Adilcy Clara da Silva Branger; Neri Prestes Pereira and Olmiro Muller
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Anna Maria Dal Rio Ferreira de Freitas; Edson Teofilo Rosa; Helio Dias Costa and Marcelo Augusto Dal Rio de Freitas
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alechandre Canei; Geovani Rezende Chagas; Jose Alves do Nascimento and Patricio Lima de Jesus
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Clarinda Beathalter Bloemer
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Adalberto Scherer
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Andressa Viana Coutinho; Antonio Rodrigues de Souza; Divino Pereira de Souza and Saulo Neres Cardoso
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Evandro Carlos de Oliveira; Francisco de Assis Bernardo; Francisco Souza Carvalho and Maria Helena Pinto da Silva
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Andre Pereira da Silva; Claudeth de Jesus Ribeiro Santos and Otoniel Duarte dos Santos
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Deumair Bernardes Ferreira and Fatima Carvalho da Rocha
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Katiane Soares Neves Avila and Roberto Pereira Barros
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Alcino Coelho; Domingos Mendes Sobrinho; Joao Batista Tavares and Paulo de Moura Albuquerque
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Evandro Carlos de Oliveira; Raulmiro Carrijo Carvalho; Wildeglane Neves de Oliveira and Wilson Paulo da Mota
• Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Fabio Silva Fernandes; Marcos Antonio da Silva; Marcos Daniel Fontanella and Sebastiao Paulino Pereira 

United Kingdom: Challenge brought against the governmental grant to expand Gatwick Airport

Petitioners brought a challenge against the UK government, for its decision to grant a development consent order ('DCO') for the expansion of Gatwick Airport. The challenge is brought on various grounds including concern about climate, noise, economic impacts, the treatment of wastewater, and the interpretation of national aviation policy. CAGNE and Peter Barclay v SSCHLG (United Kingdom, High Court)

Japan: Citizens bring lawsuit against the national government for violating their human rights by failing to mitigate climate change

On December 18, 2025, 452 Japanese citizens filed a complaint against the national government before the Tokyo District Court. The citizens request compensation for the damages caused by climate change, alleging that their right to a peaceful life encompasses the right to a stable climate. 

In supporting the argument, the plaintiffs rely on the scientific findings by the IPCC and the legal framework established by the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. They also refer to the landmark cases worldwide, including the Dutch Urgenda case, German Neubauer case, the Swiss KlimaSeniorinnen case, and the Korean Youth Climate case, to support their arguments. Further, they point out that States have various obligations to act against climate change as indicated by the ICJ advisory opinion on climate change. 

The plaintiffs argue that climate change is a human rights issue and that the State has an obligation to protect human rights under Art. 25 of the Constitution. They claim a violation of i) the right to life, health, and bodily integrity (Art. 13 of the Constitution) ii) the right to development of a child (Child welfare act) iii) freedom of business (Art. 22 (1) of the Constitution) iv) Property rights (Art. 29 (1) of the Constitution) v) the right to environment vi) the right to a peaceful life. The plaintiffs further allege that the current NDC and the Climate Action Plan of Japan are insufficient. Climate Justice Case (Japan, Tokyo District Court)

Singapore: Singaporean climate advocacy group files a complaint against South Korea’s largest electric utility, alleging failure to disclose sufficient information upon listing term note

In May 2025, climate advocacy group Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC) filed a whistleblower complaint with Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX) Whistleblowing Office against Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), South Korea’s largest electric utility. The complaint concerns KEPCO’s Global Medium Term Note (GMTN) of approximately US $11 billion, listed on SGX. SFOC alleges that KEPCO failed to disclose material climate‑related risks in its offering documents, potentially breaching Singapore securities disclosure requirements and SGX Mainboard Rules. The Rules obligate corporations to provide sufficient information for investors to obtain a “full and proper understanding” of an issuer’s business, financial condition, prospects, and risks, and to include information that such investors would customarily expect to see in such documents. 

The complaint claims KEPCO omitted disclosure of its: (1) continued reliance on coal‑fired power generation until 2050, misaligned with global decarbonization goals and the Paris Agreement; (2) financial exposure to liquefied natural gas (LNG) price volatility, amid declining global demand and delays or cancellations in key LNG infrastructure projects; and (3) misrepresentation of hydrogen-LNG and ammonia-coal blends as "carbon-free" in regulatory and investor communications, contrary to emerging international standards. 

As of late 2025, SGX has acknowledged receipt of the complaint, and it stated that it will review the matter and take necessary action. No public enforcement decision has been announced. Regulatory complaint to the Singapore Exchange regarding Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO)'s US$11 billion bond issuance (Singapore, Singapore Exchange) 

United Kingdom: Complaint filed against Scotland Gas Networks alleging the description of hydrogen as “clean burning”, “zero-carbon”, “green energy” to be misleading

Opportunity Green has filed a complaint with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) against Scotland Gas Networks plc (SGN) concerning its hydrogen heating trial in Fife, Scotland. The complaint alleges that SGN has made misleading environmental claims about hydrogen heating in its websites and promotional materials directed at local residents and prospective trial participants. Those claims present hydrogen as “clean burning”, “zero-carbon”, and capable of providing “green energy” to millions of homes.

The complaint argues that these claims omit critical information and conflate different types of hydrogen with very different environmental impacts. This risks misleading consumers about the emissions, efficiency, and feasibility of hydrogen as a solution for home heating.

The complaint is particularly important given that the UK Government has yet to make its final decision on the role of hydrogen in home heating, expected in 2026. Misleading green claims risk shaping consumer choices and policy decisions based on inaccurate information. If the gas grid were repurposed for hydrogen, up to 85% of UK households could be affected, making truthful, evidence-based information essential to protecting consumers and the public interest. CMA Complaint on Hydrogen Heating Greenwashing by Opportunity Green (United Kingdom, Competition and Markets Authority)

DECIDED CASES

Brazil: State prosecutors sue the state for a failure of proper climate permitting of solid waste management facilities

On December 17, 2024 the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Pará (MPPA) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, against the State of Pará. MPPA based the action on the omission of the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS) in fulfilling its duty to require the assessment of climate impacts in environmental licensing in the state of Pará, with emphasis on sources emitting GHG such as CO2 and methane. MPPA argues that the global climate crisis is proven by data from the IPCC, and therefore it is essential to consider a climate approach in all public policies, particularly in the context of Amazon and the special relationship between solid waste management and the climate system, as solid waste is a significant source of GHG emissions. 

MPPA points to the state’s omission, especially of landfills, whose significant polluting potential requires a rigorous licensing process focused on the viability and mitigation of climate impacts, citing the Marituba Waste Processing and Treatment Center (CPTRM) as an example. MPPA alleges that due to this omission, the state of Pará is failing to comply with national and international commitments to address the climate crisis, such as the Paris Agreement, the National Environmental Policy, the National Policy on Climate Change, and the State Policy on Climate Change. It is argued that this omission violates the principle of prohibiting deficient protection in environmental matters, breaking with climate federalism by failing to integrate the climate agenda into state public policies. 

On September 17, 2025, an interlocutory decision was issued granting the requested urgent relief, ordering the state of Pará, through SEMAS: (i) to prepare and publish Terms of Reference that must include the requirement for a climate impact assessment and a GHG mitigation plan as conditions for the environmental licensing of projects with significant pollution potential, especially sanitary landfills, including CPTRM; (ii) to present a technical diagnosis of the current status of all active environmental licenses for GHG-emitting projects under its jurisdiction; (iii) to refrain from issuing or renewing environmental licenses for potentially GHG-emitting projects without the proper prior climate impact assessment and without imposing concrete mitigation measures. Ministério Público do Estado do Pará vs. Estado do Pará (Landfills and Climate Impact Assessment in Pará) (Brazil, Pará State Court)

Chile: Court finds the National Forestry Corporation’s decision not to renew ecotourism permits lawful, despite its impact on local ecotourism operators

On December 2, 2025, a group of local ecotourism operators that provide guided glacier trekking services on the Exploradores Glacier—located within Laguna San Rafael National Park (Aysén Region)—filed an economic amparo action (recurso de amparo económico) against the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) before the Coyhaique Court of Appeals. The action challenged CONAF’s decision not to renew the ecotourism permits authorizing guided passenger transit on the glacier, a measure that effectively halted the applicants’ sole economic activity.

Applicants argued that the decision was arbitrary and unlawful, as it relied on a technical report issued by the General Water Directorate (DGA) that, in their view, merely described general glaciological phenomena associated with climate change without assessing the safety or feasibility of the specific routes used for ecotourism activities, nor recommending a total closure of the glacier. They alleged that CONAF improperly relied on a general climate diagnosis to impose a blanket prohibition on a lawful economic activity, in violation of the constitutional freedom to conduct economic activities under Article 19(21) of the Chilean Constitution.

CONAF requested dismissal of the action, arguing that the economic amparo is an exceptional mechanism aimed at controlling unlawful state entrepreneurial activity, which was not at issue in the case. On the merits, CONAF maintained that its decision constituted the legitimate exercise of regulatory and public safety powers within a protected area and was duly grounded in technical evidence demonstrating an active phase of glacier disintegration linked to accelerated melting driven by climate change. Invoking the preventive and precautionary principles, CONAF asserted that the protection of life and physical integrity prevailed over economic interests and that the permits were temporary and conditional, not vested rights.

On February 6, 2026, the Coyhaique Court of Appeals rejected the economic amparo, holding that the challenged decision fell within CONAF’s lawful administrative powers and was supported by objective technical evidence. The Court emphasized that the economic amparo is not an appropriate vehicle to review the technical merits or substantive reasonableness of administrative decisions, and therefore did not engage with the applicants’ substantive arguments on the merits. The applicants appealed the decision, and the case is currently pending before the Chilean Supreme Court. Chilemontaña Trips Nicolás André Rojas Cuq E.I.R.L. et al. v. National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) (Chile, Coyhaique Court of Appeals)

Ireland: Irish Supreme Court clarifies national planning authorities under S15 of the Climate Act in authorizing plans

The case concerned an application by a wind farm company for planning permission to construct a wind farm in Co. Laois. After An Bord Pleanála (the national planning authority) rejected permission for the wind farm, citing visual impacts and local development plan designations for wind turbines, the company appealed the decision before the High Court, arguing that under S15(1) of the Climate Act the planning authority had an obligation to prioritize climate considerations over visual concerns in interpreting its planning decisions. The planning authority, in response, argued that a narrow interpretation of this provision was appropriate, obliging the authority only to give regard to climate considerations and that therefore the authority had acted within its powers in refusing permission for the wind farm. 

Humphreys J. of the High Court found that An Bord Pleanála had acted unlawfully by failing to act in a manner compliant as far as practicable with the climate objectives and policies set out in the Climate Act. The High Court also held that the planning authority had breached its duties under EU law and European human rights law. The court further noted that the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland demonstrated a requirement to read legislation in an ECHR-compliant manner, supporting an interpretation of S15 that includes compliance in practice with stated goals in relation to renewable energy infrastructure. The failure to properly consider the climate benefits of allowing the project, therefore, constituted a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered the application be remitted to An Bord Pleanála for further consideration in accordance with the judgment.

On Feb 4, 2025, the Irish Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the High Court, but significantly narrowed the grounds on which the decision was upheld. The Court concluded that S15 of the Climate Act “creates a legal obligation binding upon [An Coimisiún Pleanála] and enforceable, if necessary, by action, to ensure that any decision it makes to grant or refuse permission is consistent with the climate objectives set out in section 15.” The Court found an error of law, given that the Board had never engaged in a real and substantive way with the question of the proposed development’s climate benefit in considering whether to grant permission.

The Court, however, dismissed the view of the High Court that S15 created an imperative obligation to prioritize climate action when considering planning permission. The Court explained that there is a" range of possible outcomes” open to public bodies in acting consistently with climate objectives “and a degree of tolerance” in how this is achieved. The Court further stated that “[t]he question of consistency of an individual planning decision with the section 15 objectives is much more complex than a traffic light system of climate-friendly ‘go’ (unless impracticable) and climate-unfriendly ‘stop’." The Court also dismissed the European rights elements to the claim, contending that, as a corporation, the plaintiffs lacked standing under the KlimaSeniorinnen standard for climate litigation to assert that there had been a violation of the European Convention. 

In summary, while the Court confirmed that An Coimisiún Pleanála should consider climate benefits in assessing whether to overrule a local development plan, the Court did not bind the Board to prioritize s15 considerations over other considerations. Coolglass Windfarm Limited v. An Bord Pleanala (Ireland, Supreme Court)

United Kingdom: City Council rejects a plan to build a solar farm, based on its impact on biodiversity in a Site of Special Scientific Interest

On April 11, 2024, RWE Renewables UK, under section 62D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning (Wales) Act 2015), applied to Newport City Council (Ref: DNS/3279787) to erect a solar farm and battery storage units, associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and grid connection. The solar farm, to be built on a site of approximately 240ha, would constitute a development of national significance and generate capacity of up to 99.9 MW — enough to power around 45,374 typical Welsh homes and save around 3m tonnes of CO2 over the 40-year life of the development, compared with generation from fossil fuels. Part of the planned development area comprised a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) noted for its range of aquatic plants and invertebrates as well as providing breeding grounds for birds including Lapwing. The application also included proposals for ecological enhancements including bee hotels, reptile hibernacula, birdboxes and native species hedgerow / tree planting. 

On October 21, 2025, the City Council rejected the planning permission. The Inspector evaluating the application considered: “(a) the effect on ecology; (b) the effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area; (c) the effect on the setting of historic assets in the locality; and (d) whether any harm identified in relation to the foregoing considerations is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, particularly its contribution to renewable energy generation and combating the effects of climate change.” The Inspector noted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (which refers to Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016) obliges “planning authorities [to] seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity” by “not causing significant loss of habitats or populations of species and . . . provid[ing] a net biodiversity benefit and enabl[ing] the improvement of the resilience of ecosystems by following the DECCA Framework in taking into account the diversity, extent, condition, connections and adaptability of ecosystems.” PPW provides a “step-wise approach” to fulfilling this duty, adopting “a hierarchy which is to avoid, then minimise, mitigate/restore, compensate on site, compensate off-site and finally to refuse permission.” 

The Inspector found that “[d]evelopment in a SSSI which is not necessary for the management of the site must be avoided”; and that the enhancement “does not offset or override the harm to a designated site or protected species that I cannot rule out on the basis of the evidence before me.” Accordingly, having balanced the benefits of the scheme, including the support to renewable energy which the solar farm could provide, against the harm “to landscape character and visual amenity, heritage assets and ecology / biodiversity”, the Inspector recommended that the planning application be refused. Refused application for Craig Y Perthi Solar Farm (United Kingdom, Newport City Council)

Mexico: Ministry of Energy’s “attempt” to meet environmental targets held as insufficient compliance to laws setting specific targets

The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) filed an amparo lawsuit in September 2025 for the Ministry of Energy’s failure to comply with the legal target set out in the General Law on Climate Change which established an obligation to produce, by 2024, at least 35% of its electricity generation from clean energy sources.

On February 2026, the District Court dismissed the Ministry of Energy’s arguments and decided in favor of CEMDA, based on the following arguments: i) It determined that CEMDA does have standing to file the lawsuit because its purpose is the protection of the environment and that the Ministry’s omission affects collective environmental services such as good air quality and climate regulation, which benefit all people. ii) The Court clarified that the law not only obliges the Ministry to “attempt” to meet the targets by implementing public policies to that end, but also imposes an obligation to achieve a result, which is to reach 35% by 2024; and iii) The evidence of the Ministry’s non-compliance was made explicit, since in its own reports, the agency states that in 2023 the share of clean energy fell to 26.5%, thus moving away from the legal target.

As a result, the District Court ordered the Ministry of Energy to: Inform the Court within 90 business days of all public policies, incentives, programs, or projects aimed at meeting the goal; present a timetable with intermediate targets for achieving the 35 percentage; apply the principle of non-regression, which means that targets lower than those already achieved cannot be proposed. Mexican Center for Environmental Law v. Ministry of Energy (on clean energy targets) (Mexico, District Court in Administrative Matters)

New Zealand: Climate emergency for Māori communities alleged in Waitangi Tribunal

On March 13, 2023, Emily Bailey, on behalf of Climate Justice Taranaki filed a statement of claim for an urgent hearing to the Waitangi Tribunal. The applicant submitted that climate change presents an emergency for Māori communities, which are disproportionately affected by climate change. The applicant also alleged that the Crown’s actions to address climate change through general policies, the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and the ETS are likely to cause significant prejudice to Māori. The Tribunal received memoranda and statements of claim in support of these applications. 

On February 9, 2024, the Deputy Chairperson Judge Sarah Reeves of the Tribunal issued a decision on the Urgent Inquiry Application and Priority Inquiry, finding that it did not, at that stage, meet the requirements for granting an urgent inquiry. 

However, the Tribunal granted a kaupapa inquiry into climate change policy, in light of climate change being an existential threat not only to the claimants but to Māori and the nation. The Tribunal stated that the scope of the priority inquiry should “focus on the relevant Treaty principles to be considered in climate change policy and recommendations for how the Crown should meaningfully engage and consult with Māori.” For more on kaupapa inquiry, refer to Wai 3325. Wai 3262: Climate Justice Taranaki v New Zealand (New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal)

Mexico: Court ruled that while specific technical processes and strategic infrastructure locations may be classified for national security and trade secrets, environmental emissions data must be disclosed to ensure public accountability and compliance with international climate treaties

In January 2023, the plaintiff filed a request to Mexico's Data Protection and Enforcement Agency (INAI) to gain access to Pemex Logistics (part of Mexico's state-owned oil company) Methane Emissions Diagnosis, a document that the entity was required to present before the National Agency for Industrial Security and Environmental Protection in the Hydrocarbon Sector (ASEA) detailing, among other information, the quantity of the methane emissions it generates. 

The INAI denied the request, arguing that the information in the Diagnosis contained classified information for national security concerns, as well as trade secrets. 

On September 28, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amparo suit against this decision, arguing that the information contained in the Diagnosis should be public because it constitutes environmental information. On February 7, 2024, the 11th District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City denied the request and confirmed INAI's decision. 

On February 20, 2024, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision. The case was sent to the Fifth Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which asked the Supreme Court to decide the case due to its constitutional relevance on August 7, 2024. 

Justice Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena delivered the opinion of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court on May 14, 2025, agreeing with the lower court. The Court partially upheld INAI's decision. It ruled that information contained in the Diagnosis that involved the "methods, processes, justification, and location of oil wells and the type of equipment" used by Pemex Logistics was classified for national security reasons. The Court considered that article 110 of the Federal Law for Transparency and Access to Public Information provides a list of grounds under which information can be classified, one of which is national security purposes. The Guidelines for classification and declassification of information specify that any information that could enable the sabotage of strategic infrastructure can be classified under national security considerations. The Court considered that the Diagnosis contained information on the type of equipment used by Pemex Logistics and the location of oil wells. This could enable sabotage. As such, considering that Mexico's Constitution considers the hydrocarbon sector as "strategic activities". 

The Court also upheld the decision, finding that the Diagnosis contained information on the "calculating method, the base year of the diagnosis, the number of oil wells, as well as the justification for the methods employed," which constituted a trade secret. 

Lastly, the Court overturned the decision regarding the information in the Diagnosis, which details the total amount of methane emissions generated by each oil well or piece of equipment. The Court found that this information did not compromise national security and was not a trade secret. It also specified that the release of this information translated into accountability since it could allow the public to assess whether Mexico was fulfilling its commitments under the Paris Agreement and the joint declaration made in 2016 with the governments of Canada and the United States pledging to reduce methane emissions by between 40 and 45% by 2025. Citizens vs Data Protection and Enforcement Agency (INAI) (Mexico, Supreme Court)

New Zealand: Court decides that climate change impacts and international emissions targets are mandatory legal considerations when opening land for petroleum tenders, as the statutory requirement to act "for the benefit of New Zealand" requires assessing environmental risks alongside economic gains

In 2021, Climate Clinic Aotearoa Inc (previously Students for Climate Solutions) brought a case against New Zealand’s Minister of Energy, challenging the lawfulness of decisions made under s 25 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) to grant petroleum exploration permits. 

Climate Clinic Aotearoa argued that the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” in the purpose section of the CMA required the Minister to take into account, as a mandatory relevant consideration, the climate change implications of the decisions. It argued further that the s 25 decision-maker had not engaged with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a meaningful way, contrary to s 4 of the CMA. 

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge. It interpreted the phrase “for the benefit of New Zealand” as Parliament’s indication that it wished prospecting, exploration and mining to take place because those activities are for the benefit of New Zealand. Therefore, climate change considerations (including those under s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were irrelevant considerations to the s 25 decisions to grant the petroleum exploration permits. While the Judge accepted that Treaty considerations were relevant by virtue of s 4, he was satisfied that the decision maker had adequately considered them. 

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s appeal. The Court of Appeal was unanimous that climate change was not a mandatory relevant consideration; however, it was divided on whether it should be taken into account by the decision-maker as a permissible consideration. Mallon J considered that aspects of climate change (being those that are listed in s 5ZN of the Climate Change Response Act 2002) were permissible considerations. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the High Court that the decision maker adequately considered the principles of the Treaty. 

Climate Clinic Aotearoa appealed to the Supreme Court. 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. 

On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court released its judgment on the appeal. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal on the facts. However, the Supreme Court made critical findings of law agreeing with the majority of Climate Clinic Aotearoa’s legal arguments. 

First, the Court found that s 24 rather than s 25 was the critical decision - being the section where the decision to offer blocks for tender, rather than s 25 being the decision to grant permits following a tendering process. This is because the s 24 decision to offer an area for tender is an in-principle decision that exploration may be permitted in the area. 

In terms of s 1A(1) of the CMA, the appellant argued that the words “for the benefit of New Zealand” indicate that the CMA’s purpose is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining only where those activities benefit New Zealand. The respondents submitted that the wording instead conveyed that the purpose of the CMA is to promote prospecting, exploration and mining because those activities benefit New Zealand. The Court agreed with the appellant. 

The Supreme Court held that climate change was a mandatory relevant consideration under s 24 decision given the context of climate change being a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand, the Crown’s binding international obligations in connection with reducing emissions, and the role of petroleum extraction and consumption in climate change. When applying this to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the decision-maker adequately considered climate change, having received detailed briefings that addressed it. 

Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa | The New Zealand Māori Law Society Inc was given leave to intervene and to make submissions on the relevance of the Treaty to the appeal. The Court agreed with the appellant and Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa that the Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori Treaty interests requires the Crown to actively engage with the nature of the interests affected by Crown action, and with the nature of that Crown action. However, due to the facts of the case and the way the appeal was pleaded, the Court was unable to decide the appeal on this point, whilst noting that it considered such an error unlikely. Climate Clinic Aotearoa v Minister of Energy (New Zealand, Supreme Court)

South Africa: Court rules that environmental authorizations are unlawful if they fail to assess downstream “Scope 3” emissions and the socio-economic risks of low-probability spills

In South Africa, the Green Connection NPC and Natural Justice (herein the applicants), initiated a review application against the decision of the Director General of the Department of Minerals and Energy (the DG) and the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (the Minister) granting an environmental authorisation to conduct exploratory drillings off the South-West coast of South Africa. The application is based on the ground that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) utilized by the DG and Minister to inform their decision did not adhere to the stipulated requirements outlined in the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and the Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2001 (ICMA). 

The issue is whether the decision to grant environmental authorization to conduct exploratory drilling off the South-West coast should be set aside in that it was taken without proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. In praying for the authorization to be set aside, it is the contention of the applicants that the decision to grant environmental authorization was made without a thorough assessment of the environmental ramifications of the proposed project, as the EIR fails to meet the standards set forth by NEMA and ICMA. The EIR failed to consider climate change impacts associated with the use of any oil or gas discovered by the Proposed Project and to evaluate potential trans-boundary impacts of an oil spill resulting from a well blowout, particularly concerning contamination in Namibian waters and international waters. It does not adequately assess the extent of socio-economic impacts, including potential revenue losses for fishing operations and coastal communities in the area. The authorisation itself flouts section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which guarantees the right to a healthy environment, protected for present and future generations. It infringes on the environmental impact assessment principles in National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) enacted to give effect to the constitutional rights related to environmental protection. Consequently, the decisions made regarding the environmental authorization for the proposed project are legally flawed and subject to review and potential reversal under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). 

In relation to jurisdiction, GREEN CONNECTION NPC and NATURAL JUSTICE assert that the requirements for loca standi and jurisdiction have been satisfied, in that the application is brought in their own interest, in the public interest in terms of section 38(1)(c) of the Constitution and section 32(1)(d) of NEMA and in the interest of protecting the environment in terms of section 32(1)(e) of NEMA, and that the adverse effects of the decisions under review will be experienced in the Western Cape. Hence, the Court has jurisdiction in terms of section 1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). 

The Western Cape High Court has heard the case, and TotalEnergies told the court that there is a 1 in 7,000 chance of an oil spill occurring from the block. The company still holds environmental permits for the block, but is looking to transfer the majority of its interests to Shell and PetraSA. 

The High Court reviewed the lawfulness of the environmental authorization (EA) granted to TotalEnergies (with Shell as co-holder) for offshore exploratory drilling in Block 5/6/7 off South Africa’s south-west coast. The applicants challenged the EA under PAJA on several grounds, including failures to properly assess socio-economic impacts of a potential oil spill, failures to consider climate change impacts (particularly downstream emissions), failures to consider the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA), and omissions in spill contingency planning. The decisions under review were the Director-General’s grant of the EA and the Minister’s dismissal of the internal appeal. 

The Court held that the environmental impact assessment process was legally deficient. It found that while a catastrophic well blowout and oil spill were identified as low-probability but high-impact risks, the Final Environmental Impact Report failed to properly quantify and assess the socio-economic consequences of such an event, especially for fishing communities and coastal livelihoods. This omission breached NEMA and the EIA Regulations, which require assessment of all potentially significant impacts and risks, including low-probability, high-harm scenarios. As a result, the decision-makers failed to consider relevant considerations, rendering the EA unlawful and reviewable. 

On climate change, the Court accepted that the Final EIR failed to assess the climate impacts associated with the burning of any oil or gas discovered, i.e. downstream (Scope 3) emissions. It rejected the notion that climate impacts could be ignored at the exploration stage and affirmed that climate change consequences are a relevant consideration under NEMA’s sustainability and precautionary principles. The failure to assess climate change impacts meant the decision-makers could not properly evaluate the need and desirability of the project, undermining the constitutional obligation to protect the environment for present and future generations. 

The Court set aside the environmental authorization and the Minister’s appeal decision, holding that they were taken in breach of mandatory statutory duties. It emphasized the precautionary principle, the need for rigorous assessment of climate and socio-economic harm, and the constitutional centrality of environmental protection. The judgment reinforces that offshore fossil-fuel projects must confront climate change impacts explicitly and transparently at the authorization stage, not defer them to later phases. Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others (South Africa, High Court)

Brazil: Court decides that a “Popular Action” cannot be used to preemptively invalidate an environmental license yet to be issued

On November 27, 2023, Samuel Almeida da Silva filed a preventive Popular Action against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) regarding the request for an environmental license to explore the FZA-M-59 oil block, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, off the coast of the state of Amapá, requested by Petrobras SA. It is stated that the company's request was denied due to several inconsistencies and that the licensing process documents indicate the possibility that a potential oil spill could reach the coast of eight countries, in addition to two French territories. It argues that, beyond the specific impacts of the production and transportation project, the installation of the oil and gas industry would promote an extensive chain of related ventures. It is alleged that exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River would trigger the drilling of more than 40 blocks off the coast of the North and Northeast regions of the country, which would go against global ambitions to reduce the use of fossil fuels. There is a global effort to modify the energy matrix towards sources other than oil and coal, which are the main causes of high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given this scenario, the exploration of oil blocks puts the local ecosystem and climate balance at risk. The author argues that denying the environmental license for the project is a way to protect the collective right to an ecologically balanced environment, fulfilling article 225 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. The author requests the invalidation of any license that authorizes oil exploration in the Amazon River estuary. 

On January 2nd, IBAMA filed its defense alleging the initial petition was flawed due to a lack of specification of the facts and legal basis for the request, and that there was no act to be annulled, as no activity is being carried out in the area of interest of the lawsuit. Regarding the FZA-M-59 exploration block, it alleged that the environmental license was denied and that an appeal is under review. It requested, preliminarily, the dismissal of the case without prejudice. On the merits, it requested the complete dismissal of the claims. 

On June 5, 2025, a judgment was issued dismissing the initial petition and declaring the case closed without prejudice. The court held that there was no administrative act to be annulled or invalidated, since the plaintiff was seeking the invalidation of an environmental license that had not even been issued or, potentially, of a license that may be issued in the future. Samuel Almeida da Silva vs. IBAMA (Preventive invalidation of licenses for oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River) (Brazil, Federal District Federal Court)

Turkey: Court rules that an EIA decision for oil drilling must not ignore expert warnings regarding toxic waste, seismic damage to agriculture, and contradictions with national ecosystem-based climate strategies

The case has been filed against the Diyarbakır Governorship, for the suspension of execution and annulment of the decision of “EIA not required”, issued about an oil exploration and drilling project. 

While the project belongs to a private company (Transatlantic Petroleum), the regulations require an EIA procedure, and the procedure was conducted by the local governorship. According to the Turkish EIA regulation, an EIA is required for some oil projects and expert examination is needed for some projects to determine whether an EIA is required. 

On October 21, 2024, The Diyarbakır Governorship issued a decision that EIA is not required for the project. The claimants argue that the decision of “EIA not required” was unlawful. 

The plaintiffs refer to several grounds to support their argument. First, they refer to the seismic tests. When searching for oil, a series of explosions are often used to understand what is underground. This is called a seismic test. The claimants argue that seismic testing destroys wildlife and soil. Second, when searching for oil, taking into account that the substances used in drilling wells are toxic and that the debris carried to the surface during drilling contains radioactive minerals and heavy metals, agricultural areas, underground and surface waters will be in danger. In addition, toxic liquids coming out of the ground because of the exploration activity will mix with the air, soil, underground water and other water resources. Consequently, human health will also be negatively affected. 

The plaintiffs argue that the “EIA not required” decision by the Diyarbakır Governorship contradicts the opinion of expert institutions that there might be a threat to agricultural production and that an EIA process should be carried out. 

The plaintiffs also refer to several legal bases. They refer to the conditions in Annex 50, as required by Article 46/3 of the Turkish Petroleum Law Implementation Regulation stating that the conditions have not been met. Many of the other conditions in Annex 50 have also not been met. Many of the special permits, planning required by Article 48/2 and Articles 6 and 9, as well as the documents required by Article 24 of the Turkish Petroleum Law, are missing. 

The plaintiffs also suggest that the project contradicts with the national goals set by the “Ecosystem Based Adaptation Strategy for the Anatolian Steppe Ecosystems” which was decreed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. The court assigned a commission of experts regarding the case, and the report of the commission was in favor of the plaintiffs and advised the court that the EIA process is needed for the project. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Ecology Association vs Diyarbakir Governorship (Intervening: Transatlantic Petroleum, LLC) (Turkey, Diyarbakir 4th Administrative Court)

Kenya: Court rules that an environmental impact assessment for coal power plants must adequately address climate change implications and be consistent with national and international low-carbon development commitments

Amu Power Company Limited had been selected by the Government to build a 1050 MW coal-fired power plant in Lamu, the first of its kind in Kenya. After Amu Power obtained an EIA licence from NEMA in 2016 (EIA Licence No. NEMA/EIA/PSL/3798), the Respondents, including Save Lamu and others, challenged the licence via the NET tribunal (NET/196/2016), raising, among others, the failure by the EIA report to address the question of climate impact. 

The Respondents argued that the project would significantly increase Kenya’s carbon footprint, thereby undermining Kenya’s commitment to a low-carbon development under its national and international obligations. In view of the foregoing, the Respondents argued that the EIA licence violated various constitutional rights (e.g., right to clean and healthy environment, public participation) and statutory requirements under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 (EMCA) and its EIA Regulations. 

The Environment and Land Court (on appeal) upheld the earlier finding by the National Environment Tribunal (NET) in the Save Lamu Case (NET/196/2016) that the project’s Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) failed to address the climate-change implications of the proposed coal plant adequately. 

In the appeal, the Environment and Land Court recognised that Kenya’s commitment to a “low-carbon climate resilient pathway,” under both domestic law (Climate Change Act) and international obligations, ought to inform approval of such large-scale fossil-fuel projects — especially given the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal combustion. Amu Power Company Limited v Save Lamu & 6 others (Environment and Land Appeal 6 of 2019) (Kenya, Environment and Land Court in Malindi)

Brazil: Public prosecutors sue federal agency for failing to effectively implement climate change policies

In November 2025, the Federal District and Territories Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal District and the Federal District Institute of Environment and Water Resources (IBRAM), questioning their failure to effectively implement the District Climate Change Policy, especially with regard to the incorporation of climate impact assessments into environmental licensing procedures. The plaintiffs claim that although a climate crisis implies violations of fundamental rights and although district legislation requires the preparation of emissions inventories, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures, and the integration of climate criteria into environmental impact studies, relevant commands have remained unregulated and without practical application for more than a decade. 

The petition presents foreign, international, and national precedents that require the inclusion of climate impact assessments in licensing processes and reaffirm the right to a stable climate as a fundamental right. It points out that the National Council of Justice (CNJ) has a recommendation for the control of conventionality in human rights matters. It demonstrates that the contested omission contributes to the worsening of emissions in the Federal District, especially in the transportation sector, which has seen a significant increase in GHG emissions in recent decades, highlighting the disconnect between formal climate policy and government actions. It argues that climate impact assessments of projects must include minimum technical criteria based on the Terms of Reference and Climate Impact Matrix, which include the preparation of emissions inventories that show all GHG emissions in the pre-operation and operation phases of the projects and incorporate scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. In addition, it contends that climate diagnostic studies must contain an assessment of mitigation and adaptation measures. 

A preliminary injunction is requested to grant urgent relief so that IBRAM (i) requires all projects that are potential GHG emitters to submit an inventory of direct and indirect emissions; (ii) establish the mandatory requirement for proportional mitigation and compensation projects, as well as complementary environmental studies aimed at assessing climate impacts, among others; and (iii) standardize the requirements of the general district environmental licensing rules relating to the subject matter of the claim. It also requires the Federal District to regulate district climate laws, defining procedures, technical criteria, competencies, and administrative flows, establishing minimum standards for GHG inventories, requirements for climate diagnosis, mitigation and compensation measures, as well as monitoring, inspection, and sanctioning instruments, transparency and public participation mechanisms, the mandatory integration of these standards into environmental licensing processes and other sectoral policies of the Federal District, and that the defendants submit semi-annual reports to the Court. On the merits, it requests full confirmation of the provisional injunction and the granting of all requests.

In an interlocutory decision, the court recognized the legal plausibility of the claim, stating that climate protection is an essential component of environmental studies and that the prolonged failure of the Federal District and IBRAM to enforce district climate change regulations compromises environmental balance and exacerbates the ongoing climate emergency. The Court emphasized that environmental licensing must necessarily consider direct and indirect impacts related to GHG emissions, stressing that government incentives for road transport and the absence of climate regulations violate the Constitution and prevent the full implementation of the district's climate policy. Having verified the risk of irreparable damage and the environmental harm already underway, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction to require IBRAM to demand GHG emissions inventories and mitigation measures in licensing and to standardize the requirements of district laws, as well as to order the Federal District to fully regulate district climate laws, setting deadlines and fines to ensure compliance with obligations. Federal District and Territories Public Prosecutor's Office vs. Federal District and IBRAM (Omission in implementation of the District's Climate Change Policy) (Brazil, Federal District Federal Court)

Kenya: Court orders a retroactive assessment to remedy an environmental report's initial failure to address emissions

Applicants challenged the EIA license on multiple grounds, including that the "Environmental Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Study Report did not contain a climate impact assessment and the references to climate change made in the said Report are inadequate; and the Report should have incorporated the principles set out by the International Association for Impact Assessment”. 

The NET found that a Climate Change Impact Assessment was necessary prior to the issuance of the EIA license. Consequently, the National Environment Tribunal (NET) ordered a climate change analysis of the expressway within 18 months and directed the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) to ensure compliance with the order and relevant laws, including the Climate Change Act 2016. Greenbelt Movement & 4 others v National Environmental Management Authority & another; Kenya National Highways Authority (Interested Party) (Kenya, National Environmental Tribunal)

Ireland: Court rules that planning authorities are not required to explicitly cite every climate policy document in their decisions, provided the decision substantively aligns with national climate frameworks and demonstrates a "substantive consistency" with emissions reduction goals

Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors concerned a judicial review challenge to the grant of planning permission for a new Tesco supermarket store, drive-thru café and petrol station in Cavan Town. The applicant, an environmental group, sought to quash the decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Irish national planning authority) on a range of climate-related grounds, arguing that the Commission had failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended). 

A central issue was whether the Commission had complied with section 15 of the 2015 Act, which requires public bodies, insofar as practicable, to perform their functions in a manner consistent with the most recently approved Climate Action Plan and other specified climate policy instruments. The applicant contended that the planning decision was unlawful because it did not expressly reference the Climate Action Plan 2024 (CAP24), which had been adopted shortly before the planning decision was issued. It was argued that an explicit engagement with CAP24 was required in order to demonstrate compliance with section 15 and that the absence of such a reference rendered the decision invalid.

The High Court rejected this approach. Humphreys J. held that section 15 does not impose a requirement that decision-makers explicitly cite or rehearse each relevant climate policy document in their reasoning. Instead, compliance is to be assessed substantively, having regard to whether the decision, read as a whole, demonstrates consistency with the applicable climate framework insofar as practicable. The Court accepted that the Commission was entitled to carry institutional knowledge of climate policy and that such knowledge need not be spelled out in express terms. The decision referred to national climate ambitions and to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, which embeds the Climate Action Plan framework, and it engaged with objectives in the relevant local authority climate action plan that mirrored those in CAP24. On that basis, the Court was satisfied that the Commission had complied with its obligations under the 2015 Act, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit reference to CAP24 itself. The case also involved a challenge to the validity of CAP24 itself. 

The applicant argued that deficiencies in the plan undermined its legal status and that reliance on an invalid plan tainted downstream administrative decision-making, including the grant of planning permission in this case. The Court dismissed this challenge, finding that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating invalidity. Humphreys J characterised the argument as impermissibly abstract and academic, rejecting the suggestion that planning decision-making could be suspended or nullified pending the adoption of a hypothetically superior climate plan. 

Following the dismissal of the substantive challenge, the applicant sought leave to appeal, proposing a number of points of law said to be of exceptional public importance, primarily relating to climate obligations in planning decision-making. The High Court refused leave to appeal. However, in an obiter statement, Humphreys J. sought to clarify his previous remarks made in the earlier Coolglass decision (in which he had emphasised the importance of of planning authorities integrating climate considerations into decisions), outlining three essential steps that planning authorities should consider when assessing projects that cause emissions. First, there is a need to identify and quantify the net greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the project, including scope 3 emissions. Second, where net emissions are identified, decision-makers should evaluate whether those emissions fall within the available national and sectoral headroom provided for under relevant climate policy instruments, including carbon budgets and sectoral ceilings. Third, if emissions exceed available headroom, the authority must consider whether non-compliance is justified by considerations of practicability, such as imperative public needs, including energy security or other overriding considerations recognised by the statutory scheme. Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Ors (Ireland, High Court)

Brazil: Court rules that state legislation centralizing climate fund management and suppressing civil society participation is unconstitutional, as it violates the principles of participatory democracy and the prohibition of environmental regression

In December, 2024, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rondônia filed a state Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a preliminary injunction, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of State Law 5.868/2024, which amended State Law 4.437/2018, which establishes the State Policy on Climate Governance and Environmental Services (PGSA) and the State System for Climate Governance and Environmental Services (SGSA) in the state. It is alleged that the new law distorts the originally established model of climate governance by altering guidelines, implementation, and governance mechanisms, as well as management rules of the State Fund for Climate Governance and Environmental Services (FUNCLIMA). It is argued that the law is formally unconstitutional, as the state regulation exceeds the concurrent legislative competence in environmental matters, going beyond the limits of the supplementary legislative competence of the states by violating existing federal general regulations. It highlights that the contested law promotes significant centralisation in the SGSA, which would be incompatible with the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12.187/2009), based on the pillars of decentralisation and social participation. It is claimed that the law is incompatible with Federal Law 11.284/2006 (Public Forest Management) and Federal Law 13.123/2015 (Legal Framework for Biodiversity), as it does not provide essential safeguards for local communities and discourages their participation in conservation and sustainable development processes. It points out that the reduction of popular participation in state climate governance is incompatible with the fundamentals of climate and environmental justice. It argues that the rule is materially unconstitutional due to the reduction of civil society participation and the suppression of the deliberative nature of the Management Council, which centralizes decisions and the management of FUNCLIMA in the Secretariat of Environmental Development (SEDAM). It is alleged that such changes weaken social control and transparency and represent a socio-environmental setback by violating the principles of participatory democracy, democratic environmental participation, prevention and precaution, publicity and efficiency, and the prohibition of environmental regression, as well as the fundamental right to a balanced environment. In view of the risk of environmental and institutional damage, a precautionary measure is requested for the immediate suspension of the contested provisions and, on the merits, a definitive declaration of unconstitutionality of the amendments made to State Law 4.437/2018, including amendments to Articles 11, 15, 21, 24, 29, 41, 54, and additions to Article 38.

The Court, by majority vote, ruled in favor of the action to declare the unconstitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of State Law 5.868/2024, specifically concerning the amendments made to Article 11, caput and § 2; Article 15, § 3; Article 21; Article 24, § 1; Article 29, paragraph 5; Article 41, sole paragraph; Article 54, paragraph 2, as well as paragraphs 5 and 6 added to Article 38 of State Law 4.437/2018, in accordance with the dissenting opinion presented by Judge Alexandre Miguel. It established the following thesis: “It is unconstitutional, as it violates the principles of prohibition of environmental regression, democratic participation, and concurrent legislative competence, a state rule that centralizes environmental management and suppresses instances of deliberation and social control previously established by law.” Regarding formal unconstitutionality, the winning vote highlighted that the centralization of powers in SEDAM, which were previously collegial and participatory, contradicted general rules of the Federal Union (Federal Law 12.187/2009 - PNMC, Federal Law 11.284/2006 - Public Forest Management - and Federal Law 13.123/2015 - Biodiversity Framework) and transformed the Management Council into a merely formal body. It is understood that the concentration of the management of the Climate Fund in the exclusive sphere of the Executive Branch compromises the principles of publicity, morality, and administrative efficiency and that the exclusion of traditional communities and voluntary projects from the distribution of benefits violates the Federal Constitution and international commitments, such as ILO Convention 169 and the Escazú Agreement. Regarding material unconstitutionality, the vote pointed to the existence of a violation of the principle of prohibition of socio-environmental regression, since the new wording of the rule weakened participatory governance and reduced already consolidated guarantees. The dissenting opinion of Judge Miguel Monico Neto, who also disagreed with the rapporteur, highlighted the setbacks in climate governance in the state imposed by the contested legislative changes. He recognized the need to ensure the broad involvement of society, especially traditional communities vulnerable to the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss, in the establishment and revision of state policy on climate change. He asserted that the environmental and climate crises require ecological judicial governance guided, among other things, by the principles of prohibition of regression and progressivity. State ADI 0820695-16.2024.8.22.0000 (Climate Governance in Rondônia) (Brazil, Rondônia State Court)

Germany: Court rules that a national climate program must have concrete measures required to meet binding statutory emissions targets, and comply with 2030 goals 

In May 2024, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg ruled that the federal government’s climate protection program violated the law because it was insufficient to meet the binding climate targets established under the Climate Protection Act. The ruling was obtained through a lawsuit filed by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), which argued that the program lacked sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally mandated emissions reduction targets. The federal government appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig. 

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

The main legal question is whether the federal government's climate protection program satisfies its statutory obligations under the Climate Protection Act by containing sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally binding emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2040. 

On January 29, 2026, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the Federal Government’s appeal. The claimant, acting as an environmental association, may seek judicial review to assert that the 2023 Climate Action Programme requires supplementation. While the Federal Government enjoys a broad margin of discretion in selecting the measures included in the Climate Action Programme by resolution, compliance with the statutory requirements governing that decision is subject to judicial review. 

The Court held that the Climate Action Programme, as the central steering instrument of climate policy, must include all measures necessary to achieve the binding national climate target for 2030. Measured against this standard, the Programme does not meet the statutory requirements. Based on the binding findings of the Higher Administrative Court, the measures included are insufficient to achieve the 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent compared to 1990 levels. Accordingly, the defendant must supplement the Programme, taking into account developments in greenhouse gas emissions since its adoption. DUH v. Federal Government (Germany, Federal Administrative Court)

Brazil: Public Civil Action filed to prevent hotel prices excluding developing countries, traditional peoples, or civil organizations from the UN Conference on Climate Change 

In August 2025, the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for preliminary injunction, against eight hotels, Airbnb Plataforma Digital Ltda, and Booking.com Brasil Serviços de Reserva de Hotéis Ltda. The suit is based on the allegedly abusive and disproportionate increase in accommodation prices in Belém/PA during the period of the 30th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP-30), scheduled to take place in November 2025. 

The plaintiff argues that there was an increase of over 500% in the daily rates offered on digital platforms and local establishments, constituting an abusive practice contrary to the economic and social purpose of property. The plaintiff alleges that the exorbitant prices threaten to exclude delegations from developing countries, highly vulnerable consumers, traditional peoples, social movements, and civil society organizations, all of which are fundamental actors in discussions on climate justice and energy transition. This, they argue, would lead to the event’s primary participant being the “elites” and risk the transfer of COP-30 to another city or country, thereby affecting Brazil's international image and the conference's credibility. 

In an urgent injunction, the plaintiff requests the immediate suspension of offers and reservations for accommodations with prices exceeding the average price of the last 12 months and the establishment of a provisional price ceiling based on 2024 values adjusted for inflation. On the merits, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the price limitation; double reimbursement of amounts paid above the established parameter; and the joint and several liability of the defendants to pay R$ 1 million for collective moral damages (to be allocated to the Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Rights); an order for the defendant hotel and accommodation companies to reverse the increases applied and maintain the price applied in 2024 for the same period, adjusted by the official inflation index, or IPCA or IGP-M or another official adjustment index; and the condemnation of the Airbnb and Booking.com platforms to establish a ceiling on the price of accommodation, considering the average charged by advertisers and the historical average price.

The preliminary injunction request was denied, based on the genericity, imprecision, and unenforceability of the proposed criterion of "average of the last 12 months" to serve as the basis for an immediate enforcement court order. It was highlighted that judicial price limits, without concrete and uniform data, could generate legal uncertainty and a "reverse periculum in mora," with a reduction in the supply of accommodation and an artificial shortage of beds during the event, exacerbating the problem instead of solving it. Instituto Internacional Arayara de Educação e Cultura vs. Booking.com e outros (Exorbitant Accommodation Prices at COP-30) (Brazil, Pará State Court)

Brazil: Indigenous people file a Public Civil Action against governments and agencies for intruding their land and causing environmental harms

In November 2025, the Association of the Tenharim Morogitá Indigenous People (Apitem) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Government, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), FUNAI, and the State of Amazonas. Through its action, the Apitem aims to compel the defendants to adopt measures to remove intruders from the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land (TI Tenharim Marmelos), located in Amazonas, where the Tenharim people (who identify themselves as Kagwahiva) live. It is alleged that TI Tenharim Marmelos is the target of invasion, deforestation, logging, and real estate speculation caused by the advance of the agricultural and livestock frontier, being one of the most deforested territories in the country. The dispute affirms itself to be structural in nature, as it seeks to demand that the State formulate and implement (i) a comprehensive territorial protection and monitoring plan and (ii) immediate repressive measures to protect the environment and ensure climate justice. 

The plaintiff alleges that the Tenharim territory has suffered violations since the opening of the Trans-Amazonian Highway (BR-230), as already recognized by the 1st Region Federal Court (TRF1). Although TRF1 ordered the federal government and FUNAI to repair the damage caused, there is a continuous omission by the State regarding the situation of the Indigenous Land. It is claimed that the invasions in the Tenharim territory were supported by the issuance of forestry or agricultural exploitation licenses by state agencies without regard for indigenous rights. The territory also allegedly suffers from illegal mining that contaminates waterways, degrades forests, generates CO2 emissions, and aggravates the climate crisis, threatening endemic species, the Tenharim's way of life and rights. The plaintiff emphasizes that Brazil has made commitments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in its NDC, and the Paris Agreement establishes duties to conserve and strengthen carbon sinks and combat forest degradation. The association also stresses that deforestation in indigenous territories has climatic dimensions that must be taken into account in the judgment of the lawsuit and points out that the Brazilian judiciary already has guidelines for recognizing climate damage in cases of deforestation and forest fires.

Data from the CarbonCal Platform of the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) is presented to analyze the amount of carbon emitted by deforestation in the Indigenous Land and to demonstrate the need for compensation of collective and climate-related moral damages, which should include climate mitigation and adaptation measures. The association points out that global warming is particularly intense in the Amazon and more specifically in the arc of deforestation, which could lead the forest to a “point of no return.” The plaintiff also highlights the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Advisory Opinion 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on the duties of states in the context of climate change. Regarding AO-32/2025, the association highlights that the opinion defined climate damage as an autonomous form of human rights violation. 

In the context of urgent relief, the plaintiff requests a determination that (i) the defendants present an emergency plan for the removal of intruders from the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land within 45 days; (ii) the Amazonas State Environmental Protection Agency (IPAAM) report on licenses, authorizations, or administrative registrations granted in the last five years; (iii) the Federal Government adopt immediate measures for the physical protection of community leaders in the Indigenous Land. On the merits, it requests (i) the defendants be ordered to adopt structural measures for local climate governance; (ii) the annulment of all administrative requirements and titles for use, exploitation, or research issued by the State of Amazonas or federal agencies regarding the Indigenous Land; (iii) the defendants be ordered, jointly and severally, to pay compensation for environmental damage and diffuse climate damage, in an amount estimated based on emissions caused by illegal deforestation and the social cost of carbon (SCC), to be reverted to the Tenharim community; (iv) a plan for the reoccupation of the Indigenous Land be carried out with the participation of federal entities.

Later in the same month, a preliminary injunction was issued that partially granted by the Amazonas Federal Court, determining for (i) the Federal Government, FUNAI, and IBAMA to present, within 90 days, an Emergency Plan for the Removal of Intruders from the Indigenous Land and (ii) IPAAM to report, within 30 days, under penalty of a daily fine, the existence of licenses, authorizations, or administrative records granted in the last five years for economic activities, forestry, mining, agriculture, or any other information on economic activities that overlap with the territory of the Indigenous Land. The court recognized the occurrence of illegal activities in TI Tenharim Marmelos, such as forest degradation, invasions, and illegal logging, which place the territory under serious threat and are a mark of climate injustice. It also recognized that (i) the lawsuit is of a structural demand; (ii) the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change; and (iii) the role of indigenous peoples in defending the environment and addressing the climate crisis, highlighting the constitutional protection afforded to indigenous lands that imposes a duty on public authorities to take swift action. The court concluded that the evidence presented demonstrates risks of irreversible damage to the health and food security of indigenous peoples and the ecosystem, which justifies the need for urgent action. In deciding to compel the defendants to produce and make accessible data and information of relevant interest to the case, it highlighted the Escazú Agreement. The court further found the need to create an emergency plan for the removal of intruders from the indigenous territory, which should include measures for fire prevention. Association of the Tenharim Morogitá Indigenous People (Apitem) vs. Federal Government, IBAMA, FUNAI, and State of Amazonas (Structural dispute over the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)

Brazil: Court finds civil liability for climate damage based on deforestation

In September 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (Ação Civil Pública - ACP) against Jorginei Anjos Batista due to deforestation of an area of 124.47 hectares between 2015 and 2017, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleged that the defendant's occupation of the land was unlawful as it is part of an Agroextractivist Settlement Project (Projeto de Assentamento Agroextrativista - PAE), owned by the Federal Union, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. 

This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF following an investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), but involving different defendants. The claims in the action were primarily based on Brazilian Environmental Law, particularly regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, strict liability for environmental / climate-related damages, and collective moral damages. The claim also cited the unauthorized greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the illegal deforestation, calculated at 69,196.81 tons of carbon dioxide, as environmental liabilities. These emissions are directly tied to Brazil's deviation from its climate goals, conflicting with the country’s national and international commitments under the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law No. 12,187/2009) and the Paris Agreement. 

The relief sought by MPF included: (i) compensation for the damages caused by the unlawful deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation for intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation for climate-related damages; and (iv) payment of compensation for collective moral damages. 

The defendant, in April 2024, filed a defense denying the commission of any environmental wrongdoing. The defendant emphasized that the alleged deforestation occurred in 2015, at which time he no longer had possession of the area, which he had transferred to third parties in 2016 through a verbal agreement for the transfer of rights. He highlighted that the data relied upon in the action, originating from the Rural Environmental Registry (Cadastro Ambiental Rural - CAR), contain overlapping records, undermining the accuracy of the information and the proper identification of responsibilities. The defendant contested the existence of collective moral damages, intermediate and residual environmental material damages, and climate-related damages. He argued that the amounts sought as compensation are disproportionate and based on generic assumptions. Accordingly, he requested that the action be dismissed. 

A ruling that recognized the relationship between deforestation and climate change was issued, presenting extensive arguments regarding climate change and civil liability for climate damage, and acknowledging such a damage in the case. The court ordered the defendant: a) to comply with the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to comply with a negative obligation, consisting of a prohibition on the defendant's use of the area, to allow for natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the amount of which will be determined in a subsequent enforcement proceeding; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,809,496.47, using the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) as the basis for calculating the quantity of carbon emitted and, for pricing purposes, the value of US$ 5 per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to pay compensation for collective moral damages, amounting to 5% of the total material damages determined in the enforcement of the judgment. Finally, the court annulled the corresponding CAR and allocated all funds obtained to the Diffuse Rights Fund. 

The defendant filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling to dismiss the claims or to have the decision declared null and void. Federal Public Prosecutor's Office v. Jorginei Anjos Batista (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary PAE) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)

Brazil: No administrative misconduct found against former Minister of Environment of Brazil, Ricardo Salles

On July 6, 2020, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Civil Action for Administrative Improbity, with a request for precautionary removal from office, against Ricardo Salles, the Minister of Environment of Brazil at the time. The MPF claimed that the defendant violated the constitutional duty to protect the environment through actions, omissions, practices, and speeches, which allegedly promoted the dismantling of environmental policies by favoring interests that do not align with the purpose of the Ministry. 

The MPF cited a vast set of acts by the former minister to support its claims, based on four pillars: (i) normative dismantling; (ii) dismantling of transparency and participation bodies; (iii) budgetary dismantling; and (iv) oversight dismantling. (For a more detailed description of the argument, please refer to the link below.)

The judge, at first instance, ruled against the preliminary injunction request.

On February 10, 2021, the Federal Government filed its defense and denied the existence of any illicit act on the part of the former Minister. It invoked the principle of separation of powers, asserting that it is inappropriate to require a judicial decision regarding the choice of the Head of the Federal Executive Branch concerning the appointment of public positions of trust. It emphasized that there is no legal impediment to the various acts imputed to it, as they are decisions of administrative merit, within the scope of the public manager's competencies to direct public policies, carried out in accordance with the environmental agenda and in compliance with the laws and the Constitution. It argued that there is no basis for claiming an act of impropriety, stressing that the environmental damage attributed to the defendant, especially the increase in deforestation, occurs due to various factors that are distant from and unrelated to the personal acts performed by a Minister of State.

The former Minister presented his defense on October 3, 2023. He alleged the non-existence of an act of impropriety, claiming that the action was an attempt to impose on the Judiciary the power to interfere in political choices. Specifically regarding the environmental and climate issue, he stated the absence of proof or indication of alleged predatory intent, as well as any evidence of the overriding of public, diffuse, or collective interests by Ricardo Salles' private interests. The defense maintained that there was no normative disorganization, contrary to what was alleged in the initial complaint. It also argued that there was no disorganization of transparency and participation bodies, since government policies can vary without this immediately signifying administrative impropriety.

Subsidiarily, the former Minister sought immediate dismissal of the action, based on the lack of competence of the defendant to perform the acts embodied in the decrees and the absence of a causal relationship with the alleged illicit acts, affirming the manifest non-existence of an act of administrative impropriety. Should the previous arguments be overruled, alleging the inadequacy of the initial pleading due to the atypical nature of the facts presented in the accusatory pleading, as well as the absence of individualization and evidentiary basis demonstrating the occurrence of the imputed conduct, he requested that the initial pleading be rejected. On the merits, it requested that the initial claim be dismissed as unfounded and that the Public Prosecutor's Office be condemned for bad faith litigation.

On September 17, 2025, a judgment was issued rejecting the claims and dismissing the action. It concludes that the conduct attributed to the defendant was not a crime and that there were no acts of administrative misconduct, given the changes introduced by Law 14.230/2021 to Article 11 of Law 8.429/92, which eliminated the generic classification of acts that violate the principles of public administration and now requires explicit classification of the conduct, as well as the lack of adaptation of the plaintiff's claim to the new legal provisions, since it would be up to the MPF to impute to the defendant one of the conducts expressly described in the legislation. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Ricardo Salles and Federal Union (Brazil, Federal District Federal Court)

Turkey: Court holds that a license granted in accordance with legal regulations cannot be annulled on abstract grounds, despite scientific evidence of the license’s impact on climate change

Nine environmental organizations and the Adana Chamber of Physicians filed a case against the Presidency, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA), and the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change. The plaintiffs seek the closure of 37 coal-fired thermal power plants in Turkey, based on their environmental and public-health impacts.

Prior to filing the present case, sixteen environmental NGOs submitted a petition to the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, requesting the annulment of the licenses for thirty-seven active coal-fired thermal power plants in Turkey. This petition was based on scientific reports indicating that pandemics, such as the recent coronavirus pandemic, are linked to global climate change. Accordingly, the applicants alleged that coal mines and thermal power plants play a significant role in climate change and, therefore, their operations must be terminated.

The Presidency of the Republic of Turkey did not respond to this petition within sixty days, which, under the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, is deemed a tacit rejection. Consequently, the applicants filed the present case in December 2020, seeking the annulment of the tacit rejection by the Presidency.

In its defense, the Presidency argued that the authority to annul the licenses of power plants lies with the Ministry of EMRA, while EMRA defended itself by stating that the relevant authority lies with the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change. The Ministry contended that there is no scientific evidence establishing a relationship between climate change, pandemics, and coal-fired power plants.

The Court, on March 28, 2022, rejected the case on the grounds that (1) the allegations made by the claimants did not constitute a legal basis for the annulment of the power plant licenses, and (2) the claimants had not initiated any legal proceedings against the production licenses, environmental assessment reports, or documents pertaining to environmental permits and licenses. The Court further stated that a license granted in accordance with legal regulations cannot be annulled on abstract grounds, and therefore, the tacit rejection by the Presidency cannot be deemed unlawful.

The claimants subsequently brought the case before the Regional Administrative Courts for appeal. In February 2023, however, this appeal was rejected on the ground that the decision of the 11th Administrative Court of Ankara was lawful. Yeşil Artvin Derneği and others v. Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change and Energy Market Regulatory Authority(Turkey, 11th Administrative Court of Ankara)

Turkey: Administrative procedural lawsuit prompt regulatory reform on fishing licensing in lakes

A fishing cooperative on Lake Marmara and its members filed a suit against the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Manisa Directorate of Provincial Agriculture and Forestry, after they were required to pay license fees for fishing rights in a lake that had dried up. Allegedly, the lake dried up due to administrative mismanagement and flawed water policies, preventing the plaintiffs from earning a livelihood. The plaintiffs sought an annulment of the payment order for these fees, raising arguments about the environmental and climate impacts of the Administration’s actions and emphasizing the lake’s importance as a wetland and carbon sink.

In the first instance, the Manisa 1st Administrative Court granted a preliminary injunction to suspend enforcement. Later, on November 2, 2022, the court annulled the payment order. The annulment was based on procedural grounds—requiring general judicial procedures for debt collection—and did not address climate change issues. The court found the unilateral use of public authority in issuing the payment order unlawful.

On February 23, 2023, the İzmir Regional Administrative Court, Sixth Administrative Litigation Chamber, upheld the Manisa 1st Administrative Court’s decision upon appeal of the defendants. The court confirmed that the Administration’s claim is subject to general provisions and must be pursued via a collection lawsuit.

Parallel to the judgment, an amendment to the Regulation on Leasing in Aquaculture Production was published in the Official Gazette on February 11, 2023, allowing the Cooperative to retroactively terminate the lease without compensation if water reduction or drying is confirmed via technical report. A special provision was added for Marmara Lake, enabling retroactive debt relief for the Cooperative.

Although the climate change and carbon sink arguments were not legally addressed, the case achieved significant outcomes: it prompted regulatory reform, received wide media attention, and highlighted the importance of wetlands in climate change mitigation. S.S. Gölmarmara ve Çevresi Su Ürünleri Kooperatifi v. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Manisa Directorate of Provincial Agriculture and Forestry (Turkey, Administrative Court of Manisa)

Canada: Court holds that climate change is not an imminent peril that suffices necessity defense

A number of people were convicted for acting to stop construction of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in Canada. Two defendants sought leave to raise the common law defense of necessity and for permission to call experts at their trial to discuss climate change and the greenhouse gas consequences of oil sands extraction in Canada. They argued that the pipeline, which is owned by the Government of Canada, constitutes state action threatening citizens' right to a stable climate as protected by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On January 17, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the applications. The court concluded that the applicants had not shown that climate change poses an imminent threat as required for the necessity defense.

Following conviction, the activists appealed. The case reached the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (BCCA). On appeal, in a judgment dated December 1st, 2020, the BCCA rejected arguments based on necessity and constitutional rights, finding that climate change concerns, while significant, did not create a legal justification for breaching court orders. The court noted that the necessity defense requires imminent peril and proportional response, which were not established, and that the Charter claims were framed too broadly to be justiciable. The BCCA concluded that the appellants had reasonable, lawful alternatives, such as public advocacy, lawful protest outside the injunction area, civil litigation, or political and democratic processes. Because a reasonable legal alternative existed, the necessity defence was unavailable. The BCCA therefore dismissed the appeals, and affirmed the convictions.

Subsequent proceedings, reflected in a long docket history, concerned sentencing, multiple contemnor individuals, and enforcement issues. The court imposed escalating sentences over the following years, to deter further breaches, emphasizing the rule of law and the enforceability of court orders. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Mivasair (Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia)

United Kingdom: City council refuses solar farm application, because the project's renewable energy benefits did not outweigh the potential harm to the landscape, heritage assets, and the biodiversity

On  April 11, 2024,  RWE Renewables UK applied to Newport City Council (Ref: DNS/3279787) under section 62D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning (Wales) Act 2015) to erect a solar farm and battery storage units, associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and grid connection. The solar farm, to be built on a site of approx. 240ha, would constitute a Development of National Significance  and generate capacity of up to 99.9 MW – enough to power around 45,374 typical Welsh homes and save around 3m tonnes of CO2 over the 40-year life of the development, compared with generation from fossil fuels. Part of the planned development area comprised a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) noted for its range of aquatic plants and invertebrates as well as providing breeding grounds for birds including Lapwing. The application also included proposals for ecological enhancements including bee hotels, reptile hibernacula, birdboxes and native species hedgerow / tree planting. On  October 21, 2025, planning permission was refused. The Inspector charged with evaluating the application considered: “(a) the effect on ecology; (b) the effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area; (c) the effect on the setting of historic assets in the locality; and (d) whether any harm identified in relation to the foregoing considerations is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, particularly its contribution to renewable energy generation and combating the effects of climate change.” The Inspector noted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (which refers to Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016) advises that “planning authorities must seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity” including “not causing significant loss of habitats or populations of species and must provide a net biodiversity benefit and enable the improvement of the resilience of ecosystems by following the DECCA Framework ie taking into account the diversity, extent, condition, connections and adaptability of ecosystems.” PPW provides a “step-wise approach” to fulfilling this duty, adopting “a hierarchy which is to avoid, then minimise, mitigate/restore, compensate on site, compensate off-site and finally to refuse permission.” The Inspector found that “Development in a SSSI which is not necessary for the management of the site must be avoided”; and that the enhancement “does not offset or override the harm to a designated site or protected species that I cannot rule out on the basis of the evidence before me.” Accordingly, having balanced the benefits of the scheme, including the support to renewable energy which the solar farm could provide, against the harm “to landscape character and visual amenity, heritage assets and ecology / biodiversity”, the Inspector recommended that the planning application be refused. Refused application for Craig Y Perthi Solar Farm (United Kingdom, Newport City Council)