Climate Litigation Updates (May 2, 2025)

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

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #195:

FEATURED CASE

Eighth Circuit Granted Request to Hold Challenges to SEC Climate Disclosure Rule in Abeyance

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted intervenor blue states’ motion to hold in abeyance the cases challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) final climate disclosure rule. The SEC notified the court in March that it wished to withdraw from defense of the rule, and the blue states argued in their motion that this “apparent change in position” on the rule provided good cause for an abeyance in order to “maintain the status quo and preserve judicial resources” while the SEC determined whether it would amend or rescind the rule. The petitioners—which included red states and energy companies and trade groups—had opposed the abeyance motion, arguing that the court should either hold oral argument or submit the case without argument and issue a decision holding the rule unlawful on the merits and vacating it. The petitioners described the rule as “hang[ing] like the Sword of Damocles over public companies around the country.” In the order granting the abeyance motion, the Eighth Circuit directed the SEC to file a status report within 90 days advising whether the SEC intends to review or reconsider the rule. The court specified that if the SEC determines “to take no action, then the status report should address whether the Commission will adhere to  the rules if the petitions for review are denied and, if not, why the Commission will not review or  reconsider the rules at this time.” Iowa v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 24-1522 (8th Cir. Apr. 24, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

D.C. Circuit Rejected Challenges to Authorization of LNG Exports from Alaska Facility

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) approval of an application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Alaska LNG Project. The court noted that it had previously held that the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the Project complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). With respect to the only environmental impact not considered in the FERC EIS—downstream emissions—the D.C. Circuit concluded that other precedent and principles of judicial review foreclosed the petitioners’ contention that DOE’s supplemental EIS and final order approving the export application “inflated the uncertainty regarding the Project’s contribution to climate-changing [greenhouse gases] and claimed that uncertainty prevented it from drawing conclusions about the Project’s harms.” The court found that “overwhelming evidence” supported DOE’s finding that impacts of downstream emissions in foreign countries were not reasonably foreseeable. The court found that the failure to quantify such impacts therefore did not violate NEPA, and that the alleged failure to weigh such impacts in the public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act did not overcome the Natural Gas Act’s “presumption … in favor of granting export authorization.” The court also ruled that the petitioners were precluded from raising arguments about the Project’s upstream effects that they made or could have made in their challenges to the FERC EIS. Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, Nos. 20-1503, 23-1214 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025)

District Court Enjoined Termination of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants and Ordered Disbursement of Funds; D.C. Circuit Set Expedited Briefing Schedule on Appeals

On April 15, 2025, a federal district court in the District of Columbia granted a motion for a preliminary injunction barring the termination of grants awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund programs. The court also enjoined EPA, Citibank, and other parties from taking actions to restrict the plaintiff grantees’ access to the funds and directed Citibank to disburse properly incurred funds. On April 16, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals administratively stayed the preliminary injunction insofar as it required Citibank to disburse funds and the defendants to file a status report with 24 hours. The D.C. Circuit’s order also directed that no party could “take any action, directly or indirectly, with regard to the disputed contracts, grants, awards or funds.” The D.C. Circuit stated that the administrative stay “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of the federal governments’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The briefing of the emergency motion was completed on April 23. On April 28, the D.C. Circuit ordered that consideration of the stay motion be consolidated with consideration of the merits of the federal government’s and Citibank’s appeals of the preliminary injunction. The court set an expedited schedule for consideration of the appeals. Briefing is to be completed on May 15, and the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on May 19.

In the April 16 memorandum opinion supporting the preliminary injunction order, the district court first concluded that the plaintiffs—both grantees and their subgrantees—had demonstrated standing. The district court also again concluded that it—and not the Court of Federal Claims—had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court distinguished the case from Department of Education v. California, in which the Supreme Court on April 4 stayed a district court’s temporary restraining order blocking the termination of education-related grants and requiring the payment of grant obligations. The court noted that although the Supreme Court had stated that “the [Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA’s)] waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to claims seeking money damages or to orders ‘to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money,’” the Court had further stated that “a district court’s jurisdiction ‘is not barred by the possibility’ that an order setting aside an agency’s action may result in the disbursement of funds.” The district court went on to characterize the relief sought by the plaintiffs in these cases as “equitable relief” that included “reinstatement of their grants and the recovery of specific money.” The court also rejected the contention that the plaintiffs were improperly challenging funding decisions that were committed to agency discretion by law and not subject to review under the APA. The court further found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to explain its reasoning and acting contrary to its regulations when it suspended and terminated the plaintiffs’ grants. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims because EPA lacked the authority “to effectively unilaterally dismantle a program that Congress established.” The court also found that the plaintiffs made a sufficient showing of imminent and irreparable harm without release of the grant funds and that the balance of the equities and public interest favored an injunction. The court did not impose a bond on the plaintiffs. Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:25-cv-00698 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2025), No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir.)

South Carolina Federal Court Determined It Had Jurisdiction over Challenges to Trump Administration’s Freezing of Grant Funds

In an April 29, 2025 order, the federal district court for the District of South Carolina concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit challenging the freezing of funds for 38 grants under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The court found that the “essence” of the plaintiffs’ claims was not contractual in nature and that the claims therefore fell “plainly within the jurisdiction” of the district court under the Administrative Procedure Act, and not in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. The court also rejected the federal defendants’ contentions that Congress intended to commit the IRA and IIJA funding to the agencies’ discretion and that there was therefore no subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court’s order also directed the defendants to supplement the record with six categories of documents to allow for “greater specification of the reasons for the proposed termination of certain grants and a better understanding of the present status of several other grants.” Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-02152 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2025)

Trial Court Allowed District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Claims to Proceed Against Fossil Fuel Companies

The District of Columbia Superior Court allowed the District of Columbia to proceed with claims against fossil fuel companies under D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). The court issued four separate orders, one for each set of affiliated companies, with each order addressing the particular arguments made by a set of defendants.

• In its order on BP p.l.c. and BP American Inc.’s (BP defendants’) motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the District plausibly alleged that the defendant companies could be held liable for “climate-denialism” statements made by trade associations. Although the court found that the District stated greenwashing claims against the BP defendants, it said it would “not now decide whether the individual statements sufficiently relate to goods or services such that the CPPA applies.” The court disagreed with the BP defendants’ argument that because there was “common knowledge” of climate change’s risks, the alleged greenwashing statements could not mislead a reasonable consumer. The court did find, however, that the District did not state a facially plausible misrepresentation claim regarding the Invigorate fuel additive, though it rejected the BP defendants’ argument that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that its statements about natural gas were misleading. The court also found that the BP defendants’ omissions were actionable under the CPPA and found that the claims were not “in and of themselves First Amendment violations worthy of dismissal.” Because the court agreed with the District that it was not seeking relief for the physical effects of climate change, the court declined to consider the BP defendants’ arguments that D.C. law was preempted by the Clean Air Act or otherwise could not constitutionally apply.
• In its order on Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A.’s motion to dismiss, the court found that the District plausibly alleged that the defendants were liable for allegedly misleading statements made by third-party trade associations. The court also rejected the argument that the District’s claims necessarily violated the defendants’ First Amendment rights. In addition, the court found that the District plausibly alleged greenwashing claims under the CPPA, finding that the allegedly misleading statements were sufficiently connected to goods and services, that the District plausibly alleged that the statements were not “non-actionable opinions or puffery,” and that the allegedly misleading statements need not actually be false. The court declined to make a determination on the materiality of the statements. The court also found that the District’s allegations regarding the gasoline additive Techron were sufficient to state a CPPA violation.
• In its order on Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation’s (Exxon defendants’) motion to dismiss, the court first concluded it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The court rejected the Exxon defendants’ contention that it should consider each allegedly misleading statement separately. Because the District alleged “a singular decades-long story of deceit,” the court said it would “take a mosaic approach and consider the alleged misrepresentations in the aggregate, rather than separately.” The court found that the District plausibly stated a claim for relief under the CPPA and rejected the arguments that the First Amendment or the dormant Commerce Clause barred the District’s claims.
• In its order on Shell plc and Shell USA, Inc.’s (Shell defendants’) motion to dismiss, the court found that the District plausibly alleged, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that the court’s statements were sufficiently related to goods and services to state a claim under the CPPA. The court also found that the District plausibly alleged that the Shell defendants made a false or misleading statement and that the District plausible alleged materiality. The court also found that the First Amendment did not provide a basis for dismissal at this stage. Because the District did not seek relief “for the physical impacts of climate change,” the court declined to address the Shell defendants’ argument that such claims would be preempted. District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 22-7163 (D.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2025)

Rhode Island Court Denied Chevron’s Motion to Strike State’s Jurisdictional Allegations from Climate Change Complaint

A Rhode Island Superior Court denied a motion by Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (together, Chevron) to strike certain jurisdictional allegations from the State of Rhode Island’s complaint in its lawsuit to hold Chevron and other fossil fuel defendants liable for their contributions to climate change harms to the State. Chevron characterized as “baseless” the State’s allegations that Chevron “extracted,” “refined,” “and/or” “manufactured” a “substantial portion of” Chevron’s fossil fuel products in Rhode Island and that Rhode Island “consume[s]” a “substantial portion” of Chevron’s products. The court found that the State “had a good faith basis” for the allegations. The court also rejected Chevron’s contentions that the use of “and/or” in the allegations was improper and that the allegations constituted improper shotgun or group pleading. The court also denied both Chevron’s and the State’s requests that it impose sanctions. State of Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., No. PC-2018-4716 (R.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 22, 2025)

Rail Industry Challenge to California In-Use Locomotive Air Rule Held in Abeyance After CARB Agreed to Propose Repeal 

On April 17, 2025, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California approved a request by the parties to a lawsuit challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) In-Use Locomotive Regulation to hold the case in abeyance. Prior to Inauguration Day, CARB withdrew its request to EPA for a Clean Air Act preemption waiver for the Regulation. The parties to the case challenging the Regulation subsequently agreed that CARB would propose to repeal the Regulation in full and that the railroad industry groups challenging the rule would voluntarily dismiss their complaint if the appeal was approved by May 30, 2026. The industry groups, environmental groups that intervened to defend the rule, and CARB also agreed “to hold a series of working groups to discuss potential ways to reduce emissions from rail activities, on a voluntary basis, in the State of California.” Association of American Railroads v. Randolph, No. 2:23-cv-001154 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025)

Fish and Wildlife Service Agreed to Review Status of Climate Change-Threatened Fish and Turtle by October 2028

The federal district court for the District of Arizona granted a joint motion to enter a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit that sought to compel issuance of 12-month findings in response to petitions to list the southern bog turtle distinct population segment (DPS) and the roughhead shiner under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to review the status of the roughhead shiner (a small minnow that lives only in a single watershed in Virginia) and submit a 12-month finding on whether listing of the species was warranted by October 18, 2028 and to review the status of the southern bog turtle DPS and submit a 12-month finding by October 25, 2028. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:24-cv-00564 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2025)

Federal Court Agreed to Dismissal of Case to Allow Federal Defendants to Conduct New Review for Climate “Refugia” in Glacier National Park

The federal district court for the District of Montana granted a motion by the National Park Service (NPS) and other federal defendants for voluntary remand without vacatur of NPS’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Westslope Cutthroat and Bull Trout Preservation in Gunsight Lake Project in Glacier National Park. The plaintiffs alleged that the project was intended to create a “refugia” to protect bull trout from the threats of hybridization and climate change but that the federal defendants had violated NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act when they approved the project. The court found that voluntary remand without vacatur was appropriate because the federal defendants “demonstrated substantial and legitimate concerns” regarding the underlying environmental analysis, had voluntarily ceased all activities pending the conclusion of new analyses, and had determined withdrawal of the FONSI was necessary. Friends of the Wild Swan v. Hammond, No. 9:24-cv-00128 (D. Mont. Apr. 9, 2025)

Puerto Rico Federal Court Found that San Juan’s Counsel in Climate Case Committed Plagiarism and Other Misconduct

In the Municipality of San Juan’s climate change lawsuit against oil industry defendants, the federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico found that San Juan’s counsel committed attorney misconduct by failing to respond to defense counsel’s communications regarding a briefing schedule and by failing to timely oppose motions or to request an extension of time, and also by plagiarizing from the complaint, briefs, and other filings made by different and unrelated counsel in a lawsuit filed by other Puerto Rican municipalities. The court found that the attorney “lifted not only the entire theory of San Juan’s case from the Municipalities’ Case but went so far to use virtually the very same words and ideas, usurping the thought processes and legal theories a client hires an attorney to develop and perform.” The court found that the plagiarism violated both the attorney’s duty of competence to his client and also his duty of candor to the court. The court ordered the attorney to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $7,000 for untimely filings and lack of diligence in the management of case deadlines. The court said it would issue a separate order to address the plagiarism issue because a monetary sanction “would be insufficient to address the seriousness of the circumstances.” Municipality of San Juan v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:23-cv-01608 (D.P.R. Apr. 9, 2025)

Magistrate Recommended Dismissal (Again) of Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge to Portland Fossil Fuel Terminal Restrictions

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Oregon recommended that the district court dismiss an amended complaint in a lawsuit challenging the City of Portland’s restrictions on the construction of new or expanded bulk fossil fuel terminals. The plaintiffs—the State of Montana, trade groups, and a distributor of fuels, lubricant, and propane—filed the amended complaint after the district court dismissed their claims in July 2024. The plaintiffs conceded dismissal of their Foreign Commerce Clause, due process, and preemption claims, and the magistrate concluded that the plaintiffs again failed to state a dormant Commerce Clause claim because their allegations did not show that the city law’s restrictions discriminated against or imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce. Montana v. City of Portland, No. 3:23-cv-00219 (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2025)

New Jersey Court Upheld Authorization for Natural Gas Pressure Reduction Facility

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the Board of Public Utilities’ (BPU’s) 2022 decision granting the New Jersey Natural Gas Company’s (NJNG’s) petition to construct an aboveground natural gas pressure reduction facility and associated heating equipment. The court found that sufficient evidence in the record supported the decision and declined to substitute its judgment for the BPU’s on the “critical question of whether the Project is reasonably necessary for the service, convenience or welfare of the public.” Among the arguments rejected by the court was Holmdel Township’s contention that the BPU erred by not applying state climate laws—the Clean Energy Act, the Global Warming Response Act, the 2019 New Jersey Energy Master Plan: Pathway to 2025, and “New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act: 80x50 Report: Evaluating Our Progress and Identifying Pathways to Reduce Emissions by 80% by 2050.” The court found that the BPU did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in finding that the project was “reasonably necessary” as an interim reliability measure. The court said the finding was consistent both with the statutory requirement to provide safe, adequate, and proper service to customers and with the Energy Master Plan’s policy goal for gas utilities to provide reliable, resilient, and affordable service. The court noted that under a “Time of Application” rule, the project’s environmental impact was to be measured by standards and requirements in place at the time NJNG filed its petition, not by “emission goals that are to be achieved in the future.” Matter of Petition of New Jersey Natural Gas Co. for a Determination Concerning the Holmdel Regulator Station Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19-2017 Petition, No. A-1582-22 (N.J. App. Div. Apr. 17, 2025)

Vermont Court Denied Interlocutory Appeal Request for Denial of Motion to Dismiss State’s Consumer Protection Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies

The Vermont Superior Court hearing the State’s case against fossil fuel companies under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) denied the defendants’ motions for interlocutory review of the court’s denial of their motions to dismiss. The court rejected the defendants’ contentions that the court’s ruling turned on controlling questions of law, finding that issues identified by the defendants—whether the companies’ statements were within the scope of the VCPA, whether statements constituted commercial speech under the First Amendment, when VCPA claims accrue, the application of the VCPA to wholesale suppliers, and personal jurisdiction—instead involved questions of fact. The court also found that the prong of the interlocutory appeal analysis requiring that an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of litigation was not satisfied. State of Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 21-CV-02778 (Vt. Super. Ct. Mar. 26, 2025)

Oregon Court Upheld Denial of Application for Water Use Based on Groundwater Level Declines

An Oregon Circuit Court affirmed the Oregon Water Resources Department’s (OWRD’s) 2021 denial of a limited license application for use of groundwater for road construction or maintenance, general construction, and quasi-municipal use. OWRD stipulated that the application was the first in the Deschutes Basin for which OWRD determined “based on current declining groundwater levels, that ‘groundwater for the proposed use will not likely be available within the capacity of the groundwater resource; therefore, water is not available for the proposed use.’” The court’s decision noted an OWRD-U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study that identified “climate influences (i.e., changes in precipitation and recharge)” as a primary cause of groundwater level declines in the Basin, with the USGS attributing 60–70% of groundwater decline to climate. The court found that substantial evidence in the record supported OWRD’s determination that “groundwater declines have changed over time, and that the declines have gotten worse.” The court was not persuaded that denial of the application was inconsistent with any previously approved application but also found that even if the denial were inconsistent, any inconsistency was justified. Pinnacle Utilities, LLC v. Oregon Water Resources Department, No. 22CV08683 (Or. Cir. Ct. Mar. 31, 2025)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

Trump Administration Sued Michigan and Hawaii to Block Anticipated Climate Suits Against Fossil Fuel Companies

On April 30, 2025, the Trump administration filed lawsuits against the States of Hawaii and Michigan seeking to block them from pursuing climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. The complaints cited news articles reporting on Michigan’s and Hawaii’s intentions to file such lawsuits. The complaints alleged that the United States was bringing the lawsuits “to vindicate its sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests.” The alleged sovereign interests included ensuring that states do not interfere with federal law such as the Clean Air Act or the federal government’s “exclusive authority over interstate and foreign commerce”; the alleged proprietary interests included the U.S.’s economic interests in revenue from fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and in costs for purchasing fossil fuels; and its parens patriae interests related to protecting “the economic well-being of its citizens and the national energy market” from the “nationwide economic and constitutional injuries” allegedly caused by the lawsuits. The United States asserted that the lawsuits the states intend to file are preempted by the Clean Air Act “because they impermissibly regulate out-of-state greenhouse gas emissions and obstruct the Clean Air Act’s comprehensive federal-state framework and EPA’s regulatory discretion.” The U.S. also claimed that state climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies were preempted under the Foreign Affairs Doctrine. In addition, the U.S. asserted that the anticipated state lawsuits constitute unconstitutional extraterritorial regulation, in violation of due process and concepts of state sovereignty and federalism. The complaints also asserted violations of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Clauses. The United States requested that the courts declare the States’ claims unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the States “from taking actions to assert … state law claims.” United States v. Hawaii, No. 1:25-cv-00179 (D. Haw., filed Apr. 30, 2025); United States v. Michigan, No. 1:25-cv-00496 (W.D. Mich., filed Apr. 30, 2025)

Hawai‘i Filed State Court Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Defendants One Day After U.S. Sued to Block Lawsuit

The day after the Trump administration filed its lawsuit seeking to block the State of Hawai‘i from filing a climate change case against fossil fuel companies, the State of Hawai‘i filed a lawsuit against oil and gas companies and American Petroleum Institute (API) in Hawai‘i Circuit Court alleging that Hawai‘i had suffered climate change harms as a result of the defendants’ “decades-long campaign of deception” regarding the climate impacts of fossil fuel products. The State alleged that the defendants had known for more than 60 years that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel products would have significant adverse impacts on climate and sea levels and had taken steps to protect their own assets from such impacts, but that the defendants publicly concealed and misrepresented the dangers of fossil fuels and climate change and promoted increasing use of fossil fuels. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ actions “contributed substantially to consumer demand for fossil fuels and the consequent building of [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere that drives climate change change and its physical, environmental, and socioeconomic consequences.” The State alleged that it had spent and would continue to spend “substantial sums” to “fortify infrastructure against sea level rise, extreme precipitation, extreme storms, and coastal and inland flooding” and “to protect its people and infrastructure from increased temperatures, increased fire risk, vector-born illnesses, lost jobs and economic activity, and other climate change hazards.” The State asserted causes of action for negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and civil conspiracy to commit those torts. The complaint also asserted violations of the Hawaiʻi Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) Statute and claimed that the defendants harmed and conspired to harm the State’s public trust resources protected under the Hawai‘i Constitution. In addition, the State asserted claims of strict liability for failure to warn (against the defendant companies) and of civil aiding and abetting the companies’ tortious actions (against API). The State sought compensatory, punitive, and natural resource damages, as well as any other damages permitted by law. Other relief sought by the State included disgorgement of profits; equitable relief, for example by means of a fund to pay for adaptation, mitigation, and resilience measures; civil penalties, damages, treble damages, and injunctive relief under the UDAP Statute; and attorney fees. State v. BP p.l.c., No. 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct., filed May 1, 2025)

Trump Administration Lawsuits Charged that New York and Vermont Climate Superfund Laws Are Unconstitutional

On May 1, 2025, the Trump administration filed lawsuits against the States of New York and Vermont asserting that their climate Superfund laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable. The complaints alleged that the laws, which the States enacted in 2024, are “transparent monetary-extraction scheme[s]” to force out-of-state fossil fuel companies to fund climate change adaptation projects within the states. The complaints alleged that the laws attempt “to usurp the power of the federal government by regulating national and global emissions of greenhouse gases, violating federal law in multiple ways.” The United States alleged that the climate Superfund laws are preempted by the Clean Air Act and foreign affairs doctrine, that they violate the limits on extraterritorial legislation imposed by the Constitution’s structure and due process principles, and that the laws violate the Foreign and Interstate Commerce Clauses. The United States asked the courts to declare the laws unconstitutional and unenforceable and to enjoin the State defendants from taking actions to implement or enforce the laws. There are already pending cases challenging the laws. New York’s law also has been challenged by a coalition of states, oil and gas trade groups, and a mining company and by four trade associations and business groups. A challenge to the Vermont law by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the American Petroleum Institute is also pending. United States v. New York, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 1, 2025); United States v. Vermont, No. 2:25-cv-00463 (D. Vt., filed May 1, 2025)

Justices Heard Arguments on Standing to Challenge Preemption Waiver for California Vehicle Emission Standards

On April 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on the issue of whether fuel producers had standing to challenge EPA’s granting of a Clean Air Act preemption waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Car Program regulations. The transcript of the oral argument is available here. Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, No. 24-7 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2025)

D.C. Circuit Granted Abeyance in Challenges to EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation for Power Plants

On April 25, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s motion asking the court to continue holding in abeyance the challenges to the final rule establishing new greenhouse gas emissions standards and guidelines for new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. The final rule also revoked the first Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule. EPA said it had decided to initiate a new rulemaking process to reassess the rule and that it intended to issue a proposed reconsideration rule in spring 2025 and a final rule by December 2025. West Virginia v. EPA, No. 24-1120 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 25, 2025)

Fifth Circuit Granted 30-Day Abeyance Period in Appeal of Decision Upholding ERISA ESG Rule

On April 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to hold in abeyance an appeal from a district court’s February 2025 decision upholding a 2022 final rule that allows Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) fiduciaries to consider “collateral benefits” such as environment, social, and governance (ESG) factors “when deciding between competing investment options that each equally served the beneficiaries’ financial interests.” The Department of Labor informed the court that it had determined “that it intends to reconsider the challenged rule, including by considering whether to rescind the rule.” The appellants challenging the rule opposed the abeyance motion. On April 28, the Fifth Circuit granted the motion “but for 30 days only” and stated that it would “not permit an open-ended abeyance.” The Fifth Circuit directed the Department of Labor to inform the court within 30 days about what “specific actions the Department will take, if any, as a result of its reconsideration of the challenged rule—either to maintain the rule or to rescind it.” Utah v. Chavez-DeRemer, No. 23-11097 (5th Cir.)

Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Grantee Challenged EPA’s Termination of Grant

A recipient of grant funds under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) fund under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging EPA’s purported termination of its grant. The plaintiff is a nonprofit organization that describes itself as “a leading national network of more than 470 Community Development Financial Institutions and mission-driven community lenders nationwide.” The plaintiff alleged that it seeks to use the CCIA award of $2.29 billion to finance projects in housing, transportation, energy infrastructure, and other initiatives across the U.S. The plaintiff asserted that EPA and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Appropriations Clause, separation of powers, and the due process clause. Against Citibank, N.A., which held the grant funds, the complaint asserted breach of contract, replevin, and conversion claims. Opportunity Finance Network v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:25-cv-01208 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 21, 2025)

Lawsuit Said Fish and Wildlife Service Failed to Consider Climate Change as Primary Stressor in Determining that Listing Riverine Mussel as Endangered or Threatened Was Not Warranted

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia challenging a 2019 determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) denying the brook floater mussel protection under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. The complaint alleged that the brook floater mussel is a small riverine species of mussel native to the Atlantic slope that is threatened by habitat fragmentation and destruction, changes in water flows, climate change, dams, invasive species and other threats associated with human activity. The complaint said rising water temperatures caused by climate change negatively impact several of the mussel’s lifecycle stages and that increasingly frequent and severe hydrological events destroy its habitat. CBD alleged that FWS “ignored climate change as a primary stressor affecting the species’ viability as part of reaching its ‘not warranted’ finding.” CBD asked the court to vacate and remand the finding that listing was not warranted and to order FWS to issue a new listing determination by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-01168 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 17, 2025)

FOIA Lawsuit Sought Information on Agency Action Plans for Implementing “Unleashing American Energy” Order

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia seeking to compel four agencies (Department of Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, and EPA) to disclose records—excluding emails—that document the agencies’ implementation of President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, which directed the heads of federal agencies to “develop and begin implementing action plans to suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions identified as unduly burdensome” to the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources. CBD alleged that the records sought “are important for the public to understand how Defendants’ deregulatory activities threaten the numerous environmental protections embodied in regulations, orders, and guidance documents, and other agency actions relating to energy development.” CBD also alleged that the information was important to CBD’s setting of priorities and to its efforts to keep its members, the public, and policymakers informed about “mounting threats to clean air and water, wildlife and nature protections, public lands, climate, and vulnerable communities and potential avenues for response.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Interior, No. 1:25-cv-01131 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 16, 2025)

FOIA Lawsuit Sought Records About EPA’s Endangerment Finding Recommendations

Center for Biological Diversity also filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against EPA seeking to compel disclosure of records, excluding emails, documenting EPA’s recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget Director regarding the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The “Unleashing American Energy” executive order directed the EPA Administrator to submit joint recommendations with the heads of other relevant agencies “on the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding. CBD alleged that it was harmed by EPA’s failures to promptly comply with FOIA because “such violations preclude the Center from gaining a full understanding of EPA’s reasoning for seeking to reverse its finding that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 4:25-cv-00173 (D. Ariz., filed Apr. 14, 2025) 

Organizations Asked Court to Order Restoration of Federal Websites with Environmental Justice and Climate Change Information

Sierra Club and three other organizations filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia challenging five federal agencies’ removal of publicly accessible webpages that provided information about environmental justice and climate change. The websites that are the subject of the suit are EPA’s EJScreen; the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool; the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool; DOE’s Community Benefits Plan Map; the Department of Transportation’s Equitable Transportation Community Explorer; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Future Risk Index. The plaintiffs alleged harms from the webpages’ removal, including impacts on their ability to disseminate accurate information and their ability to participate in regulatory processes. The plaintiffs asserted that removal of the webpages violated the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. They asked the court to order the agencies to restore the webpages. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-01112 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 14, 2025) 

Maryland Department of the Environment Asked Court to Dismiss Preemption Challenge to Building Performance Standards

The Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Maryland Building Energy Performance Standards as preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The Secretary argued that EPCA’s statutory language did not support preemption. The Secretary also argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that EPCA preempted the City of Berkeley’s prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings was wrongly decided and that, in any event, it did not apply to the Maryland standards because the standards were not a building code for new construction and also not a prohibition on the use of gas-powered appliances. Maryland Building Industry Association v. McIlwain, No. 8:25-cv-00113 (D. Md. Apr. 1, 2025)

Appeals Filed After Courts Dismissed Youth Plaintiffs’ Cases Challenging Alaska LNG Project and EPA Discounting Policies 

Youth plaintiffs appealed decisions dismissing two lawsuits challenging government actions or inaction allowing climate pollution to accumulate in the atmosphere as violative of constitutional rights:

• In Alaska, the youth plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Alaska State Constitution challenge to the Alaska LNG Project and asked the Alaska Supreme Court to stop to the transfer of the project to a private developer pending the court’s consideration of their appeal. Sagoonick v. State of Alaska, No. S19417 (Alaska Apr. 2, 2025)
• In the federal district court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit after the district court ruled that they did not have standing for their claims that EPA’s use of federal discounting policies discriminated against children by putting a “thumb on the scale against urgent and ambitious regulatory programs to reduce climate pollution, and in favor of taking less ambitious actions in the present.” Genesis B. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 2:23-cv-10345 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Mexico: Court ordered the government to issue a new program relating to ambient air quality, according to the Paris Agreement targets 

In 2019, Greenpeace Mexico filed an Amparo lawsuit against the Program for Attention to Atmospheric Environmental Contingencies in the Metropolitan Zone of the Toluca Valley and the Metropolitan Zone of Santiago Tianguistenco (“Program”), issued by the Secretary of the Environment of the Government of the State of Mexico, arguing that it violates the human right to a healthy environment by failing to comply with Mexican Official Standards NOM-020-SSA1-2014 “Environmental Health. Permissible limit value for the concentration of ozone (O3) in ambient air and criteria for its evaluation”, and NOM-025-SSA1-2014 ”Environmental health. Permissible limit values for the concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 particles in ambient air and criteria for its evaluation”, and with the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) since it establishes more lenient values of ozone and PM10 and PM2.5, to declare the preventive phase and the environmental contingency phase due to pollution in the area.

The District Court granted the requested order, calling on the Secretary to issue an opinion comparing the values contained in the Program with those in NOM-020-SSA1-2014 and NOM-025-SSA1-2014, as well as the WHO guidelines. The purpose of this opinion would be “to establish whether or not such values comply with the parameters to decide whether the air quality is good or bad, as well as to establish preventive measures to control and reduce pollutants”. Furthermore, the Court determined that in the event that the Program did not comply with the referred standards, the Secretary should “send the opinion to the competent authority so that the adequacy of the claimed agreement to preserve the environment may be assessed.”

The plaintiff appealed the judgment, and the Appellate Collegiate Court modified the District Court’s judgment, ordering the Secretary to issue a new Program, or modify the values established in the Program, complying with the NOM-020-SSA1-2014 and NOM-025-SSA1-2014 standards and in compliance with the Paris Agreement targets. Greenpeace Mexico v. Secretary of the Environment of the Government of the State of Mexico (Mexico, District Court)

DECISIONS & SETTLEMENTS

Sweden: Swedish Supreme Court rejects plaintiffs asking certain GHG emission-reduction measures from the government for failure to satisfying the required victim status test and due to separation of powers concerns

On November 25, 2022, a group of over 600 young people born between 1996 and 2015 filed a class action lawsuit against the Swedish state, arguing that Sweden’s action on mitigating climate change is inadequate and thus in violation of their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The complaint was lodged after two letters were sent to the Swedish state, one in May 2022 (to which the sitting Minister for Climate and Environment replied) and one in November 2022 following a change in government in October 2022 (to which there was no reply), where the plaintiffs outlined their requests. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the risk of the negative impacts of climate change constitutes interferences with their rights to life, private and family life, and non-discrimination under articles 2, 8, and 14 of the ECHR, respectively, as well as the right to property under article 1, protocol 1 of the ECHR. These interferences are argued to constitute rights violations since Sweden is failing to do its fair share to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration in the atmosphere to keep warming below 1.5°C as compared to pre-industrial levels, by not undertaking immediate and adequate procedural and substantive measures to continuously reduce GHG emissions and enhance GHG sinks, thus failing to adequately protect the plaintiffs from adverse impacts of anthropogenic climate change. In particular, the plaintiffs argue that climate change impacts in the period leading up to 2100 will be serious, especially in relation to impacts on human health, and that plaintiffs are expected to be particularly affected by these impacts because they expect to be alive at that time, based on the average life span in Sweden. In terms of specific impacts, the plaintiffs cite longer and more intense heatwaves causing both mild and severe health effects, shorter and more temperate winters leading to the increased spread of diseases through ticks, and changes to precipitation patterns leading to health impacts stemming from flooding, among others.

The plaintiffs question both procedural and substantive aspects of Sweden’s mitigation policy. With respect to the former, the plaintiffs argue that the state has failed to adopt sufficient and adequate procedural measures by not investigating, in line with the best available science: (i) the extent of Sweden’s fair share to reduce emissions continuously, (ii) how the fair share is to be achieved in a manner that is economically and technically feasible, and (iii) how Sweden can contribute to reduce consumption-based GHG emissions abroad, GHG emissions caused by Swedish legal persons abroad, and GHG emissions from LULUCF, as well as protecting and restoring natural carbon sinks like forests, wetlands, and oceans. The emissions in question for points (i) and (ii) are those from industrial processes, product use, fossil fuel-based energy, agriculture, and waste (IPEJA emissions).

As regards their substantive claims, the plaintiffs argue that the state has failed to take sufficient and adequate measures to: (i) continuously implement Sweden’s fair share, based on the investigations mentioned above, (ii) reduce IPEJA emissions between 2019 and 2030 by at least 9.4 or 6.5 million tons CO2-eq annually, primarily national emissions insofar as possible, and to ensure safe atmospheric GHG concentrations after 2030 under any circumstances, (iii) reduce national IPEJA emissions between 2019 and 2030 by at least 3.1 or 2.2 million tons CO2-eq annually and to ensure safe atmospheric GHG concentrations after 2030 under any circumstances, (iv) secure that GHG emissions reductions within one category is not achieved through increasing emissions in another category under any circumstances, and (v) continuously compensate annual emissions that exceed the permissible emissions, by reducing the net emissions by an equivalent amount in the following period under any circumstances, starting in 2019.

Ultimately, based on these arguments, the plaintiffs ask the court to order the state to implement its fair share of GHG emissions reductions to keep global warming below 1.5°C, by adopting sufficient and adequate procedural and substantive measures to ensure that emissions are continuously reduced and that GHG are absorbed through natural carbon sinks, in order to limit the risk of negative impacts of climate change on them. The procedural and substantive measures requested mirror the complaints listed above.

On February 19, 2025, the Swedish Supreme Court rejected Aurora. The Court found that the applicants had not satisfied the victim status test required by the ECtHR in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v Switzerland. In addition, it considered that the nature of the application was incompatible with the role of courts in light of the separation of powers specified by the Swedish constitution (‘Regeringsformen’). It held that the only type of claim that could be heard by the Swedish courts was one establishing a violation of article 8, provided that it did not explicitly or implicitly call for legislative change. One of the judges, Justice Dag Mattsson, dissented, arguing that even engagement with that type of claim falls beyond the judicial mandate as set by the Swedish constitution.

On April 14, 2025, a request was submitted to transfer the claim from the individual applicants to the association Aurora, in the hopes of having the case heard on its merits. In a related press release, Aurora stated that it would file a new claim if the Nacka District Court denies the transfer. Anton Foley and others v Sweden (Aurora Case) (Sweden, Supreme Court)

Costa Rica: Supreme Court orders Ministry of Environment and Energy to share crucial information on the implementation of the country’s NDC

On September 21, 2023, the Strategic Committee for Youth Participation and Advocacy submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) regarding Costa Rica’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). After almost three months without a response from MINAE, the young people filed an amparo before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica.

The plaintiff’s main arguments are that the State violated the right of access to public information on environmental matters by reserving information related to the baseline of the NDC and the lack of transparency regarding eight thematic areas: mobility and transportation, development and land use planning, energy, forests, and terrestrial biodiversity, oceans and water resources, action for climate empowerment, finance and policies, and climate change strategies.

On January 26, 2025, the plaintiffs won, and the Court ordered the Ministry of Environment and Energy to prepare a document with the requested information. However, the plaintiffs considered the document incomplete and lacking transparency. They were dissatisfied with the information provided because it omitted crucial issues that had been previously raised. After a detailed analysis of official documents, the plaintiffs estimated that the implementation of the NDCs is only 2%, failing to observe the Right to Environmental Information established in the Escazu Agreement.

The Strategic Committee for Youth Participation and Advocacy is currently evaluating the possibility of continuing with the litigation to make this context more visible, since according to the Biennial Transparency Report (which is a document that parties to the Paris Agreement must submit with information on implementation) the three fundamental pillars on which it is based - mitigation, progress in the NDCs and adaptation - remain unfulfilled in the country. NGOs and Youth v. State of Costa Rica (Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica)

Ireland: Court determined that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence in allegation that the government’s National Mitigation Plan was inconsistent with the carbon budget

In 2020, Friends of the Irish Environment successfully challenged the government’s National Mitigation Plan, with the Supreme Court determining that the Plan fell short of the specificity that the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended) requires, because a reasonable reader of the Plan would not understand how Ireland will achieve its binding 2050 emission reduction targets.

Since 2020, the government has implemented a series of Climate Action Plans, which lay out the government’s plans for how it will meet its legally binding emission reduction requirements, in line with the 2020 ruling. Friends of the Irish Environment is challenging the 2023 Climate Action Plan and its corresponding Annex of Actions, on the grounds that the Plan does not comply with the requirements of sections 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(3) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended).

Friends of the Irish Environment has laid out the following submissions:

1. The State has not “ensured” that the Plan is “consistent” with the Carbon Budget Programme contrary to the requirements of section 4(2)(a) of the 2015 Act.

2. The Plan does not contain a roadmap of actions that include the sector specific actions “that are required to comply with the carbon budget and sectoral emissions ceiling for the period to which the plan relates” (section 4(2)(b)(i) of the 2015 Act) or “that are required to address any failure or projected failure, to comply with the carbon budget and sectoral emissions ceiling for the period to which the plan relates” ((section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the 2015 Act).

3. The Plan’s Annex of Actions does not specify measures that will “in the Minister’s opinion, will be required for the first budget period in a carbon budget programme” for the purposes of section 4(3)(a) of the 2015 Act or the policies identified in 4(3)(b) of the 2015 Act.

The focus of the case is on ensuring that the Climate Action Plan 2023 and its Annex of Actions is consistent with Ireland’s obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended); that it includes quantification of the emissions reductions expected from the Plan and adopts any further measures necessary to comply with the 2021-2025 carbon budget.

On February 7, 2025, the High Court determined that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Plan was inconsistent with the carbon budget. Although reports published by the EPA and CCAC highlighted the inadequacy of the Climate Action Plan 2023, the High Court considered that expert evidence was also required. The Applicant is now appealing this decision to the Court of Appeal. Friends of the Irish Environment v. Government of Ireland (Ireland, High Court of Ireland)

Mexico: Supreme Court ruled that an amendment restricting water access when a person fails to pay for water services for two consecutive periods is constitutional

On May 7, 2024, the Federal Executive filed an acción de inconstitucionalidad asking the Supreme Court to strike down an amendment made to articles 74 and 75 of the state of Querétaro’s Law that Regulates Drinking Water, Sewage, and Sanitation. The amendment specified that in cases where a person failed to pay for water services for two consecutive periods, the service provider was entitled to restrict water access to “at least 50 liters of water per person”. As context, it is essential to note that the state of Querétaro permits private entities to provide water services whenever the state deems it necessary, provided that these entities can demonstrate they can provide equal or better services than local authorities.

The executive government argued that the limit of 50 liters per person was contrary to the human right to water enshrined in Mexico’s Constitution. It argued that every human being has different needs depending on several factors and that Queretaro’s privatized water service system creates an incentive for providers to supply only the minimum required.

On April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court decided that the articles were constitutional. However, it specified that the limit imposed by the law should not be interpreted uniformly. Instead, since the law specifically said “at least 50 liters” it should be understood that whenever a person needs more water for their daily needs, service providers are bound to give them more than 50 liters. The Court explained that understanding the amendment as a uniform limit would create a disparate impact on certain vulnerable groups that faced socioeconomic hardships. Such could be the case for children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with certain illnesses, or people fasting for religious purposes. Additionally, the Court considered data on the rising temperatures in the State of Querétaro due to climate change and explicitly recognized that a uniform limit of 50 liters per person could constitute a case of environmental and climate injustice. As such, a limit of 50 liters per person should also be adjusted whenever an area of the state faces high temperatures. Access to Minimum Water Volumes in Querétaro (Mexico, Supreme Court)

Mexico: Court dismissed a case challenging lack of participation in environmental matters due to lack of standing

Residents of southern Mexico City, including children and people aged 60 and over, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) and the Mexican Airspace Navigation Services (SENEAM) for the redesign of the airspace in Mexico City. The plaintiffs argue, among other issues, that their right to information and participation in environmental matters was violated, because it was initiated without prior information or adequate opportunity for public participation, and the right to a healthy environment, both because of noise pollution, as well as for violating climate commitments due to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by aviation.

As a remedy they requested 1) the declaration of unconstitutionality of the challenged actions and the annulment of all their consequences and 2) guarantees of non-repetition, among them: (i) that if it is truly necessary, in the eventual redesign of the airspace, first and foremost, the informed participation of the citizens of the affected region be allowed; (ii) that the constitutional mandate of sustainability and the reduction of pollutant and GHG emissions be punctually observed in the same; (iii) that the redesign and any public policy instrument on which it is based, promote compliance with alternative projects and measures in line with climate change mitigation commitments, as well as environmental care guided by the sustainability component and in accordance with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and (iv) that it does not hinder the progressive substitution of aviation by alternative means of transportation.

In March 2023, the District Court dismissed the case for a lack of standing. The plaintiffs appealed, and the appeal is pending before the Appellate Collegiate Court. Residents vs. Federal Civil Aviation Agency et al. (Mexico, District Court)

NEW CASES

WTO Dispute Settlement Body: Panel delayed Indonesia’s initial request for consultations with the EU regarding the definitive countervailing duties on imports of Indonesian biodiesel, and the Panel expects a final report after June 2025

On August 11, 2023, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union regarding the definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia, as well as the investigation that led to their imposition. Indonesia claimed that these duties and the investigation were inconsistent with multiple provisions of the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994.

On October 13, 2023, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel, which was deferred at the DSB meeting on October 26, 2023. The panel was established on November 27, 2023, with several countries reserving their third-party rights, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The panel was composed on 14 March 2024, after an agreement between the parties. On September 13, 2024, the panel Chair informed the DSB that due to the large number of complex issues and availability constraints of panel members, the first substantive meeting had been delayed. However, the Chair stated that subsequent meetings were scheduled without further delays, and the panel did not expect to issue its final report before June 2025. DS618: European Union — Countervailing Duties on Imports of Biodiesel from Indonesia (World Trade Organization, WTO Dispute Settlement Body)

Costa Rica: The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court admitted the lawsuit alleging the government’s omission of EIA procedures and ordered the government to submit a report on the alleged facts

In December 2024, the plaintiff filed an Amparo Lawsuit before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, alleging that the Executive Branch and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) have omitted to include the evaluation of climate impacts in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures.

The plaintiff argued that Executive Decree 43898-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC of December 21, 2022, which regulates environmental assessment in the country, is unconstitutional because it does not include the obligation to assess the climate risks and climate impacts of proposed projects, nor does it establish climate change mitigation or adaptation measures.

The primary argument is that this omission contravenes the rights of present and future generations to a safe climate, which is a fundamental aspect of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. This right is incompatible with international standards and commitments, such as the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. The plaintiff requested that the Court order the State to include climate change in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and review projects in process under this new criterion.

The Constitutional Chamber admitted the lawsuit and ordered the Minister of the Presidency, the Minister of Environment and Energy, and the Secretary General of SETENA to submit a report on the alleged facts. The decision is pending. Individual v. Government of Costa Rica (Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica)