Climate Litigation Updates (May 29, 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 #211

FEATURED U.S. CASE

North Dakota Supreme Court Ordered Injunction to Block Greenpeace International Anti-SLAPP Dutch Action Against Dakota Access Pipeline Developers

The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered a North Dakota district court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from pursuing an action in Dutch court to hold the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) liable under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) directive. The developers—Energy Transfer LP; Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.; and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer)—filed an emergency motion for an anti-suit injunction in the district court several months after a jury found that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for $667 million (later reduced to $345 million) in connection with actions related to DAPL protests. As a threshold matter, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the case warranted its supervisory review of the district court’s denial of the emergency motion because Energy Transfer’s petition involved “fundamental interests” and presented “issues of vital concern on a matter of important public interest.” On the merits, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred when it concluded that the issues involved in GPI’s Dutch action were not “substantially similar” to the issues in Energy Transfer’s North Dakota lawsuit.  The Supreme Court found that even though North Dakota did not recognize SLAPPs or anti-SLAPP actions, GPI’s claims in the Dutch complaint would require the Dutch court to resolve factual and legal questions in GPI’s favor that the North Dakota jury resolved against GPI. The North Dakota Supreme Court further found that an injunction was required because the Dutch action was “vexatious” based on the timing of its filing two weeks before the North Dakota jury trial began and also because the Dutch action was an attack on North Dakota’s “fundamental policy” regarding “an orderly process for challenging an adverse verdict” and because the Dutch action created a risk of inconsistent verdicts. The court also found that concerns regarding threats to international comity were diminished because the North Dakota case was the first-filed action, because Dutch law provided GPI with an adequate remedy at the enforcement stage, and because comity need not be extended to a foreign action filed in disregard of comity. The Supreme Court ordered that a “narrowly tailored” anti-suit injunction be entered that would enjoin GPI from pursuing any claim in the Dutch action “whose elements require, as pleaded, a finding that the North Dakota case lacked legal foundation.” The Supreme Court said the anti-suit injunction should not enjoin claims premised on Energy Transfer’s dismissed federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act suit and on alleged out-of-court defamatory statements. The Chief Justice dissented and would have concluded that the district court acted within its discretion. The Chief Justice also wrote that the district court would not have authority to issue the injunction unless it first determined that the facts presented at trial supported a finding of personal jurisdiction over GPI. Energy Transfer LP v. Gion, No. 20250341 (N.D. May 7, 2026)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Oregon Federal Court Vacated Authorization for Logging Plan Due to Failures to Protect and Disclose Impacts on Old-Growth Trees; Carbon Storage and Climate Change Analyses Found to Be Adequate

The federal district court for the District of Oregon vacated the environmental assessment and  finding of no significant impact for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Blue and Gold Harvest Plan, which identified 2,625 acres for silvicultural treatment in Douglas County, Oregon. The court also vacated the decision record for associated timber sales. The court found that BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act by failing to demonstrate compliance with a binding directive in the applicable Resource Management Plan (RMP) to retain certain old-growth trees. The court also found that BLM failed to take a hard look at the Blue and Gold Harvest Plan’s effects on protected old-growth trees in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and that BLM failed to provide “a convincing statement of reasons” as to why the potential effects were insignificant. The court rejected, however, the plaintiffs’ contention that BLM failed to take a hard look at effects on carbon storage and climate change. The court found that BLM’s tiering of the analysis of these issues to the 2016 final environmental impact statement for the RMP was sufficient. Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 6:24-cv-01641 (D. Or. May 14, 2026)

California Federal Court Allowed Greenwashing Claims to Proceed Against Sugar Producer

The federal district court for the Northern District of California largely denied Florida Crystals Corporation’s (Florida Crystals’) motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in a greenwashing action asserting that Florida Crystals’ claims regarding its sugar products’ climate and other environmental benefits violated California law. The court first found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the adverse impacts of preharvest burning concerned company-wide practices and therefore would not be dismissed just because preharvest burning was not used to produce the particular product purchased by the plaintiff. The court also found that the complaint’s allegations regarding the water impacts of Florida Crystals’ sugar production were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The court also found that Florida Crystals did not establish as a matter of law that no “reasonable consumer” would understand the company’s statements regarding climate and environmental benefits to mean that the company did not engage in allegedly harmful practices. In addition, the court found that the statement “Farming to Help Save the Planet” could not be deemed puffery as a matter of law. The court granted Florida Crystals’ motion to dismiss requests for restitution and disgorgement under California’s Unfair Competition Law and for punitive damages on False Advertising Law, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims. Merrell v. Florida Crystals Corp., No. 5:25-cv-02264 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2026) 

Washington Court Denied Fossil Fuel Companies’ Motion to Dismiss Tribes’ State Law Climate Claims

A Washington Superior Court denied fossil fuel companies’ motions to dismiss state law deceptive marketing-based climate claims asserted by Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe and Makah Indian Tribe. The court adopted the Tribes’ proposed order concluding that federal law did not preempt or preclude the claims; that the claims did not pose non-justiciable political questions; that the claims were timely; and that the Tribes adequately stated claims for public nuisance and for violations of the Washington Products Liability Act. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Nos. 23-2-25215-2 SEA, 23-2-25216-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2026)

Trial Courts in Hawai‘i, Oregon, and Washington Denied Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Motions to Stay Climate Cases Pending Supreme Court Resolution of Suncor v. Boulder 

The Washington Superior Court also denied fossil fuel companies’  emergency motion to stay proceedings in the climate cases brought by Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe and Makah Indian Tribe pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Superior Court found that a potential stay of more than a year would “greatly prejudice” the Tribes due to the risk of evidentiary loss. The court also found that the defendants did not attempt to show a clear case of hardship or inequity that would outweigh the Tribes’ showing of prejudice. The Superior Court also cited “a significant probability” that the Supreme Court would not reach the issue of whether state law climate deception claims were preempted by federal law. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Nos. 23-2-25215-2 SEA, 23-2-25216-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2026)

A Hawai‘i Circuit Court denied fossil fuel companies’ motion to stay proceedings in the City and County of Honolulu’s climate case against the companies pending  the Supreme Court’s resolution of Boulder. The court found that five considerations weighed strongly against a stay: (1) the Hawai‘i Supreme Court had “clearly stated” that Honolulu’s suit was not preempted, and the court was therefore “firmly bound by that decision,” particularly as the U.S. Supreme Court had denied petitions for writ of certiorari from the decision; (2) the outcome of Boulder was too uncertain to justify a stay of at least 13 to 16 months; (3) the plaintiffs would be “significantly prejudiced” by the additional delay because they would lose “additional time and opportunity … to determine how best to respond to any impacts caused by Defendants’ alleged failure to warn and deceptive promotion”; (4) a stay would not serve judicial economy; and (5) the burden of discovery on defendants did not “in and of itself” justify a stay. City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, No. 1CCV-20-0380 (Haw. Cir. Ct. May 6, 2026)

An Oregon Circuit Court denied defendants’ motion to stay the County of Multnomah’s climate lawsuit pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of the Boulder case. The Circuit Court found that the County demonstrated potential prejudice from a “multi-month, possibly year-long” stay due to the risk of loss of evidence, “including aging witnesses whose memories may be lost or further faded with the passage of time.” The court also found that given that the Supreme Court’s decision in Boulder might not fully dispose of all claims in the County’s case, potential prejudice to the defendants did not outweigh prejudice to the County. The court also found that further delay would not best serve judicial economy. County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 23CV25164 (Or. Cir. Ct. May 7, 2026)

BJ’s Wholesale Club Included Deforestation Shareholder Proposal in Proxy Materials After Massachusetts Federal Court Granted Preliminary Injunction in New York State Comptroller’s Suit

On April 22, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted the New York State Comptroller’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the Comptroller’s suit seeking to bar BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. (BJ’s) from excluding from the proxy materials for its 2026 annual meeting a shareholder proposal requesting that BJ’s “conduct an assessment of risks of deforestation associated with its private-label brands within one year and provide a report summarizing the results.” The Comptroller brought the suit in his capacity as Administrative Head of the New York State and Local Retirement System and as Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (Fund), which submitted the proposal. The suit alleged that the Fund “submitted its proposal consistent with its long-standing focus on climate-related corporate risks.” The court rejected BJ’s contention that there was no private right of action under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to enforce the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 14a-8, which governs the process for shareholder proposals. The court also found that BJ’s could not exclude the proposal based on any procedural or eligibility-based deficiency. In addition, the court found that BJ’s was not likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that it properly excluded the proposal under the ordinary-business exclusion. The court found that the proposal focused on the “potential generalized risk” of deforestation posed by one aspect of BJ’s business and that the impacts of the requested assessment on BJ’s future decisions was an “incidental byproduct” of the proposal, with such decisions “committed to the discretion of management.” The court further found that the proposal did not seek to “micromanage” the company. The court also found that the proposal could not be excluded as improper under Delaware law and that the proposal was not impermissibly vague. The court found that the Fund demonstrated irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favored the fund, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court ordered the Fund to post bond of $20,000 and denied BJ’s motion to dismiss. On May 6, BJ’s filed its 2026 proxy materials, which included the Fund’s shareholder proposal, and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the action with prejudice. DiNapoli v. BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-11075 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2026)

New York Appellate Court Stayed Enforcement of Prohibition on Sale or Purchase of Two Refrigerants

In a one-page decision and order, the New York Appellate Division granted Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International’s (HARDI’s) motion for a preliminary injunction pending their appeal of a New York Supreme Court decision rejecting HARDI’s  challenge to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations addressing hydrofluorocarbons. HARDI requested that NYSDEC be enjoined from enforcing the regulations’ prohibition on sale or purchase of bulk refrigerants as applied to R-404A and R-507A. NYSDEC had previously granted temporary enforcement discretion with respect to the two refrigerants. HARDI argued it was likely to succeed on the merits in its appeal because industry’s inability to comply with the prohibition was “abundantly clear” and the Supreme Court had erred in relying on NYSDEC’s “ad hoc and discretionary ability to provide relief for infeasibility.” HARDI also argument that New York businesses such as its members would suffer substantial harms. HARDI also argued that the balance of equities weighed in its favor because enforcement of the prohibition on the two refrigerants would have “disastrous consequences” for suppliers, customers, and consumers, while NYSDEC would suffer “little harm” from maintenance of the status quo since the injunction was limited to two refrigerants, NYSDEC had previously exercised its enforcement discretion, and New York State was currently considering rolling back its greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NYSDEC opposed the preliminary injunction, as did Natural Resources Defense Council, which intervened to defend the regulations. The Appellate Division granted the motion without prejudice to a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction if the appeal was no perfected on or before June 8. HARDI and its co-appellant filed their opening brief on May 8. Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. CV-26-0498 (N.Y. App. Div. May 4, 2026)

Wisconsin Court Dismissed Youth Plaintiffs’ Challenge to State Statutes Constraining Public Service Commission’s Energy Policy Decision-Making

A Wisconsin Circuit Court dismissed 15 youth plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin statutes that they alleged limited the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) ability to consider air quality impacts when authorizing permits for fossil fuel-fired power plants and prohibited the PSC from requiring more electricity from renewable energy sources. The plaintiffs asserted that these statutes violated their rights to liberty, life, and a stable climate system as well as their rights to access, enjoy, and use navigable waters and their beds under Wisconsin Constitution Article I § 1. The plaintiffs also asserted a violation of the public trust doctrine codified in Wisconsin Constitution, Article IX § 1. The court wrote that it was “sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet” but concluded that their claims involved nonjusticiable political questions. Evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims under the U.S. Supreme Court’s framework for the political question doctrine in Baker v. Carr and looking to similar cases filed in Washington and Alaska, the Wisconsin court found that (1) the Wisconsin Constitution vested the legislature, not the courts, with the task of setting energy policy; (2) the court “is simply not in a position to formulate a judicially manageable standard to remedy air pollution and to achieve the renewable resource goals” for which the plaintiffs advocated; (3) this case presented an attempt by the plaintiffs to have the court “substitute its policy preferences for those of the legislature”; and (4) substituting the court’s judgment for the legislature’s policy choices “would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants.” Dunn v. Wisconsin Public Service Commission, No. 2025CV002797 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2026)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

Youth Petitioners Asked the D.C. Circuit to Stay EPA’s Repeal of the Endangerment Finding and Vehicle Emissions Standards

In the consolidated proceedings challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act and repealing all greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles and engines, youth petitioners filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit stay the rule and keep in place “the legal paradigm that existed from 2009 to 2026.” Citing expert declarations that accompanied their motion, the youth petitioners argued that in the absence of a stay, the rule would result in unavoidable increases in emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that would threaten their lives, infringe on their liberties, and substantially burden their religious freedoms. They contended they were likely to succeed on their claims that the rule violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Fifth Amendment. The youth petitioners also contended that the imminent harms to them and to the public tipped the balance of harms and the public interest in favor of a stay. Other petitioners challenging the rule did not take a position on the motion. Venner v. EPA, No. 26-1038 (D.C. Cir.)

Eighth Circuit Denied Request of Parties Challenging SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules to Lift Abeyance After SEC Announced Decision to Reconsider Rules

In the proceedings challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) 2024 climate disclosure rules, the SEC on May 7, 2026 informed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that it had decided to reconsider the rules and had submitted a proposed rescission rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. The SEC’s letter said the proposed rule would address legal and policy concerns about the rules, including concerns that they exceeded the SEC’s statutory authority and that the costs of the rules outweighed their benefits. On May 8, the petitioners challenging the rules filed a motion to lift the abeyance that the Eighth Circuit instituted in September 2025. The petitioners argued that the court should accept the SEC’s “concession” that the rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and either vacate the rule and remand to the SEC or schedule oral argument. On May 18, states that had intervened to defend the climate disclosure rules filed their opposition to the motion to lift abeyance. They argued that continuing to hold the case in abeyance while the SEC conducts its rulemaking process would be consistent with customary administrative practice. They also contended that maintaining the abeyance would not prejudice the petitioners since the rules would continue to be stayed. The states also argued that the court was not required to take action “based on SEC’s say-so” and that, in any event, the SEC had not conceded an APA violation. The intervenor states also argued that denying the motion to lift the abeyance would not result in an abeyance that exceeded abeyances in other cases. On May 21, the Eighth Circuit denied the motion to lift the abeyance. Iowa v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 24-1522 (8th Cir.)

United States Filed Suit in Federal District Court to Block Minnesota’s Climate Suit Against Fossil Fuel Defendants

The United States filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison from continuing Minnesota’s lawsuit that seeks to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for causing harmful climate change-related impacts in the state. Minnesota’s suit asserts state law claims based on allegations that the defendants participated in a “campaign of deception” to conceal and misrepresent the connection between the defendants’ products and climate change and that the defendants’ actions delayed action to address fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S.’s complaint alleged that Minnesota’s suit, as well as other climate suits, sought to “artfully plead around federal law while transparently seeking to change national energy policy related to global greenhouse gas emissions and to regulate conduct beyond local borders.” The U.S. further alleged that climate suits like Minnesota’s “directly conflict with and threaten the United States’ capacity to administer federal law and conduct foreign affairs” and “undermine American energy dominance—which is a cornerstone of national energy policy.” The complaint asserted that Minnesota’s claims were precluded under the Constitution because they concern the “uniquely federal interests” of interstate and global pollution and because the claims constitute impermissible extraterritorial regulation in violation of horizontal separation of power. The complaint also asserted that Minnesota’s claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act and under the foreign affairs doctrine. In addition, the U.S. asserted a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The U.S. requested a declaration that Minnesota’s suit was unlawful as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief blocking Minnesota from pursuing the case. United States v. Minnesota, No. 0:26-cv-02456 (D. Minn., filed May 4, 2026)

Environmental Groups Challenged EPA’s Short-Term Extension of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Deadline

On April 23, 2026, Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Integrity Project filed a protective petition for review challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final action extending the reporting deadline under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for 2025 to October 30, 2026. On May 26, the petitioners requested that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hold the case in abeyance while EPA considers final action on the remainder of its 2025 proposal to repeal reporting obligations for all sectors except the petroleum and natural gas sector and to suspend reporting in that sector for 10 years. EPA also requested that the abeyance continue while EPA considers the petition for administrative reconsideration that the petitioners and other organizations filed simultaneously with the protective petition. Environmental Defense Fund v. Zeldin, No. 26-1096 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 23, 2026)

Iowa, Missouri, and Business Group Filed Constitutional Challenge to New York’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in Missouri Federal Court

Iowa, Missouri, and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the New York Attorney General and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) challenging the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program established by NYSDEC in a rule promulgated in December 2025. The plaintiffs alleged that New York’s rule imposes reporting requirements, compliance costs, and potential criminal and civil penalties for activity occurring outside New York, including requirements for fuel suppliers such as ethanol and biodiesel producers and distributors to report the amount of liquid fuel that may be sold in New York regardless of where the initial sale or production occurs. The complaint asserted that New York’s rule violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on extraterritorial state regulation and was preempted by the Clean Air Act. They also asserted that the rule violated the due process rights of persons and companies by subjecting them to regulatory jurisdiction even though they lack “minimum contacts” with New York related to the conduct subject to the rule. In addition, they asserted that the rule violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches by authorizing NYSDEC to conduct warrantless inspection of real property at which an emission source exists. Iowa v. James, No. 4:26-cv-00752 (E.D. Mo., filed May 14, 2026)

Four States Filed Suits Asserting that Proxy Adviser’s ESG-Related Actions Violated State Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practice Laws 

On May 20, 2026, the attorneys general of Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, and West Virginia each filed a lawsuit in state trial courts against the proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS) alleging that ISS violated state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection laws by failing to disclose how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations affected ISS’s advice to its shareholder clients. Florida previously filed a similar suit against ISS and Glass, Lewis & Co. LLC.

• Iowa asserted that ISS violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), alleging that ISS had placed “its own Environmental, Social and Governance (‘ESG’)-driven ideological values ahead of investor interests,” including by adopting policies to force companies to embrace “net zero” climate commitments. The complaint alleged that net-zero was “impossible for farmers, ranchers, cattlemen and for raising hogs” and that net-zero advocates “are undermining or erasing significant parts of Iowa’s economy.” Iowa alleged that ISS violated the ICFA by representing that its research was “objective and impartial” when in fact the research was “tainted by ESG considerations” without financial analysis of those considerations; followed from “close coordination with ESG activists”; and did not disclose material conflicts of interest. In addition, Iowa alleged that ISS published “climate-related advice and recommendations without expertise, blindly utilizing data provided by ESG activists without applying a critical eye or seeking data providing contrary views,” and that ISS failed to disclose that it was paid “lucrative consulting fees” for advice on issues addressed in its reports and that ISS’s owners were “ESG activists.” The complaint requested declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of moneys or property acquired by unlawful means, and costs and fees. State of Iowa ex rel. Bird v. Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., No. __ (Iowa Dist. Ct., filed May 20, 2026)
• Nebraska’s complaint asserted violations of the State’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Act, alleging that ISS provided advice “tainted” by its own “ESG ideological considerations untethered to its clients’ best financial interests and prepared in close coordination with ESG activists” such as Climate Action 100+, Ceres, The Children’s Investment Fund, and As You Sow. Nebraska also alleged that ISS misled shareholder clients through illegal consideration of race and ethnicity with respect to board of director candidates, through a “privately admitted lack of competence underlying certain of its ESG recommendations,” and due to “conflicts of interest related to running a parallel ESG consulting business.” Nebraska sought declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, and costs and fees. State of Nebraska ex rel. Hilgers v. Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., No. D02CI260001712 (Neb. Dist. Ct., filed May 20, 2026)
• Texas asserted violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act-Consumer Protection Act, alleging that ISS made false representations that it provided “independent and objective” advice and helped consumers make “informed decisions” when “[i]n actuality, ISS prioritizes its own environmental, social, and governance (‘ESG’) agenda over the fiscal well-being of its clients.” Texas alleged that ISS failed to disclose that “the ESG initiatives it prioritizes are not in its customers’ best financial interests,” failed to disclose its involvement with ESG activists, and failed to disclose it is “wholly owned” by ESG activists. Texas requested that the court enter a temporary restraining order enjoining ISS from failing to disclose its ESG initiatives to Texas consumers and also requested declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. State of Texas v. Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., No. 471-03459-2026 (Tex. Dist. Ct., filed May 20, 2026)
• West Virginia asserted violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The complaint alleged that ISS “misrepresented its commercial services by claiming to provide objective, financially-driven analysis while actually subordinating client financial interests to undisclosed, non-pecuniary objectives and third-party commitments.” The alleged non-pecuniary criteria and considerations included adoption of climate change-related policies and inclusion of reports grading companies on management of greenhouse gas emissions. The complaint alleged that ISS failed to disclose the role of third-party inputs in its advice and also failed to disclose conflicts of interest created by its maintenance of a consulting service. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief; civil penalties; restitution, disgorgement, or other equitable relief; and costs, fees, and expenses. State of West Virginia ex rel. McCuskey v. Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., No. CC-17-2026-C-113 (W. Va. Cir. Ct., filed May 20, 2026)

Gas Utility Challenged Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s Interpretation of Statute Prohibiting Incentives for New Gas Infrastructure

A company that provides retail gas utility service to residential and commercial customers in five service territories in Colorado filed a lawsuit in Colorado District Court challenging the lawfulness of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s decision permanently suspending the utility’s tariff sheets for failing to implement a statutory requirement that new gas utility customers not receive an incentive for new gas infrastructure. The Commission concluded that the statute prohibited construction allowances both for service line extensions and also for distribution main extensions. The utility argued that the best reading of the statute would not prohibit allowances for distribution main extensions and that the Commission’s interpretation raised concerns under the Takings and Contracts Clauses of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions. Regarding the Contracts Clauses, the utility argued that under the Commission’s interpretation, the statute would not be “appropriately tailored to its purpose of bringing about a renewable energy transition given the state’s current energy mix for electric production” and that it was not reasonable “to impose the burdens of addressing climate change on a few gas utilities by depriving them of the benefits of existing contracts.” Colorado Natural Gas, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, No. 2026CV31821 (Colo. Dist. Ct., filed May 19, 2026)

Environmental Organizations Challenged FERC Authorization of Mountain Valley Pipeline Extension Project

Seven environmental organizations filed a proceeding in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decisions amending a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Mountain Valley Pipeline to authorize construction and operation of a 31.3-mile pipeline and appurtenant facilities to transport gas from Virginia to North Carolina (the Southgate Project). The petitioners indicated they would argue that FERC violated the Natural Gas Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, including by failing to adequately consider the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 26-1071 (D.C. Cir., filed Mar. 31, 2026)

Residents Challenged Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Approval of Air Quality Plan for Data Center, Including for Violation of State Climate Laws

Residents of Lowell, Massachusetts filed an action in Massachusetts Superior Court challenging the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP’s) approval of an air quality plan for a data center. The residents alleged that MassDEP improperly rejected their standing to administratively appeal and “rubberstamped” the plan despite its inconsistency with state pollution control laws and environmental justice laws and policies. Their petition alleged that the approval violated the Massachusetts Constitution’s provisions “securing the People’s right to a clean and healthy environment” and that the plan was inconsistent with evidence in the record, constituted an abuse of discretion, was made upon unlawful procedure, was arbitrary and capricious, and rested on numerous clear errors of law. The residents’ arguments included that the failure to consider alternatives to diesel generation violated state climate laws and policies. The residents also asserted that a consent order that allowed operation of the data center under a non-final air plan approval exceeded MassDEP’s authorities and violated the residents’ due process rights, the public’s right to notice and comment, and regulations governing review and approval of non-major comprehensive plans. Jacob v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, No. 2681CV01107 (Mass. Super. Ct., filed Apr. 27, 2026)

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION ADDITIONS TO THE DATABASE

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Germany: Court confirms, through a case against automobile manufacturers, that responsibility for allocating emission reductions does not lie with private actors

On March 23, 2026, the Sixth Civil Panel of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued judgments in cases VI ZR 334/23 and VI ZR 365/23, affirming the lower court’s decision that private individuals lack a legal basis to compel automobile manufacturers to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles prior to the timeline established under applicable European Union law. 

Executive directors of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Environmental Action Germany), brought two actions, each against Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) and Mercedes-Benz AG, both major automobile manufacturers. Plaintiffs alleged that, although the defendants were in compliance with all applicable statutory climate regulations, that Defendants were failing its obligations under the German Federal Constitutional Court’s climate decision to adhere to a limited CO₂ “budget” derived from the Paris Agreement. Plaintiffs also contended that excessive emissions by Defendants would indirectly infringe their fundamental rights — particularly the intertemporal dimension of the general right of personality under Article 2 of the Basic Law — by necessitating stricter future climate measures that could constrain their freedoms. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from marketing combustion-engine vehicles after October 31, 2030, and, under certain emissions thresholds, even earlier.

The cases were dismissed by lower courts. The case against BMW was dismissed in the Munich Regional Court I on February 7, 2023, a decision affirmed in the Munich Higher Regional Court on October 12, 2023. The case against Mercedes-Benz was dismissed in the Stuttgart Regional Court on September 13, 2022, a decision affirmed in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court on November 8, 2023. 

On March 23, 2026, the Federal Court of Justice again affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief. No actionable interference with a protected right was established for the following reasons: 

First, the Court found no present or anticipatory violation of Plaintiffs’ general right of personality. The alleged “advance interference” theory failed because no legally binding, actor-specific CO₂ budget exists. While general emission limits can be derived from international and national frameworks, these do not impose individualized obligations on specific private entities or sectors. 

Second, the Court distinguished the case from the Federal Constitutional Court’s prior climate ruling, emphasizing that responsibility for allocating emission reductions lies with the legislature, not private actors.

Third, the Court rejected tort liability. Any future restrictive climate legislation cannot be legally attributed to the defendants’ conduct. The manufacturers operate within the framework established by EU law — specifically Regulation (EU) 2019/631, as amended — which sets binding emissions targets and timelines, including a full phase-out target for new passenger car emissions by 2035. Compliance with this regulatory regime precludes additional judicially imposed obligations.

Finally, the Court underscored the constitutional separation of powers. The balancing of climate protection against economic, social, and individual interests — particularly under Article 20a of the Basic Law — is a matter for the legislature, which retains broad discretion. Courts are not authorized to derive specific emission limits or reduction pathways from open-ended constitutional provisions.

The ruling confirms that there is no judicially enforceable right to an accelerated phase-out of combustion-engine vehicles beyond the timelines set by EU legislation. It also confirms that the responsibility for determining and implementing climate policy measures remains with the legislative branch. No right to early combustion engine phase-out (Germany, Federal Court of Justice)

NEW CASES

Indonesia: NGOs challenge the government’s national electricity plan

In September 2025, two Indonesian environmental NGOs — Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) and Yayasan Trend Asia — filed an administrative lawsuit at the Jakarta State Administrative Court against the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia. The case challenges Ministerial Decree No. 85.K/TL.01/MEM.L/2025, the National Electricity General Plan (Rencana Umum Ketenagalistrikan Nasional (RUKN)), issued on March 2025, spanning over the period of 2025–2060 (the “Plan”).

Plaintiffs allege that the RUKN was unlawful on several procedural grounds. First, the Plan was issued without a valid National Energy Policy (Kebijakan Energi Nasional) regulation, despite the Energy and Electricity Law mandating the National Energy Policy as a key reference for all energy sector planning documents, including the national electricity plan. The applicable National Energy Policy (Government Regulation No. 79 of 2014) was not referenced; instead, the decree relied on a still-unratified draft of the National Energy Policy that was enacted 6 months after the Plan was formalized. Second, the Plan was issued without a mandatory Strategic Environmental Assessment (“SEA”) although the law requires that every planning document has to conduct SEA. Finally, the Plan was issued without the involvement of regional governments. At least three provinces (North Maluku, Bali, and Southeast Sulawesi) confirmed that they were never consulted.

Substantively, Plaintiffs argue that the Plan does not include a coal retirement roadmap, directly contradicting the legal mandates required by the Long-Term Development Plan 2025–2045 and Presidential Regulation No. 112 of 2022. Instead, the plan includes projection to extend all coal plants through co-firing, CCS retrofitting, and fuel switching to ammonia or hydrogen. Plaintiffs further assert that the Plan includes prohibitively expensive and technologically unproven energy options, including a 35GW nuclear expansion, in violation of the Energy Law that requires the Electricity Plan to optimize all energy sources and consider the most cost-effective projection. 

In addition, the Plan is inconsistent with Indonesia’s Paris Agreement obligations, projecting a GHG peak in 2037 rather than by 2030, and relying on faulty emissions assumptions that could result in warming exceeding 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Plaintiffs argue that the Plan violates constitutionally protected human rights including the right to health, the right to life, the right to welfare, and the right to meaningful public participation.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the Plan null and void, to order the Minister to revoke the Plan, and to order the Minister to issue a new, lawful National Electricity General Plan that complies with applicable regulations and the principles of good governance. WALHI and Trend Asia v. Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia (Lawsuit against The National Electricity Plan) (Indonesia, Jakarta State Administrative Court)

Indonesia: Individuals and NGOs challenge the State utility company’s business plan

In November 2025, seven plaintiffs — consisting of four Indonesian individual citizens (M. Ali Akbar, Hadi Priyanto, Sumiati Surbakti, and Wahyu Widiarto) and three environmental NGOs (WALHI, Trend Asia, and Greenpeace Indonesia) — filed a state administrative lawsuit (gugatan tata usaha negara) at the Jakarta Administrative Court against the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia. Plaintiffs contest Ministerial Decree No. 188.K/TL.03/MEM.L/2025 (signed 05/26/2025; publicly released 06/03/2025), which approved Electricity Supply Business Plan of PT PLN (Indonesia State Utility Company) for 2025–2034 (the “Plan”). The Plan is the binding electricity planning document that governs Indonesia’s state electricity company and determines the national power generation mix for the next decade. The four individual plaintiffs reside near coal-fired power plants — each in Bengkulu, Jakarta, Medan, and Bandung — and are consumers of PLN electricity. They allege direct invasion of their constitutional rights to a healthy environment and clean air. Together, Plaintiffs argue the Plan is unlawful on the following grounds:

First, the Plan violates the National Long-Term Development Plan Law (UU RPJPN 2025–2045), which mandates coal phase-out beginning in 2030. The Plan replaces “coal phase-out” language from the prior RUPTL 2021–2030 with “coal phase-down.” The Plan also includes provisions to extend existing coal plant lifetimes by 10 – 20 years, through co-firing retrofits and contract extensions, while also containing no coal retirement roadmap for either its 2025 – 2029 or 2030 – 2034 planning phases. Second, the Plan violates Presidential Regulation No. 112/2022, which prohibits new coal plants (except those already in the pipeline by 2021) and mandates a coal phase-out roadmap with specific components. Plaintiffs assert that the Plan includes approximately 2,600 MW of new coal plants beyond what was included in the 2021 – 2030 Business Plan. 

Third, the Plan was issued without a Strategic Environmental Assessment (Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis / KLHS) as required under Law No. 32 of 2009, despite the Plan projecting a significant increase in CO₂ emissions; from 309 million tons/year in 2025 to 374 million tons/year by 2034.

Fourth, the Plan violates human rights obligations by perpetuating and expanding the documented harmful health and environmental impacts of coal plants, including air pollution, premature deaths, and ecological degradation. 

Fifth, the Plan violates the Electricity Law’s principles of cost efficiency and energy optimization by planning expensive gas and nuclear (Small Modular Reactors) capacity without full economic analysis and by underestimating renewable energy cost competitiveness which has reached historic low. Sixth, the Plan violates Indonesia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement ratification law by regressing from prior climate commitments, including lowering the 2030 renewable energy target from 24.8% to 19.3 – 21% by 2030.

Plaintiffs seek the court to declare the Plan null and void, to order the Minister to revoke it, and to compel the issuance of a new, lawful RUPTL, consistent with Indonesian legislation and good governance principles. M. Ali Akbar et al. v. Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia (Lawsuit against The PLN’s Business Plan 2025–2034) (Indonesia, Jakarta State Administrative Court)

Germany: NGO challenges national government’s climate protection program as inadequate

On May 5, 2026, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), an environmental NGO, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Republic of Germany before the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg. DUH challenges the adequacy of the federal government’s Climate Protection Programme 2026 (Klimaschutzprogramm 2026, KSP 2026). The German government adopted the KSP 2026 on March 25, 2026, pursuant to § 9 of the Federal Climate Protection Act (KSG).

DUH argues that the KSP 2026 fails to include the measures necessary to achieve Germany’s legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets of at least 65% by 2030 and at least 88% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, as required by § 3(1) KSG, and to comply with the annual total emission budgets for the years 2031–2040 set out in Annexes 2 and 3 of the KSG.

The plaintiff contends that the KSP 2026 is unlawful for several reasons. First, the government based the program on outdated 2025 projection data, even though updated 2026 projection data published by the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) on March 14, 2026 — eleven days before the program’s adoption — showed larger emission gaps, projecting only a 62.6% reduction by 2030 (against the required 65%) and approximately 80% by 2040 (against the required 88%). Second, the program relies on unrealistic assumptions and contains methodological deficiencies, including inconsistent emission reduction figures across different official documents and the use of key measures as “gap fillers” without plausible substantiation. 

Third, the Expert Council on Climate Issues (Expertenrat für Klimafragen), which is legally required to review the program, was unable to conduct a consistent and complete assessment because the government submitted the program in four installments with major last-minute changes affecting approximately 70% of the projected emission reduction impact. 

Fourth, a range of individual measures — including the conversion of gas power plants to green hydrogen, offshore wind cooperation projects, increased onshore wind auction volumes, circular economy targets in industry, and the agriculture protein strategy — are based on measures lacking legal underpinning, realistic financing, or technical feasibility.

This case is a continuation of DUH’s broader climate litigation strategy against the German federal government. Prior rulings by the same court in May 2024 and the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) in January 2026 already confirmed that the government’s previous climate program (KSP 2023) was unlawful and ordered it to adopt adequate supplementary measures. DUH argues the federal government has knowingly adopted another unlawful program, necessitating renewed judicial intervention. DUH v. Federal Republic of Germany (Climate Protection Programme 2026) (Germany, High Administrative Court Berlin-Brandenburg)

Netherlands: Environmental organization continues challenging Shell to cease its development of new oil and gas fields

In April 2026, Dutch environmental organization Milieudefensie initiated a second climate lawsuit against Shell plc before a Dutch court. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Shell to stop developing new oil and gas fields and to progressively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 2030 and 2050. The case builds on the earlier Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc., in which the Hague Court of Appeal held in November 2024 that Shell has an individual responsibility to contribute to the mitigation of dangerous climate change. 

The plaintiff argues that there is “no room” within the remaining global carbon budget for the development of new oil and gas fields, and that continued fossil fuel expansion risks creating a long-term “carbon lock-in,” delaying the energy transition and undermining the goals of the Paris Agreement. The summons relies extensively on climate science, including reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and UNEP Emissions Gap Reports, as well as the 2025 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change obligations. 

The plaintiff, under Section 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, argues that Shell’s conduct constitutes an unlawful act and breaches an unwritten duty of care under Dutch tort law. The plaintiff relies on the Dutch doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights protections under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the precautionary principle, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), intergenerational equity, and customary international law. The summons also cites soft law instruments, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, to support the argument that companies have an independent responsibility to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions in line with climate science. 

The plaintiff contends that Shell has long known about the risks of climate change through its own internal research dating back to the 1980s, yet continued to obstruct climate action through lobbying and fossil fuel expansion. According to the summons, Shell has interests in approximately 700 undeveloped oil and gas fields worldwide and approved 32 new fields between May 2021 and Apr. 2025. The plaintiffs allege that 50–60% of Shell’s planned investments between 2023 and 2030 are directed toward fields that were not yet producing in 2024. 

The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief. First, it requests an order requiring Shell to cease developing and bringing into production new oil and gas fields, including by preventing the transfer of undeveloped fields to third parties to circumvent the restriction. Second, the plaintiffs seek binding emissions reduction obligations for Shell’s Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, with interim reduction targets for 2035, 2040, and 2050. The principal demand relies on the IEA Net Zero Emissions advanced economies scenario and would require substantial reductions in oil- and gas-related emissions relative to 2022 levels. The plaintiffs also request that Shell be prohibited from meeting its reduction targets through carbon offsets or by divesting emitting assets. 

Shell reportedly responded to pre-litigation notices in 2025 and 2026, arguing that its current climate policies are sufficient and that litigation against individual companies is ineffective in addressing climate change. Plaintiff rejects this “effectiveness defense,” arguing that Dutch and comparative climate jurisprudence recognizes that individual actors can be required to contribute their fair share to addressing climate harms, regardless of the conduct of others. Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell plc (No New Oil and Gas Fields Case) (Netherlands, The Hague District Court)

Malaysia: Youths challenge the federal government for failing to prevent large-scale deforestation

On February 28, 2026, six Malaysian youths—aged between 18 and 30—filed a judicial review application before the Kuala Lumpur High Court against the Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability and the Government of Malaysia. Applicants challenge the government’s alleged failure to maintain at least 50 percent forest cover across Malaysia, a commitment first articulated by Malaysia at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and subsequently reaffirmed in national policy statements. 

The application relies on an expert analysis indicating that 4.27–4.51 million hectares of natural forest have been earmarked for conversion to timber plantations and other commercial uses. According to Applicants, if these conversions proceed, Malaysia’s forest cover could decline to 47.4–49.6 percent of total land area. Applicants argue that the government’s alleged failure to prevent large-scale deforestation violates Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution, concerning the right to life; Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, concerning equality; the doctrine of legitimate expectation; and the public trust doctrine. 

Applicants seek declaratory relief and mandatory orders requiring the government to take measures to ensure Malaysia achieves and maintains at least 50 percent forest cover, including through action by the National Land Council and periodic progress reporting. The youth case also references international climate obligations and developments in comparative climate jurisprudence. Abe Lim & Others v Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability and Government of Malaysia (Malaysia, High Court)

DECIDED CASES

Brazil: Court holds that economic development should be prioritized over environmental concerns in upholding the authorization of a pre-operational assessment for offshore oil extraction

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). The case challenged the authorization of Pre-Operational Assessment (APO), a stage prior to the license for drilling offshore oil wells, in Block FZA-M-59, located in the Foz do Amazonas Basin. The MPF sought to annul Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin (the “Order”) issued by the President of IBAMA, which granted the authorization, while also seeking a ban on the issuance of the related operating license until the licensing irregularities were remedied. 

In provisional relief, the MPF requested (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 requested the definitive annulment of the order and the acts resulting therefrom and the suspension of the licensing until the identified nullities are remedied.

In December 2025, Amapá Federal Court dismissed the claims. The court held that the absence of an Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS) does not impact the preparation of the environmental license, and that therefore IBAMA’s decision in the environmental licensing should be upheld. The court found no need to correct the absence of an AAAS for the Amazon River mouth.  The court found that there is no direct environmental impact on indigenous communities, given that the project is located 179 km off the coast of Amapá. The court therefore held that there was no obligation of Defendants to prepare studies on indigenous and quilombola components. The environmental impacts of the project on traditional communities were considered indirect and as not having drastic consequences for the communities’ traditional way of life. Rather, the court found that the project could bring economic development, opportunities, and expansion of social infrastructure to these communities, and that the precautionary principle cannot be taken as an absolute principle so as to frustrate the legitimate expectation regarding the use of natural resources that may generate wealth and development. 

Overall, the court explained that the conflict between oil exploration and environmental protection was weighed according to the specific situation, and that economic development was prioritized in the instant case, despite understanding that there is no greater environmental risk than the explorations that occur in the seas around the world. The court reasoned that because oil will become worthless due to energy transition, Brazil should take advantage of the historical and technological window to immediately benefit from its natural resources. Ministério Público Federal vs. IBAMA e Petrobras (Suspension of the licence for the Pre-Operational Assessment in the Amazon River mouth area) (Brazil, Amapá Federal Court)

Brazil: Court orders state to take necessary measure to improve air quality

The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Goiás (MPGO) brought a Public Civil Action, with a request for an injunction, against the state of Goiás. The MPGO sought to compel the state to take the necessary measures to improve air quality and, consequently, safeguard the health of the population by implementing a public environmental policy for monitoring and controlling air pollution and climate change. The MPGO claims that the regional government has failed to comply with public environmental control policies aimed at protecting air quality and the climate. It stresses the state’s repeated inertia in combating climate change, controlling air pollution and monitoring vehicle pollution, evidenced by the lack of technical actions, such as implementing a network of air quality monitoring stations, carrying out an inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mobile sources, as well as implementing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs.

The MPGO highlighted the omission in the analysis of climate impacts in environmental licensing procedures in the state. It claims that although the State Policy on Climate Change - PEMC (State Law 16.497/2009) was instituted in line with the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), few public policies have been implemented. It also points out the lack of implementation of instruments to prevent atmospheric pollution and climate change, especially the Atmospheric Emissions Control Plan (PCEA) and the Vehicle Pollution Control Plan (PCPV). It highlights the inadequacy of the PCPV in the state of Goiás. The MPGO outlined the risks of damage to human health and the environment caused by air pollution and noise pollution, linking air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels to the climate crisis. 

On January 19, 2026, a judgment was issued in the Goiás State Court, partially granting the requests made by Plaintiff, confirming the preliminary injunction granted and ordering the State of Goiás to: (i) prepare and implement the Atmospheric Emissions Control Plan (PCEA); (ii) update the Vehicle Pollution Control Plan (PCPV); (iii) complete the installation and operation of the remaining automatic air quality monitoring stations; (iv) prepare and implement the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; (v) improve the regulations on environmental impact assessments related to climate change in environmental licensing procedures, specifying technical criteria for the analysis of GHG emissions in large-scale and high-polluting potential projects; (vi) require the submission of GHG emission inventories from licensed industrial projects; and (vii) keep the State GHG Emissions Inventory updated. 

The ruling acknowledged that certain obligations had already been implemented, such as the establishment of the State Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the acquisition of some air quality monitoring stations, the creation of the Climate Change and Ecosystem Services Management Unit, among others, and ordered the monitoring of compliance with these obligations. Regarding Defendant’s argument concerning the principle of separation of powers, the court stated that there is no impediment to judicial review when it comes to verifying compliance with specific legal obligations, and there is no intrusion into administrative merit when the Public Administration remains inactive in the face of express normative commands. This hypothesis occurred in the specific case due to the non-implementation of the State Policy on Climate Change, the Vehicle Pollution Control Plan, and the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program by the state for more than a decade. Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Goiás v. State of Goiás (State public policy on air quality control) (Brazil, Goiás State Court)

Brazil: Court finds State Policy constitutional based on its mandate on energy treatment companies to invest on just transition 

On December 29, 2022, the political party Rede Sustentabilidade (Rede) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for injunctive relief, against State Law 18,330/2022, which institutes the Policy for Just Energy Transition of the State of Santa Catarina. The case was supported by Instituto Internacional Arayara de Educação e Cultura (Instituto Internacional Arayara) as amicus curiae.

Rede questioned the constitutionality of State Law 18,330/2022, which refers to electricity generation and the need for a just energy transition in the state of Santa Catarina. The State Law allows the use of non-renewable sources through coal-fired thermoelectric plants, on the basis that the use is fundamental for the maintenance of energy security. Rede argued that, in reality, the law is nothing more than a “legislative façade” to perpetuate the role of coal in the state’s energy system. The law does not present guidelines for the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or even the abatement of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from activities related to the coal production chain. There is also no deadline for abandoning the use of coal; on the contrary, it foresees the installation of new industrial complexes that will use this fossil fuel. Finally, the law establishes tax and credit incentives for the coal production chain, also without any time limit. Plaintiff argued that these incentives make it possible to indirectly fund the purchase of electricity derived from the burning of coal and fossil fuels. 

Plaintiff also claimed that the State Policy violates the Federal Constitution and the Paris Agreement, as well as the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12,187/2009), considering that it serves to foster the use of coal and, consequently, an increase in GHG emissions. The petition mentioned several international organizations and their agendas which plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels — especially coal — to show that the policy is a setback compared to the rest of the world and contradictory to the concept of a just transition. 

Plaintiff also pointed out that the use of coal for energy generation is responsible for socio-environmental disasters in the region, the worsening of climate change, and damage to the public health, especially for populations already suffering from socio-economic disadvantages. It also challenged the provision in article 42 of the Law that excludes liability for environmental damage in the case of use of resources from duly licensed activities. 

Finally, it argued that the membership of the Council responsible for implementing the policy violates the principles of participatory democracy and equality, as there is an unequal number of seats allocated to government and civil society organizations and its composition does not reflect the participation of actors involved in environmental and labor causes and the sustainable closure of mines. 

The Court, by majority vote, acknowledged the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) and partially granted the requests, declaring the unconstitutionality of § 5 of article 34 of State Law No. 18.330/2022. However, it found that the State of Santa Catarina’s Just Energy Transition Policy is in line with constitutional dictates, both in terms of the necessary preservation of the environment and in relation to compliance with other mandates, finding no anomaly capable of distorting the transitional character that the legislation enunciates. In holding so, the Court focused on the Policy’s establishment requiring all  energy generation, distribution, and transmission companies installed in the respective federative entity to invest at least 5% of the funds allocated to research and development in technological development projects related to the use and/or destination of by-products and waste, regarding the treatment of produced gases and low-carbon technologies for coal combustion. ADI 7332 (Policy for “just energy transition” of the State of Santa Catarina) (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

Brazil: Court orders payment of Social Cost of Carbon for illegal wood storage 

In January 2019, Brazil’s Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA) filed a public civil action against Madeira Nova Aliança Ltda., seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infringement notice for illegal wood storage without an environmental license. This public civil action is one of the nine lawsuits brought by IBAMA on the same grounds, but against different defendants, to question illegal wood deposits and climate damage. 

The IBAMA alleged that the storage of wood without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. It sought reparation for environmental damages provoked by it, including (i) the damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. As for the climate damage, it claims that the unlawful conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. 

Plaintiff sought redress through the determination of (i) an obligation to restore the vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of logs seized, amounting to 30.46 hectares, ideally in an area of the same biome in Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project and (ii) an obligation to pay the climate damage based on the Carbon Social Cost (CSC) in the amount of R$ 2,957,915.77 . It claimed, based on the polluter pays principle, that the climate damage represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal deforestation, leaving it to society. It also argued that climate damage can be quantified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions of the activity by the CSC. In this case, IBAMA used the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, summing up to 11,178.82 tons of carbon.

In October 2024, a partial judgment was handed down ordering the defendant company to (i) present a Degraded Area Recovery Project (PRAD); (ii) pay material damages in the amount of R$327,201.32; (iii) suspend the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) of the area until the damage has been fully recovered; and (iv) maintain the suspension of participation in financing lines. In summary, the ruling confirmed the preliminary injunction without, however, addressing the requests for payment of compensation for the social cost of carbon.

In December 2025, a decision was issued on the Motion for Clarification, finding that the judgment was silent on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in its operative part, accepting the motion with modifying effects and applying CNJ Resolution 433/2021. The new decision established Defendant’s obligation to pay compensation for the SCC, with the amount to be determined in the judgment enforcement phase, observing, as a minimum parameter, the value of US$ 5.00 (five US dollars) per ton of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e), while also expressly confirming the preliminary injunctions previously granted. Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA) v. Madeira Nova Aliança Ltda. (Brazil, Pará Federal Court)

Brazil: Court rejects constitutional challenge to national biofuels law

On February 5, 2024, the Democratic Renewal Party (PRD) filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a preliminary injunction request, challenging the constitutionality of Articles 4(I), 6, 7, 9, and 10 of Law No. 13,576/2017. The law regulates the National Biofuels Policy (RenovaBio) and other provisions. By extension, PRD also asked the court to find Articles 1 to 8 and 12(IV to VII) of Decree No. 9,888/2019, all articles of National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP) Resolution No. 791/2019, and Articles 6(II to VII), 8(II), 11(§3), and 13 of Normative Ordinance No. 56/GM/MME/2022, as violating the norms outlined in the Federal Constitution, the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and the articles of the Paris Agreement, an international human rights treaty with supra legal force. 

PRD alleged that the Law at issue discriminates against fossil fuel distributors, for the norms only required these individuals, under penalty of fines, to purchase CBios (financial obligations) in proving compliance with the annual mandatory target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Allegedly, this creates discrimination among agents, violating the polluter-pays principle, the principle of equality, environmental protection, economic order, and consumer protection. It only holds fossil fuel distributors responsible for decarbonizing the entire fossil fuel chain, despite other agents in the chain also emitting, thereby affirming the inefficacy of the program’s model. 

It was also argued that the current RenovaBio model has created an inefficient and asymmetric public policy with severe negative environmental, social, and economic impacts, such as increased fuel prices, inflation, and GHG emissions — resulting from the undisputed increase in fossil fuel consumption — that produce outcomes contrary to the commitments made under the Paris Agreement and in conflict with constitutional principles. 

The rapporteur minister argued that RenovaBio fulfills international commitments to mitigate GHG emissions assumed by Brazil in the Paris Agreement, and that imposing decarbonization targets on fossil fuel distributors does not violate the principle of equality, since the differentiation criterion — the commercialization of fossil fuels — is objective and directly linked to the purpose of the rule. He further justified that the polluter-pays principle is observed insofar as the burden of environmental policy falls on consumers who opt for fossil fuels. 

The Court, jointly considered ADIs 7.596 and 7.617, and unanimously ruled the requests inadmissible, confirming the presumption of constitutionality of the challenged legal provisions, in accordance with the rapporteur’s vote. It concluded that there is no offense to the principles of free enterprise and free competition, since the program establishes uniform rules for all distributors of fossil fuels, and that there is no disproportionality or confiscation in the sanctions foreseen for producers and importers of biofuels who fail to meet the targets established within the scope of the policy. ADI 7596 (RenovaBio and Unlawful Interference in Economic Activity) (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

Brazil: Court ratifies the work of the Special Self-Composition Commission related to a constitutional challenge on Indigenous Genocide Law

In December 2023, the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), the Socialism and Liberty Party, and the Sustainability Network filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a preliminary injunction, challenging the constitutionality of a number of provisions in Federal Law No. 14,701/2023, which were previously vetoed by the President of the Republic but later overturned by the National Congress. Plaintiffs argued that the approved law represents a regression in the fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples, such as the elimination of the right to free, prior, and informed consultation, the original right to their historically occupied territories and collective ownership, and the rights to life and culture. The action contended that the rights of Indigenous peoples have been attacked by parliamentary majorities in opposition to decisions of the Supreme Federal Court, which, in its counter-majoritarian role, safeguards fundamental rights. 

In September 2023, the Supreme Federal Court concluded the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 1,017,365 with recognized general repercussion (Topic 1,031), where the “timeframe thesis” was rejected by a majority of the Court, reaffirming the protection of Indigenous territorial rights and environmental protection in the context of the climate emergency. Subsequently, members of Congress revived, under an expedited regime, legislative bills contrary to the established jurisprudence, including Bill No. 490/2007, which was later approved as Federal Law No. 14,701/2023 and enacted with certain articles vetoed. It is emphasized that Indigenous Lands contribute to climate balance, as they are essential for the protection of biodiversity, forests, and water resources. The approved law, therefore, contains various forms of unconstitutionality and puts environmental assets at risk, with the potential to exacerbate deforestation and the climate emergency. 

In August 2024, the present case and the related actions (ADC 87, ADIs 7582, 7583, and 7586, and ADO 86, which were ordered to proceed jointly) have started a conciliation procedure before the Special Commission for Consensual Dispute Resolution, which was established by the STF. 

In December 2025, a judgment was issued according to the vote of the Reporting Justice Gilmar Mendes, which, by majority vote, ratified the results of the work of the Special Self-Composition Commission. The vote accepted the proposals and guidelines formulated from a negotiation process between the institutional actors involved, aimed at overcoming the constitutional conflict, considering a possible interpretation of the case and ordering its submission to the National Congress for the adoption of appropriate measures. 

The Court also partially upheld the requests made in the actions, declaring the unconstitutionality of several provisions of Law No. 14,701/2023, especially those that incorporated the temporal framework thesis, as well as providing a constitutional interpretation to other provisions, with emphasis on the guarantee of the right to prior, free and informed consultation with indigenous communities and the requirement of proportional justification for state interventions on indigenous lands. Furthermore, it recognized the existence of unconstitutionality by omission regarding art. Article 67 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) establishes a 180-day deadline for the adoption of measures by the Public Authorities, and declared the appeals filed against previous monocratic decisions to be moot. 

It is noteworthy that, in the partially dissenting opinion of Minister Edson Fachin, there was mention of Advisory Opinion No. 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Considering that this opinion broadens “the scope of state obligations in the face of the climate emergency, it has repositioned the role of indigenous territorial rights in this scenario. Therefore, the so-called rule of evolutionary interpretation is fully applicable here ….” ADI 7582 (Indigenous Genocide Law) (Brazil, Federal Supreme Court)

Brazil: Court requires illegal deforesters to restore the degraded area and pay compensation for climate damages

On September 13, 2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Civil Public Action (CPA) against Nilton Oliveira da Silva for deforesting an area of 181.40 hectares between 2011 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleged that Defendant’s occupation of the land was illegal because it was part of an Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), owned and managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. This CPA is part of a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation conducted under Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49 into illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractivist Settlement Project (PAE), although each case involves different defendants. 

The lawsuit was based, among other elements, on Brazilian environmental law, emphasizing the constitutional protection of the environment, allegations of deforestation, propter rem civil liability for environmental damage (including climate-related damage), and collective moral damages. The action also highlighted the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, estimated at 107,470.09 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly linked to Brazil’s failure to meet its climate goals. These emissions placed the country at odds with its national and international commitments under the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) (Federal Law 12,187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9,073/2017).

In a ruling issued in February 2026, the court concluded that the defendant was objectively liable, based on the theory of integral risk and the propter rem nature of environmental obligations, and ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area through a PRAD (Environmental Recovery Plan), refrain from further interventions, (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages in the amount of R$ 2,839,589.54, adopting a price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2 and in accordance with the Amazon Fund; and (iv) pay collective moral damages (5% of the total value of material damages), in addition to declaring the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) linked to the area null and void. The court also ordered resources obtained from this action to be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. In the ruling, the court recognized the climate litigation nature of the lawsuit and the importance of the Amazon in climate regulation, and found that illegal deforestation generates illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions and compromises environmental public policies. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Nilton Oliveira da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)

India: Court emphasizes the “polluter pays” principle in implementing the expert committee’s recommendation to protect endangered species

The case was instituted by environmentalist M.K. Ranjitsinh and others under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to seek urgent judicial intervention for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, both of which are critically endangered.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in 2019 to seek protection for the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a species found primarily in Gujarat and Rajasthan. By an interim order in 2021, the Court restricted the installation of overhead transmission lines on the migration path. In 2022, however, several Ministries appealed the decision, and the Court in 2024 modified the 2021 decision to loosen the total prohibition on the transmission line installation.  (See case entry MK Ranjitsinh et al. v. Union of India et al. (Modification of April 2021 Judgment)). In doing so, the Court appointed an expert committee to suggest recommendations that strike a balance between conservation and development. 

The committee appointed in 2024 submitted reports for Rajasthan and Gujarat, identifying priority and non-priority areas where the states would implement in-situ and ex-situ conservation measures. Renewable Energy Generators, however, challenged the report on several grounds, including that some recommendations are not in line with India’s solar energy generation commitment and go beyond the committee’s remit under the Court’s 2024 order. The Generators requested that the Expert Committee’s recommendations not be given effect.

The Court held that entities engaged in power generation and transmission in both priority and non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must remember that they share the environment with the GIB. It reiterated the “species best interest” standard, placing the survival of the species as the top priority. Further, the Court held that the “polluter pays” principle mandates that those responsible should bear the cost of the species’ recovery. Accepting the committee’s report, the Court issued directions to Gujarat and Rajasthan for their implementation. Conservation of Endangered Species M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India (Objections to the Committee Reports) (India, Supreme Court)

Germany: Court holds the use of words “climate neutral” without further clarification to be misleading when carbon emission is offset by purchasing credits

The Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs (Wettbewerbszentrale), a German nonprofit association for fair competition, brought a claim against confectionery manufacturer Katjes Fassin GmbH + Co. KG, challenging an advertisement published in the trade journal Lebensmittel Zeitung on February 19, 2021. 

The advertisement promoted Katjes fruit gummies with the words “[s]eit 2021 produziert Katjes alle Produkte klimaneutral” (“since 2021, Katjes produces all products climate-neutrally”). The promotion was accompanied by a “klimaneutral” (“climate neutral”) label and a reference to the website of carbon offset provider ClimatePartner, accessible via URL and QR code. Plaintiffs alleged that this was misleading, as the production process itself was not CO₂-neutral; Katjes instead compensated its emissions by purchasing credits for climate protection projects through ClimatePartner.

The Landgericht Kleve dismissed the claim, finding the advertisement not misleading for the trade readership of the journal. On appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf upheld the dismissal, finding that the term “klimaneutral” was understood by consumers as referring to a balanced CO₂ accounting achievable through either reduction or compensation. The court explained that the reference to ClimatePartner’s website provided sufficient clarification.

On June 27, 2024, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) reversed the decision. The BGH found the advertisement misleading under § 5 Abs. 1 of the Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG). The BGH held that the term “klimaneutral” is inherently ambiguous: it can be understood either as actual CO₂ reduction in the production process or as mere compensation through offset credits. Because reduction and compensation are not equivalent measures — with reduction taking priority over compensation (“Grundsatz des Vorrangs der Reduktion gegenüber der Kompensation”) — the ambiguity itself constitutes active misleading without adequate in-advertisement clarification. The court further held that, given the particularly high risk of misleading consumers in environmental advertising (analogous to health-related advertising), clarification must appear in the advertisement itself; a reference to an external website via QR code is insufficient. The BGH ordered Katjes to cease and desist from advertising in the challenged form. 

This is Germany’s first ruling by the Federal Court of Justice on the permissibility of “climate-neutral” advertising claims and has since become the leading authority cited in all subsequent German greenwashing litigation. Wettbewerbszentrale v. Katjes Fassin GmbH + Co. KG (“climate neutral”) (Germany, Federal Court of Justice)