Climate Litigation Updates (October 3, 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 The Climate Litigation Database. 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 #203

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Federal Court Said Puerto Rican Municipalities’ Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Industry Were Time-Barred

The federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed Puerto Rico municipalities’ federal and Puerto Rico law claims that fossil fuel industry defendants misrepresented the climate change-related risks of their products, which led to destructive hurricanes in 2017 that caused extensive damages. A magistrate judge had recommended in February 2025 that the district court allow Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and antitrust claims to proceed. In its decision dismissing the claims, the district court first found that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Exxon Mobil Corporation, Shell PLC, BP PLC, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips as to all of the municipalities’ claims. The court dismissed all claims against Occidental Petroleum due to insufficient service of process and all claims against Rio Tinto PLC and BHP Group for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over American Petroleum Institute (API) for the federal antitrust and Puerto Rico law claims but that it had jurisdiction for claims against API under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On the merits, the court concluded that claims under RICO, federal antitrust law, and Puerto Rico law were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. The court found that there was “overwhelming evidence of public knowledge of articles, reports, and cases making the connection between Defendants and Plaintiffs’ claims” so that by September 2021, four years after the 2017 hurricanes, the plaintiffs knew or should have known both that they suffered injury and also whom to sue. The court concluded that the continuing tort and related doctrines did not apply; the court also found that equitable tolling based on alleged fraudulent concealment or on more general equitable tolling principles would not apply. The dismissals of claims on jurisdiction and service of process grounds were without prejudice; the dismissals of claims as time-barred were with prejudice. Municipality of Bayamón v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:22-cv-01550 (D.P.R. Sept. 11, 2025)

In a separate case brought by the Municipality of San Juan, the district court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by September 22 why its lawsuit should not also be dismissed given that “the factual and legal questions in this case are virtually identical.” The court subsequently granted San Juan an extension to September 29 and clarified that the order to show cause was “not an invitation to collaterally attack the decision in the related case.” Municipality of San Juan v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:23-cv-01608 (D.P.R. Sept. 11 and 19, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Maine Federal Court Remanded State’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Defendants to State Court and Granted State’s Motion for Costs and Fees

The federal district court for the District of Maine remanded to state court the State of Maine’s lawsuit alleging that fossil fuel industry defendants violated Maine law by deliberately misleading consumers and the public about their products’ contributions to climate change. The court found that the defendants failed to satisfy the requirement for federal officer removal that any action by the defendants under a federal officer’s authority have a sufficient “nexus” to the conduct charged in Maine’s complaint—i.e., the defendants’ acts of “deceiving consumers and the public about climate change.” The district court was not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments attempting to distinguish this case from Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., in which the First Circuit rejected federal officer removal as a basis for removing a similar case filed by the State of Rhode Island. The district court found that new federal activities related to production and distribution of fossil fuels not asserted in Rhode Island and new evidence regarding federal supervision and direction of a previously asserted activity did “not purport to establish any connection between the Defendants’ federally directed activities and their deceptive marketing and failures to warn, which is the only conduct that matters here for purposes of the nexus analysis.” The court also declined to “broaden the scope of the nexus inquiry” to consider the relationship of Maine’s alleged climate change injuries to the asserted federal activities. The court granted Maine’s request for attorney fees and costs. The court said that the issue of costs and fees was a “close call” since federal officer removal was “a complex and evolving area of law,” but found that awarding costs and fees was warranted because the First Circuit had twice rejected the removal arguments, as had at least 12 federal courts across the country. Maine v. BP p.l.c., No. 2:25-cv-00001 (D. Me. Sept. 29, 2025) 

Eighth Circuit Declined SEC Request to Issue Decision on Climate Disclosure Rules

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the petitions challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) climate change disclosure rules be held in abeyance until the SEC either reconsiders the rules through a notice-and-comment rulemaking or renews its defense of the rules. The Eighth Circuit noted that the rules had been stayed (by the SEC) and found that an abeyance would not cause material prejudice to the petitioners. The Eighth Circuit did not accede to the SEC’s July 23, 2025 request that the court decide the case. The Eighth Circuit’s order stated that it was “the agency’s responsibility to determine whether its Final Rules will be rescinded, repealed, modified, or defended in litigation.” Iowa v. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 24-1522 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025)

Eighth Circuit Said Department of Energy Exceeded Authority with Rule Intended to Incentivize Electric Vehicle Production

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2024 final U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) rule that changed the methodology for determining the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values for electric vehicles (EVs). The rule preserved and then gradually phased out a “fuel content factor” that “artificially inflates” EVs’ fuel economy to increase adoption of EVs. The Eighth Circuit first found that state petitioners had standing based on allegations that the rule would result in increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions because inflating EV fuel economy values would allow car manufacturers to continue to produce less efficient gasoline-powered vehicles while still meeting the fuel economy standards for their fleets. The states alleged that increased greenhouse gas emissions would result in rising sea levels that would erode the sovereign territory of state petitioners with coastlines (Florida, Mississippi, and Texas). The Eighth Circuit found that the alleged injury was particularized and concrete, imminent, traceable to the rule, and redressable by the court. The Eighth Circuit also found that the challenge to the DOE rule was not mooted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s adoption of new, more stringent emissions standards. On the merits, the Eighth Circuit ruled that DOE lacked statutory authority to retain and then phase out the fuel content factor. In addition, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the rule’s methodology for calculating cumulative equivalent fuel economy violated notice-and-comment procedures. Iowa v. Wright, No. 24-1721 (8th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025)

Tenth Circuit Reversed Injunction on Town of Vail Restrictions on Motor Vehicles in Pedestrian Areas

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision that granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Town of Vail’s ordinance restricting motor vehicles in the Town’s pedestrian areas. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits of the claim that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act and the Airline Deregulation Act preempted the ordinance because safety-related exceptions to preemption applied. (When it first adopted restrictions, Vail described the purposes as to “improve the guest experience by reducing the number of oversize vehicles in the pedestrian areas and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of electric vehicles for the final leg of deliveries,” but neither the Tenth Circuit nor the district court’s decision addressed the potential climate change benefits of the ordinance.) Colorado Motor Carriers Association v. Town of Vail, No. 24-1017 (10th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Denied Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grantees’ Request for Injunction Pending Appeal of Dismissal of Challenge to Grant Terminations

The federal district court in the District of Columbia denied Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant recipients’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal of the court’s August 29, 2025 dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of their challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s termination of their grants. The court found that harm to the plaintiffs if the grant funds were returned to the Treasury was not irreparable, given that the plaintiffs admitted that individual grantees could file in the Court of Federal Claims to seek damages for breach of the grant agreements. The court also found that injuries to third parties from loss of funding for “vital projects” was not a basis to find irreparable harm. The Court also found that the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, even if the “legal landscape is in flux.” Appalachian Voices v. EPA, No. 25-cv-1982 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2025)

Wisconsin Federal Court Said Environmental Review Considered Climate Consequences of Land Exchange for Completed Transmission Line

The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to federal defendants and intervenor-defendant utilities in a challenge to a land exchange that granted the utilities fee ownership of land within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge to facilitate completion of a 101-mile high-voltage transmission line. The court concluded that the action was not moot even though the transmission line project had been completed and placed in service in September 2024, but on the merits the court rejected arguments that the exchange violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) analysis of the land exchange—“the only reviewable federal action”—complied with NEPA because FWS considered possible environmental impacts, including climate consequences, and a reasonable range of alternatives. With respect to climate impacts, the court noted that a supplemental environmental assessment had found that the land exchange and related route modifications would not change the minor, long-term increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the previously approved transmission line project and that “very minor” climate benefits were expected from carbon sequestration resulting from management for resource conservation purposes of the new property incorporated into the refuge. The court also found that the defendants complied with NEPA’s public participation requirements. National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service, No. 3:24-cv-00139 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 24, 2025)

Federal Court Said Forest Service Failed to Take a Hard Look at Forest Management Project’s Impacts on Water Quality

The federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled for a third time that the U.S. Forest Service failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project in Hoosier National Forest. The court found that the agency failed to adequately consider water quality impacts to the adjacent Lake Monroe, which serves as the sole source of drinking water for more than 145,000 people. The court’s decision did not address the complaint’s allegations regarding failures to address impacts on old-growth forest. The court enjoined the project pending briefing on the appropriate remedy. Monroe County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:24-cv-01560 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2025)

Colorado Federal Court Allowed Portion of Challenge to Denver Natural Gas Appliance Restrictions to Proceed but Said Other Challenges Were Premature

In a lawsuit alleging that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts City and County of Denver laws and regulations restricting or banning use of certain natural gas appliances, the federal district court for the District of Colorado allowed challenges to 2023 amendments to the Energy Code to proceed but found that challenges to Municipal Code provisions directing that additional standards take effect in 2025 and 2027 were not ripe. The court noted that Denver had not yet added the 2025 and 2027 standards to its Energy Code, so the standards were not final and enforceable; the court also found that declining to decide the challenges to the 2025 and 2027 standards would not cause the plaintiffs significant hardship. The court rejected defendant-intervenor Sierra Club’s contention that EPCA’s 60-day limit for judicial review should apply to the challenge to the 2023 Energy Code amendments. Restaurant Law Center v. City & County of Denver, No. 1:24-cv-01862 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025)

Washington Federal Court Said “Too Vague” Maps for Timber Treatment Project Did Not Meet NEPA Hard Look Requirement

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Washington vacated a finding of no significant impact issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the U.S. Forest Service for a timber treatment project in the Colville National Forest. The court found that “the maps identifying areas for commercial timber harvesting are too vague to ensure a hard look at the impact of harvesting and public comment.” The court rejected the plaintiff’s other arguments. The decision did not explicitly address the complaint’s allegations regarding the Forest Service’s failure to take a hard look at the project’s impacts on climate change and the potential impacts of climate change on the project. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 2:24-cv-00157 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Rejected NEPA Challenge to SpaceX Launch License

The federal district court for the District of Columbia found that a programmatic environmental assessment and associated mitigated finding of no significant impact approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for SpaceX’s license to test its reusable launch vehicle at its base in Boca Chica, Texas, satisfied NEPA requirements. The court rejected the argument that the FAA unlawfully delegated its authority to SpaceX and that comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department necessitated preparation of an environmental impact statement. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contentions that the FAA failed to satisfy its obligation to take a hard look at the four issues on which plaintiffs focused: lighting, noise, anomalies (i.e., “unexpected explosions during tests or launches that can spread debris and cause fires around launch areas”), and access closures. Although the complaint alleged failures to analyze impacts on climate, including through the burning and venting of liquid methane, that issue was not a focus of briefing and was not addressed in the court’s decision. Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 1:23-cv-01204 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2025)

D.C. Federal Court Dismissed Suit to Compel FEMA’s Issuance of Rule Defining “Resilient” and “Resiliency”

The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that Center for Biological Diversity and four other “nonprofit organizations in the United States and Puerto Rico with climate and environmental interests” did not have standing in their suit to compel the Federal Energy Management Agency (FEMA) to issue a final rule defining the terms “resilient” and “resiliency” for purposes of estimating costs of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing facilities after a disaster pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). A 2018 amendment to the Stafford Act directed the FEMA Administrator to issue a regulation defining those terms. Prior to filing their suit, the plaintiffs submitted a rulemaking petition urging FEMA to prioritize renewable energy, energy demand reductions, and electrification in funding for energy needs. The district court found that the organizations failed to demonstrate either that FEMA’s inaction on finalizing a rule caused their alleged harms or “how defining a term used by FEMA to estimate repair costs, without cabining spending discretion, will plausibly ameliorate any of their alleged injuries,” which included the organizations’ members’ exposure to pollution, power outages from centralized fossil fuel-based power infrastructure, and storm damage to one plaintiff organization’s office, which could be eligible for FEMA relief. Center for Biological Diversity v. Richardson, No. 1:24-cv-01285 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2025)

Plaintiffs Filed Motion in Ninth Circuit to Block California Climate Disclosure Laws After District Court Denied Injunction Pending Appeal

Four weeks after denying a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining two California laws requiring climate change-related disclosures by certain companies, the federal district court for the Central District of California denied a motion by plaintiffs for an injunction pending appeal. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide a basis for revisiting the court’s conclusions that the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment challenges or its conclusion that they did not demonstrate irreparable harm. On September 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for injunction pending  appeal. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:24-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)

California Federal Court Said Plaintiffs Satisfied Notice Requirement for Challenge to Federal Actions Authorizing Restarting of Offshore Drilling 10 Years After Pipeline Rupture

The federal district court for the Central District of California denied intervenor-defendant Sable Offshore Corporation’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging federal actions authorizing Sable to restart offshore oil and gas production from the Santa Ynez Unit in the Santa Barbara Channel without a revision to the development and production plan (DPP). Oil and gas production at the Santa Ynez Unit was shut down after a 2015 rupture in an onshore pipeline that transported oil from the Unit. The court concluded that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s 60-day notice provision applied to the lawsuit and that the plaintiffs’ September 2024 notice of intent to sue satisfied this requirement even though the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management subsequently determined in April 2025 that Sable did not need to revise the DPP. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 2:25-cv-02840 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Said Climate Working Group Did Not Qualify as Exception to Federal Advisory Committee Act but Found that Environmental Groups Did Not Establish Irreparable Harm Warranting Preliminary Injunction

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Climate Working Group assembled by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright did not fall within an exception to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for groups “assembled to exchange facts or information with a Federal official.” The court found that a “single act of incorporating feedback on a draft of an otherwise independent report” was “not analogous to the prolonged exchanges between indeterminate groups” that courts had found to fall within the FACA exception. The court further found that no reasonable jury could find that the report authored by the Climate Working Group did not constitute “advice or recommendations for a renewed approach to climate policy” and not a “mere ‘review’ of the literature.” The court denied the environmental group plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to provide them with the Climate Working Group records; the court found the plaintiffs’ inability to draw on the records in comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rescission of the 2009 Clean Air Act endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions did not constitute an irreparable informational injury. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Sept. 17, 2025)

Southern District of New York Granted New York State Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Business Groups’ Challenge to Climate Superfund Law

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion by the New York Attorney General and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to transfer business groups’ lawsuit challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York. The court first noted that it was undisputed that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of New York, where West Virginia and other states and business associations had filed a challenge to the law several weeks before this lawsuit was filed. The court then determined that the transfer would serve the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses. The court concluded that the interests of justice weighed heavily in favor of transfer because the “central issues” of this case and the West Virginia case were “substantially similar such that it would be inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome to litigate them in two separate courts.” The court distinguished this determination from its previous decision denying a motion to transfer the United States’ challenge to the Climate Change Superfund Act to the Northern District of New York. The court noted the difference in plaintiff types (federal government entities versus business organizations) and the presence in the United States’ case of “several legal issues” that did not overlap with the issues in this case. The court found that that other factors such as the plaintiffs’ choice of forum and convenience to witnesses and parties either weighed only slightly in favor or against transfer or were neutral. The court also found that application of the “first-filed” rule would create an unrebutted presumption for transfer. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. James, No. 1:25-cv-01738 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2025)

California Federal Court Allowed Environmental Groups to Proceed with Plastic Pollution Nuisance Claim Against Exxon

The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) motion to dismiss environmental organizations’ lawsuit seeking to hold Exxon liable for its alleged contributions to plastic pollution in California. The organizations’ complaint included allegations regarding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with “advanced recycling.” The court rejected Exxon’s contention that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Exxon and found that the environmental groups’ complaint adequately stated a public nuisance claim with allegations that Exxon’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in California’s “plastic pollution crisis” and that Exxon foresaw the harm that allegedly had resulted from its single-use plastics business. The court dismissed the organizations’ claim of Unfair Competition Law violations but denied Exxon’s motion to strike allegations under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law. The court found that anti-SLAPP law’s Public Interest Exemption applied. Sierra Club v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-cv-07288 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)

Minnesota Appellate Court Upheld Updated Environmental Review for University Arena Project

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld a negative EIS declaration issued by the City of St. Paul for a planned multipurpose arena project at the University of St. Thomas. The City issued the negative EIS declaration on remand from the court’s earlier decision concluding that the City’s environmental review under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act was deficient. The court found that the updated review adequately responded to the court’s earlier ruling, including the determination that the original negative EIS declaration overlooked greenhouse gas emissions from increased spectator traffic. The court found that the City’s updated declaration explained the rationale for its determination that the greenhouse gas emissions did not create significant environmental effects, including from additional phased actions that the University was taking, and that substantial evidence in the record reasonably supported its findings. The court also said it would not revisit its determination in the first case that substantial evidence supported the decision to omit cooling and refrigeration system emissions from the greenhouse gas analysis. The court also rejected new challenges raised for the first time. In re City of St. Paul’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed University of St. Thomas Phased Action, No. A25-0076 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2025)

North Dakota Trial Court Denied Dakota Access Pipeline Developers’ Request to Block Greenpeace International’s Dutch Anti-SLAPP Lawsuit

The North Dakota District Court denied the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) developers’ request for an anti-suit injunction prohibiting Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with an action against the developers in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive. A District Court jury found in March 2025 that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers for actions related to DAPL protests. In its order denying the anti-suit injunction, the court found that the threshold considerations for an injunction were not satisfied. Although the parties in the North Dakota and Dutch case were the same, the court found that the issues were different since the Dutch case involved defamation allegations by GPI against the developers and since North Dakota does not recognize a SLAPP or anti-SLAPP action. The court also found that the Dutch action’s frustration of a policy in the North Dakota court was “not a certainty” and declined to find that the Dutch action was vexatious or that it threatened North Dakota courts’ in rem jurisdiction or prejudiced equitable considerations in the developers’ North Dakota lawsuit. The court also concluded that the issue of comity did not apply because GPI’s SLAPP and defamation claims were not pending before the North Dakota court. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Sept. 9, 2025)

Charleston Elected Not to Appeal Dismissal of Climate Case

On September 15, 2025, Law360 confirmed that the City of Charleston, South Carolina, had decided not to appeal the August 2025 dismissal of its lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for the harmful effects of climate change. The deadline to appeal was September 5.  City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., No. 2020CP1003975 (S.C. Ct. Com.)

Montana Trial Court Awarded Held v. State Youth Plaintiffs Attorney Fees and Costs

The Montana District Court awarded the youth plaintiffs who prevailed on climate change-based Montana Constitution claims against the State of Montana and other State defendants more than $2.8 million in attorney fees and almost $100,000 in additional costs. Considering the factors for an award of attorney fees under the Private Attorney General Doctrine, the court found that the “strength and societal importance of the public policies vindicated by this litigation is extremely high”; that circumstances—including harms to Montana’s children and natural environment—established a need for private enforcement; and that the number of people benefitting from the court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs was the number of persons who benefit from rights in the Montana Constitution. The court also found that the equities in the case supported an award of attorney fees pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, including because the parties were not similarly situated since the plaintiffs were “younger persons suffering the effects of climate change, with arguably no power beyond bringing suit to address their state government's failure to abide by constitutional provisions,” and the defendants had “significantly more resources in terms of governmental structure, personnel, and power to devote to the duty to protect Montana’s natural resources and environment, including in any court case.” Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Sept. 16, 2025) 

Miami-Dade County Trial Court Transferred Youth Plaintiffs’ Climate Suit to Tallahassee

On July 28, 2025, the Florida Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County granted the Florida Public Service Commission’s motion to transfer youth plaintiffs’ climate change lawsuit against the Commission to Leon County where the Commission’s Tallahassee headquarters are located. The plaintiffs assert that the Commission has violated their fundamental and inalienable rights to life under the Florida Constitution “by and through its pattern and practice of determining fossil fuel-dependent 10-Year Site Plans of Florida’s electric utilities are suitable, even though such conduct results and locks in a fossil fuel-dependent electricity sector in Florida.” On September 16, the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to stay pending appeal. Reynolds v. Florida Public Service Commission, No. 2024-019966-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.)

California Court Rejected CEQA Challenges to Highway Expansion Project

A California trial court dismissed environmental organizations’ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuits challenging the California Department of Transportation’s environmental review of the Yolo 80 Corridor Improvements Project. The project adds a lane of traffic to segments of Interstate 80 and U.S. Route 50. The court rejected all of the petitioners’ arguments, including that the CEQA review was improperly “piecemealed,” that the project was inconsistent with the regional transportation plan, and that the CEQA review overestimated the project’s benefits such as congestion relief and underestimated impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions. Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Transportation, No. 24CV077619 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2025)

Evian Water Company Settled Greenwashing Suits

On August 29, 2025, Plastic Pollution Coalition (the Coalition) and defendant Danone Waters of America, LLC (Danone) stipulated to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the Coalition’s greenwashing suit alleging that Danone violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by making false and misleading representations regarding the “sustainability” and “natural” quality of evian bottled water products. On August 19, the parties notified the court that they had agreed to a settlement of the matter.  Plastic Pollution Coalition v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 2024-CAB-004562 (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2025)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

United States Filed Brief Supporting Supreme Court Review of Colorado Supreme Court Decision Allowing State-Law Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies

The United States filed an amicus brief in support of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., Suncor Energy Sales Inc., and Exxon Mobil Corporation’s petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s May 2025 opinion holding that federal law did not preempt claims brought by the City of Boulder and the County Commissioners of Boulder County (together, Boulder) under state law to hold the companies liable for climate change-related injuries. The U.S. contended that review by the Court was warranted because both the Constitution and the Clean Air Act barred Boulder’s state law claims and because the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision conflicted with the Second Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. on a “frequently recurring issue of exceptional importance,” given the number of other pending cases brought by state and local governments against fossil fuel industry defendants. Six other briefs were filed in support of the petition by the following amici curiae: American Petroleum Institute; Atlantic Legal Foundation, Washington Legal Foundation, and Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel; American Tort Reform Association; two law professors; Frontier Institute, Independence Institute, Pelican Institute for Public Policy, and Manhattan Institute; and a retired U.S. Air Force general and a retired U.S. Navy admiral.  Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170 (U.S.)

Environmental Groups Filed Suit to Compel Final Determination on Endangered Species Act Status of Miami Cave Crayfish

Center for Biological Diversity and Miami Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit in federal district court for the Southern District of Florida to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish a final determination on its proposed rule to list the Miami cave crayfish as threatened. FWS proposed to list the species in a September 20, 2023 notice; the Endangered Species Act requires that a final determination be published within one year of the proposed rule. Citing the proposed rule, the complaint alleged that the primary threat to the species is “saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer resulting from sea level rise, more frequent tidal flooding, and storms of increasing intensity.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-24487 (S.D. Fla., filed Sept. 30, 2025)

Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Decision Upholding Approval of Line 5 Fuel Pipeline

The Michigan Supreme Court granted two applications for leave to appeal a February 2025 Court of Appeals decision affirming the Michigan Public Service Commission’s conditional approval of an application by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge) to replace and relocate a portion of its Line 5 fuel pipeline to a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. In its order granting an application filed by Tribes and environmental organizations, the Supreme Court indicated it would consider whether the Court of Appeals erred by (1) “applying a deferential standard of review rather than determining de novo whether the proposed conduct will pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or state’s other natural resources or the public trust in these resources under … the Michigan Environmental Protection Act” and (2) “affirming the Michigan Public Service Commission’s limitation on the scope of the evidence to be reviewed regarding its determinations under … MEPA and its decision to exclude evidence of the history and risk of oil spills along the entire length of Line 5 in those determinations.” In the order granting a water issues-focused environmental organization’s application, the Supreme Court indicated it would consider common-law public trust doctrine issues. In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5, Nos. 168346, 168335-9 (Mich. Sept. 19, 2025)

Rhode Island and Connecticut Challenged Federal Stop Work Order for Revolution Wind, Citing Impacts on Ability to Achieve State Mandates to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On September 4, 2025, Rhode Island and Connecticut filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) August 22, 2025 issuance of a Stop Work Order requiring the developer of the Revolution Wind offshore wind project to cease construction. The two states asserted that BOEM’s action violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which the states said “demand reasoned decision-making, fidelity to statutory limits, and respect for the settled expectations of sovereign States and regulated parties.” The states alleged that the Stop Work Order harmed them by jeopardizing a project that is “critical to the States’ economic vitality, energy mix, and climate goals.” The complaint identified state-level statutory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify the energy supply and alleged that the Stop Work Order would imperil compliance with such mandates. On September 17, the states filed a motion for a preliminary injunction lifting the Stop Work Order. After the District of the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) granted a motion for preliminary injunction lifting the Stop Work Order in a case brought by the project’s developer, the federal defendants asked the Rhode Island court to hold the preliminary injunction motion in the states’ case in abeyance. The federal defendants also had asked the court to transfer the states’ case to the D.D.C. Green Oceans, a nonprofit organization that is a plaintiff in litigation challenging federal approval of Revolution Wind, moved to intervene as a defendant. Rhode Island v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00439 (D.R.I., filed Sept. 4, 2025)

Washington Supreme Court to Consider Validity of Natural Gas Access Ballot Initiative 

The Washington Supreme Court agreed to retain for direct review an appeal by the Building Industry Association of Washington of a trial court decision that held that a 2024 ballot initiative regarding natural gas use and electrification violated the Washington Constitution’s single-subject rule and other requirements for ballot initiatives. The ballot title for the initiative stated that it “would repeal or prohibit certain laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and/or promote electrification, and require certain utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers.” Climate Solutions v. State, No. 104240-0 (Wash. Sept. 3, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION DEVELOPMENTS

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Juliana plaintiffs submit petition against the United States

On Sept. 23, 2025, fifteen young people who were formerly plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States, together with Our Children’s Trust and the support of Dignity Rights Advocates, submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The petition alleged that for over five decades the U.S. government has knowingly pursued energy policies and practices that have substantially contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, thereby causing dangerous climate change and depriving petitioners of rights guaranteed under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, international human rights law, and customary international law.

The petitioners argued that the U.S. government’s actions and omissions violated their rights to life (Art. I), personal security and integrity (Art. I), equality before the law (Art. II), residence and movement (Art. VIII), preservation of health and well-being (Art. XI), benefits of culture (Art. XIII), work and fair remuneration (Art. XIV), family protection (Art. VI), and property (Art. XXIII). They emphasized that the harms stem both from the federal government’s systemic support for fossil fuel development and its failure to implement effective mitigation measures, despite decades of scientific evidence of climate risk.

The petition further highlighted how the U.S. Department of Justice’s sustained efforts to block Juliana v. United States from proceeding to trial, along with federal appellate court rulings denying redress, violated the petitioners’ procedural rights, including access to justice and an effective remedy. The petitioners contended that these denials compounded the substantive harms they face from climate change.

Relying on recent advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice, the petition applied those rulings to the circumstances of Juliana v. United States. It stressed that States have binding obligations to guarantee human rights, prevent significant harm to the global climate system, and mitigate greenhouse gas pollution.

The submission builds on earlier initiatives that first framed climate change as a human rights issue before the IACHR, such as the 2005 Inuit petition, and follows a decade of litigation in Juliana v. United States. The case remains pending before the IACHR. Juliana Youth v. United States of America (Jóvenes ex Juliana v. Estados Unidos de América) (Inter-American Commission of Human Rights)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Mexico: Court Dismisses Human Rights Violation Claim against Energy Sector Program due to Lack of Direct, Real and Current Damage

On June 22, 2022, Greenpeace Mexico filed a complaint in the District Court in Mexico City against Mexico’s new Energy Sector Program for 2022-2036. The complaint alleges that the Program violates human rights - including the right to a healthy environment – because: (i) the electricity policy reflected in the Program does not contemplate the development of a just energy transition strategy that generates wellbeing, reduces the negative social and environmental impacts of the sector, respects and guarantees human rights. In addition, (ii) it delays 13 years the fulfillment of clean energy generation goals and maintains the use of fuels with high social, environmental and climate impact, such as gas, fuel oil and coal, (iii) and finally, it perpetuates negative externalities that end up affecting populations living in highly marginalized conditions. It is also observed in the Program that the generation of electric energy with fossil fuels such as gas and fuel oil is favored and will continue to be favored; this will not allow Mexico to meet its clean energy goals.

On January 24, 2024, the Third District Court in Administrative Matters Specialized in Antitrust, Broadcasting, and Telecommunications decided that Greenpeace did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit, because the Energy Sector Program did not cause the plaintiff a direct, real and current damage. The Court made this decision because it interpreted that the Energy Sector Program is a planning instrument that integrates objectives and strategies with specific actions to be conducted by the Ministry of Energy based on an analysis of the energy sector and sets a series of guidelines, objectives and specific strategies related. These objectives and strategies are indicative, and it is a merely declarative document that does not generate any type of legal obligation, and therefore, it is not an act that affects the plaintiff’s rights. Then, the case was dismissed.

On February 9, 2024, Greenpeace appealed the Court’s decision. On February 20, 2025, the Collegiate Court confirmed the District Court’s decision and dismissed the case. Greenpeace v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the Energy Sector Program 2022) (Mexico, Collegiate Court)

Mexico: Court Dismisses Case Claiming Right to a Healthy Environment against a Program Displacing Renewable Energy Sources with Fossil Fuel after the Constitution is Amended to Prioritize State-Owned Company

Greenpeace challenged the constitutionality of the amendments to the Electric Industry Act and the National Electricity Sector Development Program 2020-2034 (PRODESEN). In its suit, Greenpeace also asked for a stay of the implementation of both regulations. Plaintiff argued that the regulations displace the use of renewable energy sources in electricity generation in favor of polluting, fossil fuel sources. This transgresses Mexico’s international commitments on climate change.

The First District Court in Administrative Matters Specialized in Antitrust, Broadcasting and Telecommunications granted a stay of the implementation of both the Act and PRODESEN. The court agreed with the plaintiffs in considering that the regulation could potentially transgress the right to a healthy environment by stalling the energy transition.

The stay was appealed by the authorities. On September 1, 2022, the First Circuit Court in Administrative Matters Specialized in Antitrust, Broadcasting and Telecommunications overturned the district court’s decision, denying the stay. The court argued that the potential harms that could derive from the challenged regulations were conditioned by the need to modify and amend other regulations. In this sense, the harm was not sufficiently immediate to grant the stay.

On January 9, 2023, the District Court ruled on the merits in favor of Greenpeace. The District Court decided that the 2021 amendments to the Electric Industry Law, as well as the Energy Sector Program 2020, violate the right to a healthy environment by prioritizing the energy generated through fossil fuels. On February 9, 2023, the Mexican government appealed the District Court decision to uphold the plaintiff’s claims. 

On January 24, 2024, the Third District Court in Administrative Matters Specialized in Antitrust, Broadcasting, and Telecommunications decided that Greenpeace did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit, because the Energy Sector Program did not cause the plaintiff a direct, real and current damage. The Court made this decision because it interpreted that the Energy Sector Program is a planning instrument that integrates objectives and strategies with specific actions to be conducted by the Ministry of Energy based on an analysis of the energy sector and sets a series of guidelines, objectives and specific strategies related. These objectives and strategies are indicative, and it is a merely declarative document that does not generate any type of legal obligation, and therefore, it is not an act that affects the plaintiff’s rights. Then, the case was dismissed.

On February 9, 2024, Greenpeace appealed the Court’s decision.

In October 2024, the Mexican Constitution was amended to prioritize the electricity generated by CFE, because it is a state-owned company. As a result of this amendment, on June 2, 2025, the Collegiate Court decided to dismiss the case, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, where it was decided that the challenged norm will no longer have any legal effect. Greenpeace v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the Energy Sector Program 2020 and Electric Industry Law) (Mexico, Collegiate Court)

Mexico: Court Dismisses Claim of Right to a Healthy Environment and Access to Electricity from Renewable Sources based on Potential Disruption to Public Order

On August 20, 2020, Greenpeace Mexico lodged a complaint in the District Court of Mexico City against Mexico’s Energy Sector Program for 2020-2024, which had been finalized on July 8, 2020. The complaint asserts that the Program infringes upon human rights, including the right to a healthy environment and access to electricity from renewable sources. This infringement stems from the Program’s promotion of fossil fuel usage at the expense of investments in renewable energy, greenhouse gas reduction, and climate adaptation.

Subsequently, on September 21, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily suspending the Program while the case was pending resolution. This suspension was predicated on the Program’s prioritization of fossil fuels, which could potentially pose imminent, irreparable harm.

On February 22, 2021, Greenpeace expanded its complaint to encompass the Federal Expenditure Budget for the Federation for the fiscal year 2021, specifically annexes 15 and 16. Annex 15 pertains to the budget allocation for the energy transition strategy, which promotes renewable technologies, while Annex 16 concerns resources assigned for climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, on March 19, 2021, the Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction to suspend the Federal Budget annexes. This denial was based on the belief that suspending the Federal Budget would disrupt public order due to its significance to society.

Furthermore, on March 31, 2023, in relation to the Energy Sector Program for 2020-2024, the Court determined that the lawsuit had been filed beyond the legally established deadline. As for the complaint against the Federal Expenditure Budget for the Federation for the fiscal year 2021, the Judge deemed it inadmissible because the budget for that year was no longer in effect. Consequently, the case was dismissed.

On April 27, 2023, Greenpeace filed an appeal against the dismissal of the case. On May 9, 2023 the appellate Collegiate Court admitted the appeal. On October 6, 2023, Greenpeace requested the Mexican Supreme Court to hear the appeal. On November 16, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case. Therefore, the Collegiate Court will resolve the case, and the decision is pending.

On June 19, 2025, the Collegiate Court confirmed the District Court decision, dismissing the case. Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the Energy Sector Program) (Mexico, Collegiate Court)

European Court of Human Rights: Court Rules that a General Exposure to the Adverse Effects of Climate Change is Incompatible Ratione Personae with the Provisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Follow-up case to Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment regarding the Climate Protection Act (CP Act), where the Court had ordered the legislature to amend the act to comply with the environmental targets. The applicants complain that the CP Act amendments are insufficient to meet the targets agreed upon at COP 21.

They alleged that the version of the Federal Climate Change Act in question did not satisfy the State’s positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention to put in place a legislative and administrative framework that effectively protected them from serious adverse effects on their lives and health arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change. They further argued that the Federal Climate Change Act had an advance interference-like effect on the future exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, as the irreversible depletion of the remaining CO2 budget would require radical restrictions on the exercise of those freedoms in the future.

In its Committee decision of August 28, 2025, the Court declared the application inadmissible.

Regarding the complaint under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Court held that even though the applicants referred to specific circumstances prevailing at their places of residence in Germany, the submissions were of a generalised nature. It was not apparent that they were exposed to the adverse effects of climate change, or were at risk of being exposed at any relevant point in the future, with a degree of intensity giving rise to a pressing need to ensure their individual protection. The applicants also failed to demonstrate that they had specific vulnerabilities or that exceptional circumstances existed in relation to the adverse effects of climate change to which they were at risk of being exposed to in the future.

As (a) a high intensity of exposure of the applicant to the adverse effects of climate change; and (b) a pressing need to ensure the applicant’s individual protection are two key criteria for victim status in the context of complaints concerning harm or risk of harm resulting from alleged failures by the State to combat climate change (as established in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others), the complainants did not attain victim status. Their complaint under Article 8 was therefore declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the ECHR.

As regards the complaint under Article 2 ECHR, the Court considered that the applicants’ submissions did not reveal that they were exposed to a “real and imminent” risk to their lives, such as to trigger the applicability of Article 2 ECHR. This complaint was therefore declared incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the ECHR. Engels and Others v. Germany (International Courts & Tribunals, European Court of Human Rights)

South Korea: Court Rules that Environmental Rights and Statutory Provisions do not Create Enforceable Claims to Block a State-Owned Gas Company’s Resolution to Invest in an FLNG Project

On February 7, 2025, a group of South Korean youths and shareholders of Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS), a state-owned gas company, filed an injunction application to block KOGAS’s board resolution to invest USD 562 million in the Mozambique Area 4 Coral II (North) FLNG project. The plaintiffs argued that the investment violated their rights, including environmental rights under the Constitution and related statutes, as well as shareholder rights to dividends, and posed risks of irreparable economic and environmental harm. They emphasized the urgency of intervention due to Mozambique’s political instability, weak governance, declining global LNG demand, and prior project failures.

The plaintiffs contended that the board resolution exceeded the company’s proper authority and breached directors’ fiduciary duties. They argued that environmental rights require protection against overseas investments that create substantial ecological risks, the resolution constituted mismanagement threatening company value and dividends, and urgent relief was needed because the investment could not easily be undone once executed. They also highlighted that participation of other international companies made unilateral reversal difficult and that the project’s continuation could exacerbate environmental harm and international disputes.

On July 17, 2025, the Daegu District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application, finding that they did not have a legally recognized right to challenge the board resolution. It held that environmental rights and statutory provisions did not create enforceable claims for the board resolution at issue and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency to justify injunctive relief, as potential economic and environmental harms were either speculative or addressable in the main litigation. Kim et al. v. KOGAS (South Korea, Daegu District Court)

Australia: Court Issues Interlocutory Injunction Temporarily Halting a Seismic Survey in Offshore Waters for Lack of Statutory Authority to Approve such Plans and Failure to Consult Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Representatives

Two subsidiaries of Woodside Energy Group Ltd (Woodside) planned to conduct a seismic survey in offshore waters near the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The purpose of the survey was to explore and map subsea geological formations in order to identify potential oil and gas reserves. To proceed, Woodside was required to obtain approval from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) for an environment plan, which it received on 31 July 2023. This approval was granted subject to conditions, including a requirement to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives prior to the commencement of the survey.

One such person was Ms Raelene Cooper, a Mardudhunera elder and traditional custodian of Murujuga, who was entitled to be consulted under the conditions. Ms Cooper initiated proceedings in the Federal Court on two grounds: first, that NOPSEMA lacked the statutory authority to approve the environment plan without being reasonably satisfied that proper consultation had occurred (Ground 1); and second, that Woodside had failed to meet the consultation requirements, giving her standing to seek an injunction to stop the survey (Ground 2).

The Court issued an interlocutory injunction temporarily halting the survey and examined three preliminary legal issues. It ultimately found that NOPSEMA did not have statutory power to approve the plan without first being satisfied that the consultation requirements under regulation 11A of the relevant regulations had been met. The Court also held that Woodside had not identified a valid discretionary basis for denying Ms Cooper relief. As a result, the Court granted her the relief sought under Ground 1 and found it unnecessary to rule on Ground 2 or her standing in relation to it. Cooper v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & ors (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

Australia: Court Approves a Grant of Environmental Authority to Undertake Gas Project, Finding No Material Additional Environmental Harm

Blue Energy Limited (Blue), through its subsidiary Eureka Petroleum Pty Ltd, sought an environmental authority (EA) to undertake its Sapphire gas project in the Moranbah region of Queensland, targeting coal seam gas (CSG) reserves. The project aimed to supply gas to the Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub and the Moranbah Gas Project. In March 2023, the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science, and Innovation (DETSI) granted the EA, but Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc. appealed this decision to the Queensland Land Court, raising concerns about groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions, CSG production estimates, and biodiversity impacts. This appeal marked the first published Land Court challenge to an EA for a petroleum project in Queensland, indicating a potential shift in environmental litigation focus from coal to petroleum. During proceedings, Blue and Eureka withdrew their applications for two of the three originally included petroleum lease areas, limiting the EA to the Sapphire block.

The parties ultimately agreed to amend the EA, including restrictions on the Sapphire block and enhanced protections for groundwater and biodiversity. The Land Court, after reviewing DETSI’s earlier decisions and the agreed amendments, found that the revised EA would not cause material additional environmental harm and would help mitigate impacts. It set aside the original decision and issued a new one approving the EA under the amended terms. No costs were awarded, consistent with the Land Court’s usual position that each party bears its own costs. Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland v Blue Energy (Australia, Queensland Land Court)

Australia: Court holds that the EPA acted lawfully in tightening pollution limits without imposing greenhouse gas controls 

The Supreme Court of Victoria considered whether the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) acted lawfully when it amended the licences of Victoria’s major coal-fired power stations to tighten limits on various pollutants but declined to impose direct restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

Environment Victoria argued that the EPA was legally required to consider the principles of environmental protection in the Environment Protection Act 1970, the climate change considerations in the Climate Change Act 2017, relevant State environment protection policies, and the recommendations of a community consultation process, and that its failure to regulate greenhouse gases rendered its decisions invalid.

The Court accepted that climate change considerations under the Climate Change Act were “mandatory” factors for decisions made under the 1970 Act, but it reasoned that these obligations only applied to the specific decisions the EPA actually made—namely, to amend conditions relating to pollutants such as mercury, particulates, and sulphur dioxide. Because the EPA had not chosen to exercise its power to regulate greenhouse gases, the Court held it was not unlawful for it to limit its consideration to pollutant emissions.

The Court further found that the “principles of environmental protection” in the 1970 Act, which used the word “should,” were aspirational rather than mandatory, meaning their omission could not invalidate the decision. It also held that the EPA had adequately considered relevant State policies and the outcomes of the statutory consultation process, and that its reasoning process, while not detailed on every point, was intelligible and sufficient.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the EPA’s approach reflected a permissible exercise of statutory discretion: it had lawfully decided to strengthen controls on certain pollutants without venturing into greenhouse gas regulation, a matter Parliament had not explicitly required. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Environment Victoria’s challenge, emphasising that if society wishes for greenhouse gas emissions to be directly regulated through licensing, this must be mandated by legislative reform rather than imposed by the courts. Environment Victoria Inc v AGL Loy Yang Pty Ltd (Australia, Supreme Court of Victoria)

Australia: Case brought by Indigenous group against gas export pipeline dismissed

This case was brought on Oct. 30, 2023 by Simon Munkara, later joined by Carol Maria Puruntatameri and Maria Simplicia Purtaningatipuamantumirri, Aboriginal people of the Tiwi Islands belonging to the Jikilaruwu, Munupi, and Malawu clan groups. The applicants sought to restrain Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd from commencing construction of a 262 km gas export pipeline in the Timor Sea, authorized under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth). They argued that under section 17(6) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, Santos was required to submit a revised environment plan because of the “occurrence of a new significant environmental risk.” The asserted new risks included the pipeline’s intrusion into waters spiritually significant to the Tiwi people, interference with ancestral songlines, and the possibility of disturbing artifacts or ancestral burial grounds along the pipeline’s route.

Because the action was initiated two days before construction was scheduled to begin, the Court granted an interim injunction on Nov. 2, 2023 restraining works until Nov. 13, 2023. On Nov. 15, 2023, the Court issued an interlocutory injunction of narrower scope, preventing construction along most of the pipeline route except the northernmost 86 km, effective until Jan. 15, 2024.

The trial proceeded in December 2023. On Jan. 15, 2024, Justice Charlesworth dismissed the application. The Court held that “occurrence of a risk” under regulation 17(6) refers to objective circumstances creating a danger, not to subjective states of knowledge. It found insufficient evidence of a spiritual connection between the applicants and the sea area affected by the pipeline and concluded that the chance of archaeological remains being present was negligible, falling short of a “new significant risk” .

Following dismissal, the Court discharged the interlocutory injunction and ordered the applicants to pay Santos’s costs on a lump-sum basis, with costs to be assessed by the Registrar. Provision was made for further applications regarding variation of the costs order. Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

Australia: Queensland Land Court Recommends Approval of Caval Ridge Coal Mine Extension Despite Climate Objections

BHP Coal Pty Ltd, together with related companies under the BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), sought an amendment to its existing Environmental Authority (EA) for the Caval Ridge metallurgical coal mine, located south of Moranbah, Queensland. The amendment, filed in 2023, proposed extending open-cut mining at Horse Pit, establishing an out-of-pit dump, and realigning infrastructure.

On May 6, 2023, the Environment Council of Central Queensland (ECCQ) filed objections to the draft EA prepared by the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (the statutory party). ECCQ argued that the project would exacerbate climate change, threaten endangered species, impact water systems, create an unmanageable final void, and cause cumulative environmental harm. It also argued that a new Environmental Impact Statement should have been required.

The Court held a hearing on Mar. 19, 2024, followed by additional submissions on Mar. 22 and Mar. 28, 2024. ECCQ did not appear or provide evidence to support its objections.

In its decision of Apr. 16, 2024, the Court considered the objections under section 191 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Expert evidence demonstrated that fugitive methane and CO₂ emissions from the project would represent less than 3% of total project emissions and a very small proportion of Queensland’s and global totals. The Court acknowledged the accepted reality of anthropogenic climate change and noted its earlier finding in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) that fossil fuel projects engage the right to life. However, it distinguished this case from Waratah, emphasizing that the project involved metallurgical coal, considered essential for steelmaking and the renewable energy transition, rather than thermal coal for electricity generation.

The Court found that BHP had made public and enforceable commitments to reduce operational GHG emissions and that proposed new EA conditions requiring emissions reporting were unnecessary. It also accepted BHP’s evidence on water, rehabilitation, and threatened species, finding that impacts were manageable through offsets and existing conditions.

Under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Queensland), the Court considered whether rights to life, property, privacy, cultural heritage, and children’s protection were limited. It found that although the right to life was theoretically engaged by the project’s GHG emissions, the limitation was proportionate given the economic and social benefits and the relatively small emissions profile.

The Land Court recommended approval of the amended Environmental Authority subject to the draft conditions. BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (Australia, Queensland Land Court)

Australia: Court finds project approval invalid due to insufficient assessment of climate change

This case was brought to the Land and Environment Court of NSW as a Class 4 judicial review, a proceeding seeking judicial review of administrative decisions under planning or environmental laws. The applicants, Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Incorporated (“DAMSHEG”), challenged a determination of the Independent Planning Commission of NSW (“Commission”), made on September 6, 2022. The determination granted MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd (“MACH”) operating its open-cut coal mine for 22 additional years. 

At the land and environment court, DAMSHEG alleged the project was invalid on eight grounds. Among them were the Commission’s “fail[ure] to consider the likely impacts of Scope 3 emissions, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,” “irrational and illogical form of reasoning,” “fail[ure] to consider DAMSHEG’s submissions and specific accompanying expert reports in relation to the effect of the Scope 3 emissions,” and “fail[ure] to adhere to the standard of reasonableness when reaching its conclusions.” Justice Robson, in his decision filed Aug. 19, 2024, dismissed the application. Explaining that the function of the court is to “ensur[e] that the Commission carried out its functions in accordance with the statutory provisions” and not to “undertake merits review of the Commission’s findings,” the court found that because the Commission adequately considered air quality matters including greenhouse gas emission, imposed conditions to set specific air quality criteria, and reviewed the potential negative impacts with the mitigating measures, that the Commission’s approval of the project was reasonable. 

However, on appeal, held May 26, 2025, and decided July 24, 2025, Justices Ward, Adamson, and Price quashed the Commission’s approval, finding it invalid. The court, looking into the language of §4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), concluded that the Commission failed to act according to §4.15(1)(b). The court clarified that in considering the likely impacts of a project, not only the contribution to global climate change but also the impact of climate change on the locality should be considered. They further elaborated that the fact that the impacts of climate change are uncontroversial does not excuse the Commission from failing to consider it in the locality and community context.  Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc (DAMSHEG) v MACH Energy Australia (Australia, New South Wales Court of Appeal)

NEW CASES

Sri Lanka: Case filed seeking the enforcement of effective climate change policies in adherence to the Paris Agreement and the National Environment Act

The Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ, a non-profit organisation in Sri Lanka) and its directors have filed a public interest petition under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka seeking enforcement of fundamental rights against the President of Sri Lanka and several government authorities including the Minister of Environment, Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority, Central Environmental Authority, Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka, Ceylon Electricity Board, and the Minister of Transport.

The petition aims to address the Sri Lankan authorities’ failure to implement effective climate change policies and protect the environment. In particular, the petitioners claim that the authorities’ failure to implement and adhere to the Paris Agreement constitutes an imminent infringement and/or continuous violation and/or violation of fundamental rights through executive or administrative action.

Sri Lanka is considered highly vulnerable to climate change due to its geographic location, rich biodiversity, and unique climate patterns. The petition highlights the country’s vulnerability to rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, and cyclones. These phenomena pose a threat to ecosystems, agriculture, tourism, and public health.

The petition details Sri Lanka’s growing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide from fossil fuel usage in electricity production, heat, transport, and manufacturing industries. It highlights deforestation, poor vehicle emission standards, and outdated energy policies as major contributors to observed climate change since the mid-20th century in Sri Lanka.

The petition emphasizes that climate change disproportionately affects the poor, children, and marginalized communities. It cites increased health risks, job losses due to heat stress, and threats to food and water security. The petition also references international indices and reports that rank Sri Lanka poorly in climate resilience and child vulnerability. Petitioners argue that Sri Lanka’s energy mix is overly reliant on coal and fossil fuels, with insufficient investment in solar, wind, and biomass energy sources. They criticize the lack of infrastructure for electric vehicles and the failure to implement promised renewable energy targets. Specific examples include blocked rooftop solar projects and ineffective emission testing programs.

The petition refers to the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of Sri Lanka and seeks implementation of the targets in relation to renewable energy production. Sri Lanka aims to achieve 70% renewable energy in electricity generation by 2030, down from an initial target of 80%. This was also part of the President’s election manifesto. However, the National Budget 2021 reduced the renewable energy target from 80% to 70% of overall energy requirements. CEJ argues that there exists a legitimate expectation to implement the election manifesto.

In this context, the petitioners claim that the Sri Lankan government has a duty to implement effective climate policies and renewable energy initiatives. The petition asserts that the government’s inaction violates several constitutional provisions, including Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g), and 14(1)(h), which guarantee equality before the law, freedom of occupation, and freedom of movement and residence. It also references international conventions and landmark Sri Lankan court cases that affirm environmental protection as a public trust and legal duty.

The petition concludes with a plea for the Supreme Court to recognize the ongoing and imminent violations of fundamental rights and to direct the respondents to take urgent steps under the National Environment Act and relevant domestic legislation. These include implementing climate policies in line with international laws, promoting renewable energy without damaging environmental services offered by the existing nature/ ecological system of the country, reforming vehicle importation standards to introduce a strategic plan to popularize the use of electric vehicles, and launching public awareness campaigns.

In 2024, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to file all the steps that the State has taken to protect the environment, especially the steps taken to mitigate climate change. The Court is set to hear arguments in March 2026. Centre for Environmental Justice (Guarantee) Limited et al. v. HE the President, Gotabaya Rajapakse et al. (Sri Lanka, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka)

South Korea: Case Filed to Prevent Korean Export Credit Agencies from Providing Financial Support to a Mozambique LNG Project, Stressing Mozambique’s Climate Vulnerability

This case is a civil injunction claim filed on Apr. 30, 2024, before the Seoul Central District Court by nineteen Korean youth plaintiffs together with Friends of the Earth Mozambique, an environmental NGO. The defendants are the Export-Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM) and the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (KSURE). The plaintiffs seek to prohibit KEXIM and KSURE from providing loans or guarantees to the Mozambique Coral South Floating Liquefied Natural Gas (FLNG) project, part of a large-scale gas development initiative in the Rovuma Basin.

The plaintiffs argue that financing the Coral South FLNG project violates constitutional rights under the Korean Constitution, including the rights to life, a healthy environment, and the protection of future generations, as well as Korea’s statutory obligations under domestic environmental and administrative law. They contend that KEXIM and KSURE’s support for the project would undermine the state’s duties to pursue sustainable development and to align public finance with Korea’s international climate commitments, including the Paris Agreement. According to the plaintiffs, the project will result in long-term fossil fuel lock-in, contribute substantially to global greenhouse gas emissions, and exacerbate the climate crisis with no overriding public interest justification.

The petition highlights Mozambique’s acute climate vulnerability, political instability, and weak governance, which exacerbate the risks of human rights violations, corruption, and project failure. It also stresses that the Coral South FLNG project has questionable economic viability due to high project costs and a declining global market for liquefied natural gas. The plaintiffs argue that channeling Korean public funds into this project exposes Korean youth and Mozambican communities alike to disproportionate and irreversible risks, while undermining the rights of present and future generations. Kang et al. v. KEXIM and KSURE (South Korea, Seoul District Court)

South Korea: Suit Filed against the Government to Cancel the Approval of a Semiconductor Plant Project, Alleging Irreversible Environmental Damage and Violation of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth 

This is an administrative lawsuit brought by residents and climate advocacy groups against the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport seeking to nullify or cancel the approval of the “Yongin Advanced System Semiconductor Cluster National Industrial Complex Plan” The plaintiffs argue that the project will substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbate climate change, and infringe their constitutional and statutory rights to a safe and healthy environment. They rely on the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth and environmental statutes, asserting that monetary compensation cannot remedy the irreversible harms of climate change.

The plaintiffs contend that the project’s approval relied on deficient environmental and climate impact assessments that failed to account for the full lifecycle emissions of the industrial complex, including electricity demand and hydrogen co-firing limitations. They argue that the development breaches Korea’s national carbon reduction obligations, undermines the 1.5°C climate target, and ignores low-carbon alternatives such as stricter energy efficiency measures and renewable integration. They further assert that approving the project sets a precedent that weakens regulatory oversight and ESG commitments in industrial planning.

The plaintiffs emphasize the broader consequences of the project’s emissions, estimating that it would add several million tons of CO₂ to national outputs, threatening local communities, future generations, and Korea’s climate commitments. Kim et al. v. Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (South Korea, Seoul Administrative Court)

South Korea: Injunction Suit Brought against a Steel Manufacturer to Halt a Furnace Relining Project, Alleging Irreversible Climate Change Harm and Infringement on their Constitutional Rights to a Healthy Environment and Life

This is a civil claim brought by South Korean youths against POSCO to stop the relining of the No. 2 blast furnace at Gwangyang Steelworks. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to halt the project, arguing that it will extend carbon-intensive steel production for 15 years, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions and infringing upon their constitutional rights to a healthy environment and life. They rely on Article 35 of the Constitution and environmental statutes, asserting that monetary compensation cannot remedy the irreversible harms of climate change.

Most plaintiffs reside in steel-producing regions, including two who live near the furnace. They contend that the relining exceeds socially tolerable environmental limits, breaches POSCO’s ESG commitments, and violates domestic and international carbon reduction obligations. They highlight the availability of low-carbon alternatives, such as electric arc furnace technology, and argue that continuing the project in question would prevent Korea from meeting the 1.5°C target and its national carbon budget.

The plaintiffs further emphasize the broader impact of POSCO’s emissions, noting that the relining would add roughly 9.1 MtCO₂ to the sector’s already substantial output, threatening local communities, future generations, and national industrial competitiveness.

After the case was filed, in March 2025, POSCO officially disclosed plans for a partial relining only, effectively shortening the furnace’s expected lifespan to 8 years. Kim et al. v. POSCO (South Korea, Daegu District Court)