Climate Litigation Updates (September 11, 2025)
The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation twice each month. We also add these developments to our U.S. and Global climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].
HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #202
FEATURED U.S. CASE
D.C. Circuit Vacated Injunction Requiring Continued Funding of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants
In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal district court abused its discretion when it granted nonprofit organizations’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a bank that served as the U.S.’s financial agent to continue funding grants awarded to the organizations during the Biden administration under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The D.C. Circuit’s opinion—authored by Judge Rao and joined by Judge Katsas—held that pursuant to the Tucker Act the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over the nonprofit organizations’ “essentially contractual” claims that the grant terminations violated regulations governing federal grantmaking and were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The D.C. Circuit further held that the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity for claims that federal officials exceeded their lawful authority did not apply to the organizations’ “essentially contractual” claims. Although the D.C. Circuit concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the organization’s constitutional claim that EPA violated separation of powers by not enforcing the IRA, the D.C. Circuit found that the claim was meritless. As an initial matter, the court said the claim was “not a constitutional claim at all”; the court further found that EPA had issued the grants in accordance with any requirement in the IRA to spend funds and that EPA’s subsequent actions terminating the grant awards were “well within the Executive Branch’s authority and responsibility to manage the expenditure of funds and to ensure that money appropriated by Congress is properly spent for its intended purposes.” The D.C. Circuit also found that the organizations’ loss of grant funds during the litigation was not irreparable because any harm would be compensable through money damages and any need to suspend operations would affect only entities “created solely for the purpose of applying for and spending” the GGRF grants. The D.C. Circuit also found that the equities “strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund.”
Judge Pillard dissented, writing that the majority’s characterization of the nonprofit organizations’ lawsuit as involving “garden-variety contract claims against EPA’s reasonable decisions to terminate their grant awards … fails to contend with the government’s actual behavior and misapprehends” the organizations’ claims. The dissenting opinion would have found that the separation of powers violation warranted the district court’s injunction and that the injunction was “independently warranted by the arbitrary and capricious character of EPA’s actions.” The dissenting opinion also rejected the majority’s conclusion that Tucker Act precedents supported exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.
On September 10, 2025, the organizations filed a petition for rehearing en banc. They argued that the panel’s decision was at odds with D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court precedent and that the panel’s evaluation of the equities “brushed aside the financially devastating consequences” for some of the organizations, ignored precedent on reputational harm, and was “tainted” or “skewed” by its erroneous legal rulings. Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 2, 2025)
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
Oregon Federal Court Dismissed Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge to Portland Restrictions on Bulk Fossil Fuel Terminals
The federal district court for the District of Oregon adopted a magistrate judge’s April 2025 findings and recommendation and dismissed a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the City of Portland’s restrictions on the construction of new or expanded bulk fossil fuel terminals. The court found that the plaintiffs—the State of Montana, trade groups, and a distributor of fuels, lubricant, and propane—did not adequately allege that the Portland law’s provisions were driven by economic protectionism or otherwise discriminated against interstate commerce on their face. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the law’s effects on the interstate fuel supply were discriminatory, and that they did not sufficiently allege that the law placed an undue burden on interstate commerce. Montana v. City of Portland, No. 3:23-cv-00219 (D. Or. Sept. 2, 2025)
Federal District Court Dismissed Class Action Challenging Termination of Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants
The federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed a class action challenging EPA’s termination of Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants awarded pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the grant recipients’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act that the terminations were arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. Instead, the court determined that the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims under the Tucker Act because the plaintiffs’ claims were contractual. The court also ruled that the grant recipients could not bring separation of powers and Presentment Clause claims because these constitutional claims were predicated on “underlying statutory violations” of the Clean Air Act and Inflation Reduction Act, and D.C. Circuit precedent prohibits bringing “freestanding” constitutional claims if the underlying violation is statutory. Appalachian Voices v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-01982 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2025)
D.C. Circuit Upheld 2024–2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied environmental groups’ petition for review challenging the 2024–2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which authorized up to three lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico region. As an initial matter, the court found that the groups had associational standing to bring the suit on behalf of their members. On the merits, the court found that the U.S. Department of the Interior satisfied obligations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to, among other things, evaluate how offshore leasing risks affect vulnerable communities, analyze environmental sensitivity, and consider potential interference with other present or future uses of the Gulf of Mexico region. The D.C. Circuit further found that the Interior Department’s balancing of the relevant environmental and economic factors satisfied OCSLA requirements. Healthy Gulf v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 24-1024 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)
Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing en Banc of Decision Largely Upholding Federal Approvals of Willow Project in Alaska
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc of claims challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Willow Master Development Plan under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Ninth Circuit largely rejected challenges to the Willow project, a major oil and gas project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, in June 2025. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 23-3624 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025)
Federal Court Enjoined Enforcement of Texas Law Imposing Requirements for Investor Advice Based on “Nonfinancial Factors”
In lawsuits brought by two proxy advisor firms, the federal district court for the Western District of Texas granted preliminary relief enjoining Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing S.B. 2337, a law that requires that a proxy advisor disclose to its clients and the subject company and publish statements on its website if its advice is “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” This requirement applies to advice that is “wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors,” including, among other factors, environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goals, factors, or investment principles and “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” The law was scheduled to take effect on September 1. In a text order issued after an August 29, 2025 hearing, the court found that the plaintiff firms had standing and satisfied the standard for a preliminary injunction. Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01160 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2025); Glass, Lewis & Co. v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01153 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2025)
Federal District Court Said Consideration of White Mountain National Forest Projects’ Climate Impacts Was Adequate
The federal district court for the District of New Hampshire ruled that the U.S. Forest Service satisfied its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act when the agency approved two resource management projects in the White Mountain National Forest. Under NEPA, the court rejected the plaintiff’s contentions that the Forest Service failed to adequately consider the projects’ cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. The court noted that the Forest Service had conducted a quantitative forest-wide carbon assessment as well as qualitative project-specific assessments. The court found that these assessments were “sufficiently detailed for the significance of the projected impacts” and “provide a detailed and reasoned basis to support the Forest Service’s finding that the Projects’ impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change would be negligible.” The court compared the size and nature of the two projects to other forest projects for which courts had reviewed the Forest Service’s assessment of climate impacts and concluded that the level of analysis was sufficient. The court also found that the Forest Service was not required to respond to all of the scientific literature presented by the plaintiff. Standing Trees, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:24-cv-00138 (D.N.H. Aug. 20, 2025)
Alaska Federal Court Said It Lacked Authority to Reinstate Earlier Decision Finding President Trump Could Not Revoke President Obama’s Withdrawals of Offshore Areas from Oil and Gas Leasing
The federal district court for the District of Alaska denied environmental organizations’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to reinstate the district court’s 2019 judgment determining that President Trump lacked authority to revoke President Obama’s withdrawals of certain areas on the outer continental shelf (OCS) from future oil and gas leasing. After President Biden issued an executive order in 2021 rescinding President Trump’s revocation, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the case was moot and vacated the district court’s judgment. The environmental organizations filed their Rule 60(b)(6) motion after President Trump issued Executive Order 14148 on January 20, 2025 rescinding the Biden executive order as well as President Biden’s additional withdrawals of OCS areas from oil and gas leasing. The district court agreed with defendant-intervenors American Petroleum Institute and the State of Alaska that the Ninth Circuit’s mandate did not permit the court to reinstate its 2019 judgment. The district court concluded that because the effect of possible future action had been addressed before the Ninth Circuit in briefing on the mootness question, the Ninth Circuit had “held by necessary implication that an exception to mootness premised on a recurrence of the allegedly unlawful conduct did not apply.” The district court stated that the plaintiffs could seek relief by filing a new complaint in this action or by adding the issue of Executive Order 14148’s impact on the 2017 withdrawal revocation to a separate pending lawsuit challenging the revocation of President Biden’s additional withdrawals. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00101 (D. Alaska Aug. 18, 2025)
D.C. Federal Court Enjoined Termination of Department of Agriculture Grants
On August 14, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Columbia granted in part a motion for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit seeking to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from terminating six grants under various programs. The court preliminarily set aside the terminations or announced termination of the grants and enjoined enforcement of the terminations. The district court first concluded that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the claims were “essentially contractual” and that the Court of Federal Claims therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims under the Tucker Act. On the merits, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that all five of the already terminated grants were likely terminated arbitrarily and capriciously because the terminations “clearly lacked sufficient explanation,” and that the terminations of two grants were contrary to statute. In particular, for a $28 million grant awarded under the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance program, the court concluded that “through the Cooperative Forestry Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress clearly intended for USDA to expend money promoting tree coverage in urban areas for the purposes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and thus mitigating ‘global warming trends,’ which are commonly referred to as ‘climate change.’” The court found that USDA terminated the grant “for addressing these very issues Congress intended for such programs to address.” The court found, however, that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on constitutional due process claims because they likely could not show they had constitutionally protected property interests. In addition, the court found the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that the defendants violated their grantmaking regulations or that the defendants’ policy and practice of terminating grants violated the APA. The court further found that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities and public interest weighed in favor of granting relief to the plaintiffs. The court denied a motion by the plaintiffs for expedited discovery, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate entitlement to discovery on the merits of the claims. Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:25-cv-01775 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2025)
Montana Federal Court Allowed States and Guam to Intervene to Defend Trump Energy Executive Orders in Youth Lawsuit
The federal district court for the District of Montana granted a motion by 19 states and Guam (state intervenors) to intervene as defendants in a lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs challenging three executive orders issued by President Trump that the plaintiffs alleged were ultra vires and would deprive them of fundamental rights to life and liberty by increasing use of polluting fossil fuels and slowing the building of energy infrastructure to reduce fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions. The court found that the state intervenors satisfied criteria both for intervention as of right and permissive intervention. Regarding intervention as of right, the court found that the state intervenors established that their interests in their energy policies, businesses, and employment might be impaired and that they made a sufficient showing that the federal defendants would not adequately represent these interests. The court also ruled that the state intervenors would retain their sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Lighthiser v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00054 (D. Mont. Aug. 13, 2025)
Court of International Trade Remanded Commerce Department Determination that Provision of Subsidized Electricity and Allocation of Carbon Emission Credits Constituted Countervailable Subsidies to Korean Steel Producer
The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected aspects of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s determination that the Republic of Korea’s provision of subsidized electricity and the country’s carbon emission credit system constituted countervailable subsidies to POSCO, a producer and exporter of carbon and alloy steel. First, the court found that the Commerce Department unreasonably found that the provision of electricity was “de facto specific” to the steel industry. The court said it was arbitrary to group the steel industry with two other unrelated industries when determining that they were disproportionate recipients of subsidized electricity; the court also found that substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that the three industry groups received a “disproportionate share” of the subsidized electricity, which the court said was the type of ‘widely … used public infrastructure’ that countervailing duties will ordinarily not cover.” Second, regarding the carbon emission credit system, the court found that substantial evidence did not support the Commerce Department’s determination that extra permits for carbon emissions received each year by POSCO under the system constituted a countervailable subsidy. The court said the finding that the finding that the extra permits constituted a “financial contribution” was contrary to law. Although the court found that the Commerce Department’s determination that the extra permits conferred a benefit on POSCO was reasonable, the court said the finding that the extra permits were “de jure specific” to an industry or enterprise was unreasonable, given that the Cap and Trade Law criteria governing the carbon emission credit system did not single out enterprises or industries and result in nearly one-third of regulated industries receiving extra permits. The court also found that substantial evidence did not support the determination that the criteria for entitlement to the extra credits—which were based on how emissions-intensive an industry is and its exposure to international trade—did not qualify for a safe harbor provision. The court remanded to the Commerce Department for reconsideration of the determination. POSCO v. United States, No. 24-00006 (CIT Aug. 8, 2025)
California Supreme Court Said Court of Appeal Must Apply a Less Deferential Standard of Review to New Tariff for Compensating Rooftop Solar
In a proceeding in which environmental groups challenge the California Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC’s) adoption of a successor to the Net Energy Metering tariff governing compensation for exports of electricity to the grid from rooftop solar panels and other means by which utility customers generate their own power, the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Court of Appeal had erred by applying an “unduly deferential standard of review.” The environmental groups argue, among other things, that the PUC failed to take into account all the benefits of renewable energy when it established the new tariff. The Supreme Court held that amendments to the Public Utilities Code at the end of the 20th century reduced the degree of deference due to PUC determinations. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment upholding the tariff and remanded for review of the tariff under the less deferential standard of review. Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, No. S283614 (Cal. Aug. 7, 2025)
Massachusetts Appellate Court Reversed Decision Upholding Denial of Permit for Large-Scale Solar Facility
The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the Land Court’s judgment upholding the denial by the Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham of a special permit for a large-scale solar energy system on rural private property. Approval of the permit required a unanimous vote by the three-member board. Although two members voted to approve the special permit application, the third member voted against it, citing, among other factors, its incompatibility with the State’s energy policy, as embodied in the State’s Clean Energy Results Questions & Answers Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Systems and the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap, which the board member concluded discouraged siting of solar projects in forests where significant tree cutting is required. The Appeals Court found that the denial was “contrary to the legislative goal of promoting solar energy and rested primarily on the subjective beliefs of one board member” and found that the board exceeded its discretionary powers when it concluded that maintaining forest land was preferable to solar energy development. Sunpin Energy Services, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham, No. 24-P-18 (Mass. App. Ct. July 9, 2025)
Wisconsin Court Allowed Plaintiffs to Proceed with Challenge to Washington Department of Justice’s Employment of Special Assistant Attorney General to Assist with Environmental Matters
A Wisconsin Circuit Court denied the Wisconsin Attorney General and Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging an agreement with New York University regarding the employment of a legal fellow as a Special Assistant Attorney General. The court determined that the plaintiffs—an organization representing dairy farms, a milk marketing cooperative, and an individual resident and taxpayer—had standing and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court’s decision noted that the plaintiffs appeared to be opposed to “both how the fellow was acquired and what she will do in her role” and that the fellow’s purposes included “enforc[ing] and prosecut[ing] environmental issues affecting Plaintiff’s members.” The court concluded that the plaintiffs had a legally protected interest to contest “what they believe is an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds.” Wisconsin Dairy Alliance, Inc. v. Kaul, No. 2025CV000022 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Aug. 8, 2025)
New York Court Rejected Challenge to Designation of “Disadvantaged Communities” Under State Climate Law
A New York trial court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Town of Palm Tree, Village of Kiryas Joel, and local officials challenging the Climate Justice Working Group’s (CJWG’s) criteria for and designation of “disadvantaged communities” (DACs) pursuant to New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The court concluded that the CJWG’s actions were not “rules” subject to the State Administrative Procedure Act or “actions” subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court further found, however, that even if the CJWG’s actions were subject to SEQRA, the record demonstrated that CJWG conducted a sufficient review of the potential environmental impacts of the DAC criteria and that failure to classify the actions under SEQRA therefore would not provide a basis for annulling the CJWG’s actions. The court also found that the CJWG’s determinations were not arbitrary or capricious, were fully in accordance with applicable law and procedure, and were not discriminatory. The court also concluded that the CJWG’s use of a weighted race/ethnicity score survived rational basis review and did not violate the petitioners’ equal protection rights. In addition, the court further found that the use of the weighted race/ethnicity score would survive strict scrutiny if it applied because the CJWG’s process was “narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest, specifically, to remediate past discrimination against Black and Hispanic residents of the State of New York.” Town of Palm Tree v. Climate Justice Working Group, No. 907000-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 14, 2025)
Massachusetts Land Court Ruled that State Law Protecting Solar Energy from Local Restrictions Applied to Battery Energy Storage Facility
The Massachusetts Land Court ruled that the Town of Duxbury Zoning Board of Appeals erred when it upheld the denial of a permit for a standalone battery energy storage facility on the grounds that the facility was not protected by the Massachusetts law (the Solar Energy Provision) limiting local governments’ ability to prohibit or restrict development of solar energy systems and related structures. The Solar Energy Provision bars local governments from prohibiting or unreasonably regulating “the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.” The court concluded that the battery energy storage project involved “the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy” and was therefore protected by the Solar Energy Provision. The court concluded that energy storage projects not only comport with the Solar Energy Provision’s plain language but are also consistent with legislative intent and effectuate the provision’s goals, which the Supreme Judicial Court had recognized “are naturally and directly tied to the Commonwealth’s current decarbonization and net-zero targets.” The Land Court wrote that energy storage projects “maximize and promote the utilization and generation of solar energy.” Because the Zoning Board of Appeals decision on the project was based on a legally untenable ground, the court annulled the decision. Duxbury Energy Storage, LLC v. Town of Duxbury Zoning Board of Appeals, No. 23 MISC 000643 (LER) (Mass. Land Ct. June 23, 2025)
NEW CASES AND FILINGS
Cruise Industry and Related Businesses Challenged Hawai‘i Climate Impact Fee
A lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of Hawai‘i challenged a state law establishing a “climate impact fee” or “Green Fee” to be imposed on cruise ships that call at Hawai‘i ports. The law—Act 96—authorizes surcharges on cruise ship fares by the State and individual counties, requires payment of registration fees, and requires disclosure of information about the law on cruise ships and in advertisements. The complaint alleged that the funds collected are to be used for “diverse projects focusing on environmental stewardship, climate resilience, and sustainable tourism” The plaintiffs are a not-for-profit entity representing the cruise companies, a company that supplies and services cruise ships, and two Hawai‘i tourist businesses. They allege that the registration fees and the surcharges on cruise ship fares constitute impermissible “duties of tonnage” under the Constitution’s Tonnage Clause, which provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage.” They also allege the registration fees and surcharges are preempted by and violate the Rivers and Harbors Act, and that the disclosure requirements constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. v. Suganuma, No. 1:25-cv-00367 (D. Haw., filed Aug. 27, 2025)
U.S. Intervened in Case to Block Enforcement of California Vehicle Standards; Court Considered Transfer of Case to Northern District of California
On August 20, 2025, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted a motion by the United States and EPA to intervene as plaintiffs in heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers’ lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of California vehicle emission standards. The U.S. argued that it had a significant protectable interest in setting and enforcing uniform federal standards for vehicular emissions, that this action could impair the U.S. interests, and that no other party represented the U.S.’s sovereign interests. Also on August 20, the court issued an order directing the parties to show cause why the manufacturers’ action should not be transferred to the Northern District of California where California’s lawsuit challenging the Congressional Review Act resolutions that “disapproved” Clean Air Act preemption waivers for California standards was pending. The manufacturers filed a notice informing the court of the case in the Northern District of California (as well as a case in the Northern District of Illinois challenging an agreement between the manufacturers and the California Air Resources Board) but contended that the cases were not related. The manufacturers argued to the court that the Northern District of California was not a proper venue for the case. On September 8, the court discharged the order to show cause and stated that the case remained pending in the Eastern District of California. Daimler Truck North America LLC v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:25-cv-02255 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2025)
Center for Biological Diversity Challenged Decision Not to Protect Climate Change-Threatened Florida Pinesnake as Endangered or Threatened
Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS’s) November 2023 determination that protection of the Florida pinesnake under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. The complaint alleged that the species, which inhabits the longleaf pine ecosystems of the southeastern United States, was threatened by the destruction of that habitat as well as by other factors including climate impacts from sea level rise, increased drought, more intense storms, and altered fire seasons. The alleged shortcomings in the FWS’s analysis included that the FWS failed to address factors, including climate change, that it had identified as threats. To the Florida pinesnake’s future viability. Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, No. 1:25-cv-02585 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 7, 2025)
Youth Plaintiffs Alleged that Wisconsin Laws Perpetuated Fossil Fuel-Based Electricity System in Violation of State Constitutional Rights
Fifteen youth plaintiffs filed an action against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) and Wisconsin Legislature challenging Wisconsin laws that allegedly “perpetuate a fossil fuel-based electricity system” and violate the plaintiffs’ rights under the Wisconsin Constitution. In particular, the plaintiffs challenged laws (1) prohibiting the PSC from considering air pollution when deciding whether to approve or deny applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for construction of electric generation facilities and (2) setting limits on the PSC’s authority to impose renewable energy development and procurement requirements on electric providers that exceed the level mandated by Wisconsin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. The complaint alleged that each plaintiff was suffering “significant injuries from Defendants’ conduct that results in harmful air pollution and is exacerbating climate change, injuries that worsen with each additional ton of GHG emissions authorized by Defendants because of the laws challenged herein.” They asserted violations of rights to liberty, life, and a stable climate system as well as the right to access, enjoy, and use navigable waters and their beds under Wisconsin Constitution Article I § 1. They also asserted a violation of the public trust doctrine codified in Wisconsin Constitution, Article IX § 1. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Dunn v. Wisconsin Public Service Commission, No. 2025CV002797 (Wis. Cir. Ct., filed Aug. 22, 2025)
HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART
HIGHLIGHTED CASE
Colombia: Tribunal Recognizes Santurbán Páramo as a Subject of Rights
In 2018, the City of Bucaramanga filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the National Authority on Environmental Licenses, and two regional environmental authorities (Corporación Autónoma Regional para la Defensa de la Meseta de Bucaramanga -CDMB and Corporación Autónoma Regional de Norte de Santander -CORPONOR) seeking the protection of the Páramo of Santurbán against mining activities. Later in 2020, citizen Antonio José Serrano Martínez filed a second lawsuit against the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and the National Authority on Environmental Licenses, also seeking the protection of the same ecosystem against mining activities. Due to their similarities, the lawsuits were studied and decided together.
Páramos are high-altitude, tropical, montane ecosystems characterized by a cold, humid climate, herbaceous vegetation, and peat soil, and found primarily in the Andes Mountains. The Páramo of Santurbán’s importance relies on its functionality as a carbon capturer, water regulator, and biodiversity reservoir. As such, its protection presupposes the enjoyment of several human rights, including access to safe drinking water, a healthy environment, public health, food security, and sustainability.
On July 21, 2025, the Administrative Tribunal of Santander granted the status of subject of rights to the Páramo of Santurbán. Following the legal precedents set by the Constitutional Court (Atrato River) and the Supreme Court (Amazon region and Los Nevados National Natural Park), the Tribunal found there was sufficient evidence to declare the páramo ecosystem as a subject of rights.
Notably, the decision cites the recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion No. 32/25, which reaffirmed the interdependence of human rights and environmental protection, while also recognizing nature as a subject of rights in its own right. The Tribunal also recalled the Advisory Opinion’s recognition of a right to a healthy climate. It reiterated the need to provide comprehensive protection of the myriad ecosystems that coexist in the world. Furthermore, the Tribunal stated that climate change, along with other anthropogenic activities such as mining and agriculture, has contributed to the structural and persistent existential threat of the páramo ecosystem. The Tribunal concluded there was a real risk that could significantly harm the páramo, which called for an immediate and reinforced protection. Moreover, the Tribunal invoked intergenerational equity as a bedrock principle to support the recognition of rights of nature. The decision is under appeal. City of Bucaramanga et al. v. Ministry of Environment et al. (Colombia, Administrative Tribunal of Santander)
Kazakhstan: Court Halts Operations of Energy Company for Exceeding Carbon Quota Threshold
On May 10, 2023, the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of the Atyrau Region decided a case filed by the Department of Ecology for the Atyrau Region (part of the Committee for Environmental Regulation and Control of the Ministry of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources of Kazakhstan) against Karabatan Utility Solutions LLP (KUS). The Department sought an injunction prohibiting the operation of KUS’s quota-bound installations—gas turbine units Nos. 1–4 and water bath SPGG Nos. 1–2—until the company obtained carbon quotas.
The case originated from a preventive control inspection conducted on Oct. 3, 2022. The inspection revealed that KUS’s verified greenhouse gas inventory report for 2021 recorded CO2 emissions of 35,482 tons, exceeding the 20,000-ton threshold that classifies an installation as quota-bound under Kazakh law. The Department concluded that KUS was required to hold carbon quotas to lawfully operate its installations. Despite being instructed to obtain quotas by an order of Oct. 26, 2022, KUS continued operations without them. On Mar. 15, 2023, the company was fined 1,725,000 KZT for non-compliance with this order.
The Court found that KUS had violated Article 289(6) of the Environmental Code, which prohibits operating quota-bound installations without carbon quotas. It granted the Department’s claim, issuing an injunction prohibiting KUS from operating the installations until it secured the required quotas. The Court also ordered KUS to pay a state fee of 1,725 KZT. The Department of Ecology of the Atyrau Region v. Karabatan Utility Solutions LLP (Kazakhstan, Specialized Inter-District Economic Court of Atyrau Region)
Taiwan: Judges Annul Navigation Rules After Fishers Challenge Offshore Wind Development
To accelerate renewable energy, Taiwan established offshore wind facilities along the coast of Changhua, aiming for 20% renewable energy by 2025 under its 2023 Climate Change Response Act. To protect the installations, the Maritime and Port Bureau issued Navigation Guidelines in 2021 without consulting residents or fishers. These rules imposed three main restrictions: (1) a navigation ban in wind farm channels, (2) a fishing ban in corridors and separation zones, and (3) a mandatory reporting duty for vessels, with fines for violations.
Fishers, supported by the Fisheries and Environment Center and the Environmental Rights Foundation, appealed the measures, arguing they unlawfully restricted their rights and were imposed without consultation. Although partly successful on appeal, they pursued an administrative lawsuit to prevent similar future rules.
In May 2025, the court ruled in favor of the fishers and annulled the guidelines. It found that while the Bureau could designate channels under the Navigation Aids Act, it had no authority to impose mandatory reporting or navigation bans with fines. The court also emphasized that comparable international shipping lanes (e.g. Singapore, Strait of Gibraltar) do not prohibit fishing vessels, even under heavier traffic. The restrictions were deemed disproportionate, inconsistent with international law, and imposed without adequate stakeholder consultation.
The decision highlights the tension between Taiwan’s push for renewable energy and the protection of traditional fishing rights. Fishers v. Ministry of Transportation and Communications (Taiwan, Taipei Administrative Court)
Chile: Constitutional Court Declines to Review Alleged Regression in Environmental Safeguards Under Permitting Law
On July 4, 2025, a group of Chilean deputies, led by Congressman Daniel Melo Contreras, filed a constitutional complaint (requerimiento de inaplicabilidad por inconstitucionalidad) before the Constitutional Court, challenging several provisions of the Draft Framework Law on Sectorial Authorizations (Ley Marco de Autorizaciones Sectoriales – LMAS), commonly referred to as the “Permitting Law.” The complaint was filed under Article 93(1)(3) of the Chilean Constitution and Articles 61 et seq. of Law No. 17.997 (Organic Law of the Constitutional Court).
The challenged provisions, Articles 7(a), 9, 10, 76, and 104, aim to simplify over 380 sectoral permits and streamline administrative processes by establishing minimum standards for permit issuance. Although the law claims to maintain environmental safeguards, the plaintiffs argue it effectively weakens environmental and social protections, and that the process of indigenous consultation was omitted, in violation of ILO Convention 169.
The plaintiffs argue that the LMAS constitutes a regression in environmental protections, violates constitutional guarantees under Article 19(8) (right to live in a pollution-free environment), and undermines Chile’s commitments under the Escazú Agreement and other international instruments.
The Constitutional Court, on July 24, 2025, dismissed the complaint on formal grounds, by a 5–4 majority, citing a lack of specificity in the alleged constitutional violations.
However, the dissenting minority (4 judges) strongly criticized the decision, emphasizing that:
• The Court had developed prior environmental jurisprudence (STC Rols 13.053 and 14.844) recognizing international standards.
• The dissenting opinion argued that, in this context, it was particularly contradictory for the Chilean Constitutional Court, an institution tasked with upholding constitutional supremacy, to refuse to review the merits of a claim alleging a regression in environmental protection standards. The dissenting judges emphasized that the Court’s decision was based on procedural requirements not expressly established in either the Constitution or its Organic Law, and that such a position clearly contradicts Chile’s active role at the international level in promoting access to environmental justice, particularly in light of the Escazú Agreement and Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, which affirms the pro actione principle. This principle holds that procedural rules must not be interpreted or applied in a manner that unjustifiably hinders access to the courts, especially in environmental matters. Citing paragraph 543 of OC-32/25, the dissent invoked the pro actione principle, which requires courts to adopt the interpretation most favorable to access to justice in environmental matters. Request for Unconstitutionality filed by the Honorable Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Republic of Chile, Daniel Melo Contreras and Others (Chile, Constitutional Court)
Brazil: Judge Halts Water Grants for Thermoelectric Project Over Climate Concerns
In March 2025, the Arayara Institute filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Regulatory Agency for Water, Energy and Sanitation of the Federal District (ADASA) and the company Termo Norte Energia Ltda.. The plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the grants of rights to use water resources granted by ADASA in favor of the defendant company for the collection of water and discharge of effluents into the Melchior River, within the scope of the project to install a natural gas thermoelectric plant in Samambaia, in the Federal District. In summary, the plaintiff claims that ADASA used outdated data to analyze and issue the grants, and ignored the alarming diagnoses of water availability in the Federal District, which is affected by climate change, including the record drought that occurred in 2024. It is argued that the generation of energy through thermoelectric plants consumes and pollutes a large amount of water, potentially affecting the water supply in the Federal District. Therefore, the implementation of power plants without a thorough, updated assessment of water and environmental impacts is contrary to the principles of precaution and prevention, as well as the primacy of environmental protection over economic interests. The plaintiff requests, as a preliminary injunction, the immediate suspension of ADASA’s grant no. 337/2023 and no. 33/2024, to prevent the irregular continuation of the environmental licensing of the project. On the merits, it requests the confirmation of the injunction and the definitive cancellation of said grants.
In its defense, ADASA supported the legality of the issued grants, clarifying that they were preliminary permits of a merely indicative nature, insufficient to authorize the installation of the project. It also noted that Instituto Arayara did not present technical evidence to support the allegations made, relying exclusively on outdated and superficial data. Therefore, it requested that the case be dismissed in its entirety.
In addition to the reasons given by ADASA, Termo Norte Energia, in its defense, highlighted the relevance of the thermoelectric plant project for diversifying Brazil’s energy matrix and increasing electricity supply in the Midwest. Furthermore, it highlighted that natural gas is recognized as a fuel for the energy transition/green energy, as it has a lower impact than fossil fuels. Therefore, it requested that the case be dismissed in its entirety.
In June 2025, the court granted the injunction to suspend the effects of the prior authorizations issued by ADASA. The court disagreed that natural gas is a clean source of energy, indicating that the implementation of a thermoelectric plant does not contribute to the decarbonization of the Brazilian energy matrix and to the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions undertaken by Brazil under the Paris Agreement. It also states that since the potential impact of the plant on the environment is evident, especially concerning the possibility of substantial GHG emissions, the case should be examined in light of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC). Therefore, it determined the suspension of the authorizations so that it is possible to verify, cautiously and safely, the true environmental impacts of the thermoelectric plant project and the validity conditions of the relevant environmental administrative acts. Instituto Arayara vs. Adasa and Termo Norte Energia Ltda (Water Resource Concessions and Installation of a Thermal Power Plant) (Brazil, Federal District Federal Court)
UK: High Court Dismisses Challenge to Environment Agency’s Sludge Strategy; Judicial Review Expands Scope of Environmental Scrutiny
In R (Fighting Dirty Ltd) v Environment Agency (Environment Secretary), the claimant, an environmental NGO, sought judicial review of the Environment Agency’s (“EA”) decision to remove a “Target Date” from its Sludge Strategy without identifying a replacement. The Sludge Strategy, first issued in March 2020, concerned the regulation of sewage sludge spread on farmland. It proposed moving from the framework of the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The original strategy had included a target of 2021 for recommending legislative change, later updated in July 2020 to 2023. When the strategy was reissued in August 2023, no date was included.
The claimant argued that the omission of a replacement date was unreasonable and unlawful. It maintained that the EA had itself assessed the existing regulatory regime as outdated and inadequate, and that removing the deadline effectively reinstated the “Do Nothing” option which the agency had already deemed unacceptable. It further argued that the EA failed to take into account material environmental risks, including emerging evidence of chemical and microplastic contamination, and failed to conduct sufficient inquiry into the consequences of delay.
The EA and the Secretary of State contended that no statute required a target date, that the inclusion of earlier dates had always been aspirational given that regulatory change required ministerial action, and that collaboration with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made the omission reasonable. They argued that setting an unrealistic date risked undermining the EA’s working relationship with government and frustrating progress.
In his judgment of August 21, 2024, Fordham J dismissed the claim. He held that the EA had acted within its discretion under the Environment Act 1995 in reissuing the strategy without a new date. While recognizing that judicial review in environmental cases may warrant more searching scrutiny, the court found that the case did not involve an imperative urgency requiring a narrowed margin of discretion. The judge noted that the 2021 and 2023 targets had been missed, that any legislative change depended on ministerial initiative, and that the EA’s action could not fairly be characterized as adopting a “Do Nothing” approach, since the agency continued to press for regulatory reform.
Importantly, Fordham J emphasized that environmental judicial reviews may attract a more intense standard of reasonableness review, extending beyond cases involving individual human rights. He stated that “public law protects rights, but also values and interests, including the public interest. This allows for an ecocentric standpoint; not just an anthropocentric one.” Nevertheless, applying careful scrutiny, the court concluded that the EA’s approach was lawful.
The application was dismissed, costs were awarded against the claimant (£10,000), and permission to appeal was refused. R (Fighting Dirty Ltd) v (1) The Environment Agency and (2) The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (United Kingdom, High Court of England and Wales)
UK: High Court Quashes Poultry Farm Approval for Failing to Assess Manure and Digestate Impacts
On February 20, 2025, the claimant, Alison Caffyn, filed an application for judicial review challenging Shropshire Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an intensive poultry unit (IPU) at a local farm. The facility was expected to generate large volumes of manure, much of which would be treated in an anaerobic digester to produce digestate for use as fertilizer. The claim focused on the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, and on compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
The claimant argued, relying on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20, that the Council was required to assess the indirect environmental effects of spreading manure and digestate on farmland and watercourses. She emphasized that ammonia emissions and nitrogen deposition from poultry units already placed designated sites in Shropshire under severe ecological pressure, with levels reaching 200–600% of critical thresholds. The Council, however, treated the transfer of manure to an anaerobic digester as a mitigation measure and did not conduct a substantive assessment of the downstream impacts of digestate spreading.
Fordham J held that the Council’s approach was unlawful. Although officers had collected information, they failed to make the evaluative judgments required by Finch on causation and on the capability of meaningful assessment of indirect effects. The judge found that processing manure into digestate did not break the causal chain between the IPU and subsequent environmental effects, and that the impacts of digestate—such as nutrient pollution, ammonia emissions, and contributions to climate-relevant air and water quality degradation—were sufficiently connected to the project to require assessment. The Council had also erred in excluding certain “in-combination” projects from its Habitats Regulations assessment.
On June 17, 2025, the Court quashed the planning permission and ordered the Council to pay the claimant’s costs. R (Caffyn) v Shropshire Council (United Kingdom, High Court of England and Wales)
Brazil: Prosecutors Challenge Amazon River Mouth Oil Auction
In June 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Union and the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) due to the auction of the 5th Permanent Concession Offer Cycle (OPC) to be held on June 17, 2025. It is argued that the auction should be suspended, particularly in sensitive areas related to the 47 blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth. The region is home to important ecosystems, including mangroves, reefs, and conservation units, and is the territory of several Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples.
The MPF maintains that the auction cannot take place until the following have been carried out before the bidding and concessions: climate impact study; environmental assessment of sedimentary area (AAAS); studies of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities. Furthermore, free, prior, and informed consent from these individuals must be obtained during the planning phase of the projects, which, despite being required by several national and international regulations, has not yet been implemented. The MPF highlights the challenges of environmental licensing in the Amazon River mouth, discussing previous experiences of licenses being denied by IBAMA for carrying out the activity in the area due to the persistence of technical environmental problems without solutions being presented by the developers. It emphasizes that the same problems will occur in new licensing requests that may arise from the implementation of the new supply cycle, which threatens Brazil’s commitment to preserving Amazonian sociobiodiversity.
The plaintiff highlights the increase in global temperatures and stresses that the main cause of the problem is the burning of fossil fuels. The claim is that Brazil’s decision to expand oil exploration runs counter to global decarbonization efforts and undermines the country’s credibility as a relevant player in the international climate agenda, especially considering that it is the host of COP 30. Furthermore, the decision contradicts the emissions reduction targets that Brazil has assumed in its second NDC. In this context, considering the duty of environmental and climate transparency that falls on the public administration and the importance of considering scope 3 emissions in fossil fuel projects, it is necessary to carry out a climate impact study for the Amazonas River mouth region; otherwise, there will be a violation of the Brazilian legal system and scientific imperatives, given the climate crisis.
As an injunction, the MPF requests that the auction be immediately suspended or, as a subsidiary measure, the withdrawal of the 47 blocks located in the Amazon River mouth Sedimentary Basin until the following are carried out: (i) a climate impact study; (ii) an environmental assessment of the sedimentary area (AAAS); (iii) studies of Indigenous, quilombola and traditional peoples and communities; (iv) prior, free and informed consent of the traditional peoples and communities of the coastal region of the mouth of the Amazon after the required studies have been carried out. As final remedies, the MPF requests confirmation of the injunction and the declaration of nullity of the auction and concession contracts, if they are formalized without the studies and consultations required in the action.
Due to the auction, the MPF filed a request for an amendment to the initial claim. It requested that IBAMA be included as a defendant, which was subsequently granted by the court. The MPF reported that nineteen exploration blocks in the Amazonas River mouth were auctioned and, given the arguments already presented in the initial claim, it requests, as a provisional relief, (i) an immediate prohibition on the performance of the administrative acts of awarding and approval of the final result of the bidding process until the studies and consultations already requested are carried out; (ii) a prohibition on the initiation of any environmental licensing process for the blocks in the Amazon River mouth that were auctioned until the final judgment of the lawsuit; (iii) a prohibition on the inclusion of blocks located in the Amazon River mouth sedimentary basin in new OPC auctions until the final judgment of the lawsuit. On the merits, it requests the declaration of nullity of the auction and the concession contracts. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Federal Government, ANP, and IBAMA (Auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Offering and blocks in the Amazon River mouth) (Brazil, Pará Federal Court)
Australia: Conservation Council Challenges Expansion of Lake Vermont Coal Mine on Human Rights Grounds
On May 23, 2025, Queensland Conservation Council Inc’s (QCC) objection to Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (BBC) Environmental Authority Amendment Application for expansion of the Lake Vermont mine in central Queensland was referred to the Land Court of Queensland (Court) for a Mining Objection Hearing (MOH). Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (the Proponent) submitted an application to amend its environmental authority (EA), A-EA-AMD-100781430 (the Application), to permit a new mining lease (MLA700080) and expand its operations in its existing leases, ML70528, ML70331, and ML70477. The current EA for the Lake Vermont Project (EPML00659513) limits coal extraction to 12 million tons per annum (Mtpa) of ROM coal. Lake Vermont primarily produces hard coking (metallurgical) coal and PCI coal for export markets. According to Project documentation, Lake Vermont Mine was expected to gradually decline from 2023, with further decreases to approximately 4 Mtpa and less from 2028 until the end of the mine life, which is currently scheduled for 2061. In 2019, information indicated that the Lake Vermont Mine contributed 8.9 million tons to the export market and was ranked as the ninth-largest supplier to the export coal market. The Application for the Lake Vermont Meadowbrook Project appears to be a proposed extension to the currently operating Lake Vermont Coal Mine. The Application proposes to extend the life of the mine by 20 years, with construction commencing in January 2025, and operational by December 2028 (based on the EIS, it is estimated that the project life span will be approximately 53 years).
The Project proposes to provide additional product coal to maintain production levels at approximately 9 Mtpa from 2028 through to 2048. Following the completion of the underground extension project in 2048, a new open-cut pit is proposed to supplement existing operations, although production levels are expected to continue declining until the project’s completion in 2055. Final mining completion at the existing Lake Vermont Mine is still expected to occur in 2061. The EIS indicates that approximately 108.6 Mt of underground ROM coal plus 13.3 Mt of open-cut ROM coal is estimated to be mined over the life of the project, producing approximately 122 Mt of total ROM coal. Based on the production estimates provided in the EIS, the project’s total lifetime carbon emissions would be 348 million tonnes CO2e. If approved, Lake Vermont could become the sixth-largest coal mine in QLD by 2028.
The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) objects to the Lake Vermont mine expansion on environmental, human rights, and sustainability grounds. It argues that the project fails to meet the objectives of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), which requires developments to enhance quality of life while safeguarding ecological processes. According to QCC, the mine expansion would instead cause long-term environmental harm.
QCC further contends that the project would unreasonably limit rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), including the rights to equality, life, property, privacy, family, and the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Granting approval in these circumstances would be incompatible with the Act.
The objections also highlight conflicts with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, biodiversity conservation, and recognition of the global climate impacts of coal mining. QCC stresses that the project would undermine Australia’s commitments under international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Finally, it argues that the proponent has not adequately addressed information requests, that the expansion is contrary to the public interest, and that the economic benefits are outweighed by the full social and environmental costs. Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd v Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc & Anor (Australia, Land Court of Queensland)
UK: Judicial Review Targets Failure to Assess Scope 3 Emissions and MPA Risks in Oil Licensing
Oceana, a marine conservation organization, has applied for judicial review of the award of 28 oil and gas offshore exploration licenses in June 2024 by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, acting through the North Sea Transition Authority (“NSTA”). They argue that the decision failed to assess downstream / scope 3 emissions and the impacts of the licenses on Marine Protected Areas (“MPAs”).
The case was heard in March 2025.
Oceana has reported that their grounds of challenge are that the NSTA:
(1) Failed to consider the impact of oil and gas industry accidents (including oil spills and discharges) on MPAs and their conservation features.
(2) Failed to consider the ongoing impact of the climate crisis on the marine environments set to be impacted by these licenses, and failed to consider the full climate impact of the licensed activity, including scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions, such as from the use of the extracted oil and gas).
(3) Failed adequately to assess the cumulative impacts of the licensed activity on the relevant sites.
(4) Failed to pay due regard to the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England in relation to the matters raised by several of the grounds above: these organizations had advised that they could not conclude that the drilling would have no adverse effect on the designated sites and that allowing the exploration in MPAs would make it impossible for the government to achieve marine protection targets.
Oceana is therefore seeking (in part) to rely on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court decision of Finch (whereby downstream emissions did need to be considered when undertaking environmental impact assessments under the relevant EU regulations) in order to challenge exploration licenses. Oceana v North Sea Transition Authority (United Kingdom, High Court of England and Wales)
Czech Republic: NGO Filed Lawsuit to Compel City of Prague to Update Strategic Plan to Align with Climate Obligations
In May 2025, the NGO Poslední generace (Last Generation), the Czech branch of the international climate movement, filed a lawsuit before the Prague Municipal Court against the City of Prague. The organization seeks protection against what it characterizes as the city’s unlawful inaction in the field of strategic and spatial planning for sustainable development. According to the claim, Prague has failed to update its strategic plan with concrete action plans to meet the objectives of the Czech Republic’s Strategic Framework 2030, the Regional Development Strategy, and the EU Climate Law (Regulation (EU) 2021/1119). The plaintiffs further argue that the city has not ensured the incorporation of such measures into binding spatial planning documentation, nor adopted the necessary organizational reforms to allow proper oversight and implementation of sustainability goals. They maintain that this inaction violates their right to a favorable environment and to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The lawsuit therefore requests that the court order the City of Prague to align its strategic and spatial planning documents with national and EU climate obligations, including revising urban development principles and integrating sustainability objectives into binding plans. Poslední generace v. City of Prague (Czech Republic, Prague Municipal Court)
United Kingdom Faces First ICSID Claim After Cancelling Woodhouse Colliery Project
The case Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd and West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Ltd v. United Kingdom is the first arbitration brought against the UK under the ICSID Convention. The claim was filed on August 8, 2025, under the 1975 UK-Singapore Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The dispute arises from the UK government’s revocation of planning approval for the Woodhouse Colliery, a proposed coking coal mine near Whitehaven in Cumbria.
Planning permission for the project was initially granted in 2022 after a protracted decision-making process. However, in 2024, the UK High Court quashed the approval, finding deficiencies in the government’s assessment. Following this judgment, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities revoked the approval altogether.
The claimants—Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd, a Singaporean company, and West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Ltd—allege that these actions breached the UK’s obligations under the BIT. They argue that the revocation and related regulatory measures unlawfully interfered with their investment and denied them protections guaranteed by the treaty, including fair and equitable treatment and protection against unlawful expropriation.
The climate dimension of the case is central. The Woodhouse Colliery would have been the UK’s first new deep coal mine in decades, intended to supply coking coal for the steel industry. The project became highly contested because of its incompatibility with the UK’s legally binding net zero target under the Climate Change Act 2008 and its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Environmental groups challenged the approval on these grounds, and the High Court quashed the planning consent in part because of inadequate consideration of climate impacts. The arbitration, therefore, exemplifies the emerging conflict between states’ climate mitigation measures—particularly efforts to restrict fossil fuel projects—and investor protections under international investment agreements. Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd and West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Limited v. United Kingdom (ICSID)