February 2023 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Margaret Barry, Maria Antonia Tigre
February 03, 2023

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. and non-U.S. climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].



California Attorney General Dropped Challenge to Lake County Project After Developer Agreed to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and Steps to Address Wildfire Risk

On January 11, 2023, the California Attorney General requested the dismissal of its appeal of  a California Superior Court decision in a case challenging the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and approval for a mixed-use development project in southeast Lake County that as originally proposed would have added 4,000 residents to an area with a population of 10,000. The Superior Court ordered the County to conduct additional studies of the project’s impacts on community evacuation routes during wildfires but upheld other aspects of the CEQA review. The Attorney General requested dismissal of its appeal after reaching a settlement with the project’s developer. The settlement specifies modifications and measures that the developer must incorporate into any future request for approval of the project, including measures to reduce wildfire risk and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The emission reduction measures include requirements for photovoltaic systems, battery energy storage systems, and heat pumps in residential buildings; a prohibition on the use and extension of natural gas infrastructure in the project site; requirements for sufficient on-site renewable energy generation to produce electricity to supply energy for non-residential structures; electric vehicle charging infrastructure; and purchase of greenhouse gas offset credits for 30 years to offset the project’s actual emissions in each year. People v. County of Lake, No. A165677 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2023)


Eighth Circuit Declined to Revisit Dismissal of States’ Challenge to Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases Estimates

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc of a panel decision affirming the dismissal of a challenge brought by Missouri and other states to the Biden administration’s social cost of greenhouse gases estimates. The panel found that the states did not allege an injury that was fairly traceable to the estimates. Missouri v. Biden, No. 21-3013 (8th Cir. Jan. 27, 2023)

BLM to Conduct Additional Review of Utah Oil and Gas Leases

A Utah-based conservation organization and federal defendants filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the organization’s lawsuit challenging 32 oil and gas leases. The parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will conduct additional analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The new NEPA analysis will include consideration of a “no leasing” alternative. BLM is to issue a new decision by April 10, 2024 on the 32 leases, all of which were currently suspended. Friends of Cedar Mesa v. Department of the Interior, No. 1:21-cv-00971 (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2023)

Texas Federal Court Denied Injunction in Prisoner’s Case Alleging that Excessive Heat Conditions Violated Eighth Amendment

The federal district court for the Southern District of Texas denied a motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions by a man incarcerated in a Texas state prison who alleged he was exposed to excessive heat and humidity and infestations of rodents and roaches that constituted unsafe and unhealthy conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court said that a 2017 preliminary injunction in a class action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation regarding extreme heat exposure at another Texas prison did not establish that the plaintiff in this case had a substantial likelihood of success on his claim of deliberate indifference to excessive heat. Regarding whether the plaintiff established irreparable injury, the court found that the plaintiff’s citation of testimony from the other case about facility conditions and the effects of climate change did not dispute the finding that temperature conditions at the plaintiff’s facility did not create a current threat to his health. Shafer v. Sanchez, No. 2:22-CV-00049 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2023)

Parties Agreed to Dismissal of Challenge to Offshore Wind Farm Off Long Island Coast

Parties to a lawsuit challenging a Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization for the South Fork Wind project stipulated to the dismissal of the action with prejudice. The lawsuit was originally filed in February 2022, and in August 2022, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Endangered Species Act without prejudice for failure to provide the notice required by the statutes. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that dropped those claims as well as claims under NEPA. The South Fork Wind project is an offshore wind farm consisting of 12 turbines located 35 miles east of Montauk Point on Long Island. Allco Renewable Energy Ltd. v. Haaland, No. 1:22-cv-10921 (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2023)

California Appellate Court Said Greenhouse Gas-Related Claims Were Forfeited in CEQA Challenge to Development on Former Mine Site

The California Court of Appeal found that an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared pursuant to CEQA for a mixed-use development on the site of a former mine had a deficient analysis of air quality. The court rejected challenges to other aspects of the environmental review, including an argument that the EIR should have evaluated the impact on greenhouse gas emissions of traffic generated by the project. The court found that the plaintiffs forfeited this argument by failing to support it with meaningful analysis or record citations. The approved project’s only identified significant and unavoidable impact was related to greenhouse gas emissions, and the court found that the plaintiffs forfeited challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statement of overriding considerations that explained why it determined the project’s benefits outweighed this unavoidable significant effect. Community Environmental Advocates v. City of Grass Valley, No. C094613 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023)

Minnesota Court Upheld State’s Adoption of California Vehicle Emission Standards

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA’s) Clean Car Rule, which incorporated by reference certain California motor-vehicle emission standards, including a requirement that a certain percentage of vehicles delivered for sale to Minnesota be zero emission vehicles. The appellate court held that the incorporation of California’s standards by reference did not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The court also found that the MPCA acted within its statutory authority in adopting a uniform statewide motor-vehicle emission standard and that Minnesota was an eligible state to adopt the California standards under the Clean Air Act. Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, No. A22-0796 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023)

Washington Appellate Court Rejected Challenge to Air Agencies’ Delegations to Professional Staff

The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that environmental groups did not have standing to challenge clean air agencies’ delegations of authority to approve new sources of air pollution from the agencies’ boards of directors to professional staff. The groups contended that emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants would decrease if directors rather than staff reviewed applications because directors would be more responsive to constituents’ concerns. The appellate court found that the groups did not establish the three-part standing test for procedural harm and did not have taxpayer standing. The court also found that although climate change was “unquestionably of serious importance and great public interest,” the case did not meet “the high standard for allowing judicial review absent standing.” 350 Seattle v. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, No. 84139-4-I (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023)

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Said Case that Sought to Compel Publication of RGGI Rule Was Moot

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court dismissed as moot a petition filed by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in February 2022 seeking to compel the Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau respondents to publish a rulemaking concerning Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The court noted that it was undisputed that the questions of law raised by the petition were moot due to the subsequent publication of the rulemaking. The court further found that no exception to the mootness exception applied. The court said that the case raised “remarkable” legal questions of first impression but that any determination would be advisory. The court therefore dismissed the petition, as well as related preliminary objections and the Secretary’s application for expedited special and summary relief. The court said counterclaims by Pennsylvania Senators who intervened “remain extant.” Those claims challenged the validity of the RGGI regulation. In addition, separate challenges to the RGGI regulation are still pending. Ziadeh v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, No. 51 M.D. 2022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 19, 2023)

Industrial Greenhouse Gas Supplier Agreed to $275,000 Penalty for Failure to Timely Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases agreed to settle an administrative penalty assessment proceeding concerning the supplier’s failure to submit timely annual reports of its greenhouse gas import quantities for calendar years 2017, 2018, and 2019 pursuant to EPA’s mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirements. The parties agreed to a civil penalty of $275,000. On January 11, 2023, the Environmental Appeals Board ratified a consent agreement embodying the settlement terms and ordered the supplier to comply with the consent agreement. In re Harp USA, Inc., No. CAA-HQ-2022-8426 (EAB Jan. 11, 2023)



Lawsuit Said Department of Labor’s Investment Duties Rule Unlawfully Allowed Fiduciaries to Consider Nonpecuniary Factors Including Climate Change

Twenty-five states, an energy company and its subsidiary, an oil and gas trade group, and an individual plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas challenging a rule adopted by the U.S. Department of  Labor in 2022 that amended the Investment Duties regulation governs private-sector employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), replacing two rules promulgated by the Trump administration in late 2020. The plaintiffs alleged that the 2022 rule “undermines key protections for retirement savings of 152 million workers … in the name of promoting environmental, social, and governance (‘ESG’) factors in investing, including the Biden Administration’s stated desire to address climate change.” The plaintiffs asserted that the 2022 rule contravened ERISA’s “clear command that fiduciaries act with the sole motive of promoting the financial interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries” by authorizing fiduciaries to select investments “based on collateral benefits other than investment returns” and allowing the exercise of proxy rights to “promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals unrelated to [the] financial interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries.” The plaintiffs also contended that the major questions doctrine precluded the Labor Department from authorizing or mandating ERISA fiduciaries to consider nonpecuniary factors such as climate change. In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the 2022 rule was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of administrative power.   Utah v. Walsh, No. 2:23-cv-00016 (N.D. Tex., filed Jan. 26, 2023)

Lawsuit Said Fish and Wildlife Service Failed to Consider Climate Change Threats to Southern Hognose Snake

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) 2019 determination that listing of the southern hognose snake under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted. The complaint alleged that the snake was “highly imperiled due to extensive habitat loss and ongoing threats such as timber harvest, urbanization, habitat fragmentation, road mortality, climate change, invasive species, the commercial pet trade, and disease” and that the FWS predicted that only a quarter of historic populations would remain in the foreseeable future, with the remaining population isolated. The complaint said the model relied on by the FWS did not consider factors such as climate change-induced weather events such as droughts and storms in violation of the mandate to rely solely on best available science. The complaint described climate change impacts as a “primary threat” to the snake and alleged that the snake was particularly vulnerable to climate change-induced weather events because it is an ectotherm. The complaint also alleged that climate change will cause declines in the species’ longleaf pine habitat and that sea level rise was expected to eliminate coastal habitat in the snake’s range. Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 1:23-cv-00221 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 26, 2023)

Organizations Said BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at Significance of Lease Sale’s Climate Impacts

Four nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit in federal district court in New Mexico challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) authorization of 32 oil and gas leases covering more than 5,900 acres of land in New Mexico administered by BLM’s Carlsbad Field Office. The petitioners alleged that the Biden administration “rubber-stamped” the Trump administration’s decision to hold the January 2021 lease sale and that BLM failed to comply with NEPA, including by failing to take a hard look at cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when added to other greenhouse gas-emitting activities. The petitioners also asserted that BLM failed to evaluate the significance and severity of the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts and arbitrarily and capriciously decided not to use the social cost of carbon or carbon budgeting as tools to assess significance. The petition alleged that BLM could not simply quantify emissions that would result from the challenged action but must “actually analyze their significance in the context of the global climate crisis,” including by considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions that would occur as a result of BLM’s fossil fuel program, not just the January 2021 lease sale and not just lease sales within BLM’s New Mexico State Office jurisdiction. The complaint also alleged a failure to take a hard look at impacts on air pollution, public health, and water resources. With respect to water resources, the complaint alleged that climate change made it “even more important to protect potentially usable sources of groundwater.” Citizens Caring for the Future v. Haaland, No. 2:23-cv-60 (D.N.M., filed Jan. 23, 2023)

Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Environmental Review for Deepwater Crude Oil Port

Five nonprofit organizations filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Maritime Administration’s record of decision for the licensing of the Sea Port Oil Terminal and the final environmental impact statement for the project, which is a deepwater port for transportation of domestically produced crude oil for export to the global market. The project has onshore components in Brazoria and Harris Counties in Texas and offshore components located 27.2 to 30.8 nautical miles off the coast of Brazoria County. In a press release announcing the lawsuit, the organizations said the project would be the largest offshore export terminal in the U.S. and would facilitate a 50% increase over 2022 total oil exports. They said the environmental review of the project failed to account for the project’s impacts on climate change and also failed to adequately assess oil spill risk, harms to endangered species, and public health harms, including impacts to air quality in local communities. Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 23-60027 (5th Cir., filed Jan. 19, 2023)

Texas Organization Sought Documents Regarding Biden Administration’s Setting of Nationally Determined Contribution Under Paris Agreement

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (Foundation) filed three lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the federal district court for the Western District of Texas to compel disclosure of documents by the Departments of Energy, State, and Commerce related to efforts to support the Biden administration’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement in which the U.S. set an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50–52% below 2005 levels in 2030. The Foundation alleged that “[s]etting the Nationally Determined Contribution Number is a matter of huge economic significance” and that “[b]oth the Foundation and public have the right to know the extent of [each of the three agencies’] role in doing so.” Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 1:22-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 16, 2022); Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 1:22-cv-01209 (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 16, 2022); Texas Public Policy Foundation v. U.S. Department of State, No. 1:22-cv-01208 (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 16, 2022)

Securities Class Action Filed Against Developer and Operator of Wood Pellet Production Plants

A federal securities class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Maryland alleged that a company that develops, constructs, acquires, and owns and operates wood pellet production plants misrepresented the environmental sustainability of its wood pellet production and procurement. The complaint also alleged that the company overstated “the true measure of cash flow” its business generated, that the company therefore misrepresented its business model and its ability to achieve the level of growth it represented it could obtain, and that the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint cited a report published in October 2022 that stated that the company was “flagrantly greenwashing its wood procurement” and calling the business “a product of deranged European climate subsidies which incentivize the destruction of American forests so that European power companies can check a bureaucratic box.” The complaint also cited allegedly materially false and misleading statements made beginning in February 2019. The defendants were the company, its chair and chief executive officer, and its executive vice president and chief financial officer. Fagen v. Enviva Inc., No. 8:22-cv-02844 (D. Md., filed Nov. 3, 2022)

Environmental Groups Challenged Authorization to Transfer Ownership Interests in Gas Plant to Cryptocurrency Company

Two environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court challenging the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) decision to authorize a Canadian cryptocurrency company’s acquisition of ownership interests in a company that owns and operates a natural gas plant in North Tonawanda. The organizations asserted that the PSC was required to analyze whether the cryptocurrency company’s plans to increase the plant’s operations to power cryptocurrency mining would interfere with attainment of the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s (CLCPA’s) greenhouse gas emissions reductions mandates or disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities in violation of the CLCPA. Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission, No. 900457-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 13, 2023)

Oil Companies Challenged Los Angeles Drilling Ban Ordinance

Three related companies that operate a drilling site within Los Angeles City limits filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court challenging the City’s decision to adopt an ordinance making oil wells a nonconforming use, banning the drilling of new wells, and prohibiting maintenance, drilling, re-drilling, or deepening of existing wells. The companies also challenged the City’s related adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program under CEQA. The companies asserted that the City’s actions violated CEQA and the City’s General Plan (which they alleged “clearly contemplates the continued responsible extraction of oil and gas in the City”), and that the actions constituted a taking without just compensation and violated due process under the California and U.S. Constitutions. The companies alleged that the City failed to analyze how the ordinance would increase importation of oil and gas to meet existing demand and therefore lead to increased emissions from oil tankers and trucks used for oil transportation, and that the City ignored the environmental impacts of plugging and abandoning wells. The companies further alleged that they had invested in the conversion of their own operations to 100% electric in order to obtain City approvals to operate the site, and had relied on City approvals when investing in future development at the site. Warren E&P, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 23STCP00060 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 10, 2023)




Chile and Colombia Filed Request for Advisory Opinion from IACtHR on Scope of State Obligations for Responding to Climate Emergency

On January 9, 2023, Chile and Colombia signed a joint advisory opinion request to be presented before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), aiming to clarify the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency under the framework of international human rights law. The request acknowledged the human rights effects of the climate emergency, especially highlighting the vulnerability of communities and ecosystems in Latin America. Colombia and Chile emphasized the need for regional standards to accelerate action to confront climate change. The applicants mentioned the Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 requested by Colombia, where the IACtHR recognized the right to a healthy environment and the relation between the environment and human rights. The request identifies the IACtHR as the appropriate body to determine guidelines for creating and implementing climate policies based on a human rights approach.

Colombia and Chile's petition refers to various topics. First, the applicants asked about the state obligations derived from preventing and guaranteeing human rights to confront climate emergencies. In this sense, the applicants inquired about the scope of the prevention duty of states against extreme and slow-onset climate effects in light of the Paris Agreement and the scientific consensus not to exceed the 1.5 degree increase in global temperature. Along the same lines, the applicants asked about what actions states should take to address the damages caused by climate impacts and what measures should be taken to protect vulnerable communities. Specifically, Colombia and Chile requested that the IACtHR refer to actions regarding regulation, monitoring, environmental impact assessment, contingency plans, and mitigation of activities that can worsen the climate emergency. Along these lines, the applicants asked the IACtHR about the principles that should “inspire” these actions, especially regarding adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage.

Second, the requesting states focused on the state obligation to preserve the right to life against the climate emergency in light of human rights and science standards. Here, the applicants requested an opinion regarding the scope of substantive and procedural obligations on human rights and the environment. The applicants especially asked the IACtHR about the importance of protecting the right to access information to guarantee other human rights, such as the rights to life, property, health, and participation.

Third, the applicants requested an opinion from the Court to clarify the differentiated obligations of the states to protect the rights of children and future generations from climate change. Here, Colombia and Chile mentioned articles 1, 4, 5, 11, and 19 of the American Convention and asked about the nature and scope of the right of children to access justice to present judicial actions for preventing potentially damaging effects of climate change.

Fourth, following the clarification of the scope of procedural obligations, Chile and Colombia asked the IACtHR to clarify the nature of the obligations of the states to provide judicial actions for adequate protection and reparation of the rights affected by the climate emergency. In the same sense, the applicants asked about the necessity to implement the obligation to consult to take into account the climate consequences of certain activities.

Fifth, the applicants focused on environmental defenders’ protection, referring to the American Convention and the Escazú Agreement. Here, the applicants focused on the obligations that states should comply with for protecting environmental defenders, especially indigenous people and women, who protect ecosystems in the context of the climate emergency.

Finally, Colombia and Chile focused on asking the IACtHR about the cooperation between states to confront climate change in the region, especially to clarify the shared and differentiated obligations amongst the region’s nations. Here, the questions highlight the need for guidelines to clarify states’ role in guaranteeing reparation measures by considering equity and climate justice principles. In addition, the applicants inquired about their actions to confront the migration triggered and exacerbated by climate effects in the region. (Request for an advisory opinion on the scope of the state obligations for responding to the climate emergency, Inter-American Court of Human Rights)



Dismissed: NGO Humane Being’s Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in the First Case Challenging Factory Farming in the U.K. Declared Inadmissible

On July 26, 2022, the NGO Humane Being filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights in the first case challenging factory farming in the U.K. The application alleges that the U.K. Government is in breach of their obligations under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for failing to address the risks of the climate crisis, future pandemics, and antibiotic resistance created by factory farming. This application poses novel climate arguments focusing on the danger of agricultural methane emissions, and highlighting soy feed consumption in U.K. factory farming as a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon Basin. The application also cites, for the first time, the ECHR ruling of the Brazilian Supreme Court in PSB et al v. Brazil (on Climate Fund), which recognized the Paris Agreement as a human rights treaty. Given the urgency of the case and other pending climate cases before the Court, an application has been made for the case to be assessed on a priority basis.

In January 2023, the case was declared inadmissible pursuant to procedure which does not involve a public decision. The Court found that the applicants were not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the ECHR or the Protocols thereto to claim to be the victims of a violation within the meaning of Article 34 of the ECHR. Accordingly, these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the ECHR within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a). Humane Being v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)



New Deforestation Case Brought in Brazil Alleging Failure of Federal Agencies to Protect Environment

On October 28, 2022, the Institute of Amazonian Studies (Instituto de Estudos Amazônicos (IEA)) filed a Public Civil Action (class action) against the Federal Union and Federal Environmental Agencies (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio)). It states that deforestation causes irreparable damage to the Amazon Rainforest and affects the rights and way of life of the traditional extractivist community, which is based on the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. The action emphasizes that the Chico Mendes Extraction Reserve (RESEx) is an instrument of social justice and a vehicle for forest protection, and it claims that the advance of deforestation has occurred due to the weakening of public policies, land invasion, road construction, density of access roads, and fires in the region, among other reasons. According to the plaintiff, beginning in 2019, there has been a drastic increase in deforestation. The RESEx Utilization Plan states that deforestation in areas with rubber plantations cannot exceed 10% of the area, and the action claims that this limit has been exceeded in approximately half of those areas. The IEA emphasizes that RESEx has a strategic role in providing environmental services to the inhabitants of the Acre River basin due to the supply of water. It also highlights the deforestation reduction targets for the Legal Amazon region in the Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control Plan (PPCDAm) foreseen in Federal Law 12.187/2009 (National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC)), which, according to the IEA, are not being met. It alleges that the Federal Union, IBAMA, and ICMBio are not fulfilling their duty of management and control and are contributing to the damage to the RESEx and the community. It emphasizes the vital role of the forest in the carbon cycle and that approximately three million tons of carbon were released into the atmosphere due to illegal deforestation in the RESEx. The IEA argues that there is a need for full environmental reparation in addition to the obligation to restore the forest and argues that future studies should be done to calculate the compensation for associated damages, such as climate damage. It emphasizes the vulnerable situation of the community, which justifies the payment of compensation for collective moral damage. It also argues that there is a need to prepare a Forest Restoration and Deforestation Control Plan for the region. Finally, among the other claims, the plaintiff requests: (i) payment of compensation for the material damage caused to the environment in the amount of at least R$ 183,817,104.00 (approximately $36,200,000); (ii) payment of compensation for collective moral damage in the minimum amount of R$ 100,000,000.00 (approximately $20,000,000); and (iii) immediate forest restoration of the entire area deforested above the established limit, to be carried out according to a Forest Restoration and Deforestation Control Plan. Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Federal Union and Federal Environmental Agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) (Chico Mendes Extraction Reserve) (Brazil, Federal Criminal and Civil Court of Acre)