Climate in the Courts

news on climate change in the courts

Latest updates

Swiss Seniors Take Their Climate Case Against Switzerland to European Court of Human Rights

October 27, 2020

Representatives of Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland and supporters rally outside the Strasbourg court building. Credit: © Greenpeace / Emanuel Büchler, editorial use permission

After unsuccessful attempts to sue the Swiss government through Switzerland’s court system challenging the government’s insufficient climate policies, a group of Swiss senior women are taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights. This will be the second climate change case filed before the international human rights court in recent months, with a group of Portuguese youth lodging a complaint in September against 33 European countries including Switzerland.

The Swiss seniors say their fundamental rights and their health are at risk from the worsening climate crisis and associated impacts, particularly extreme heat. They formed a group called Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland and in 2016 launched a legal challenge to their government’s climate policies, which they say don’t go far enough to slash greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate breakdown.

Swiss courts have dismissed the women’s case, however, prompting the group to turn to the European Court of Human Rights. The Swiss senior women announced their submission to this court, located in Strasbourg, France, on October 27. An official legal filing will take place in the coming weeks.

October 23, 2020

Klamath Wild and Scenic River, Oregon. The state's Supreme Court ruled that navigable waters like this are public trust resources. Credit: Bureau of Land Management, CC BY 2.0

In a divided ruling issued on October 22, the Oregon Supreme Court decided the state of Oregon does not have a duty to protect its vital natural resources such as the atmosphere and water under a legal theory called the public trust doctrine in the face of the climate crisis. The long-awaited decision comes in a lawsuit, originally filed in 2011, by Oregon teens Olivia Chernaik and Kelsey Juliana against the state government over climate change and environmental degradation.

This case is one of a handful of pending legal challenges at the state level brought by young people against their government seeking to compel more aggressive action on climate change that is guided by climate science. These climate cases have faced an uphill battle and have mostly been dismissed.

While the Supreme Court majority ruled against the youth plaintiffs in the Oregon case Cherniak v. Brown, Chief Justice Chief Justice Martha Walters wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the court should not shirk its responsibility to determine violations of law even if a case involves a complex issue like climate change.

“The complexity of an issue may make a judicial decision more difficult, but it does not permit this court to abdicate its role,” Justice Walters wrote.

October 15, 2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivers remarks after President Donald Trump announced her as his nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on September 26, 2020. Credit: White House, public domain

During her Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, October 13, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett trotted out a tired and dismissive refrain from climate deniers, saying, “I’m certainly not a scientist” when Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) asked specifically about her views on climate change.

After Barrett said she doesn’t have “firm views” on the subject, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) pressed her on those views during the hearing Wednesday, where she continued to dodge the question. “I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge,” Barrett said, adding, “I haven’t studied scientific data. I’m not really in a position to offer any informed opinion on what I think causes global warming.”

Her use of the “not a scientist” line, and her subsequent doubling down on the idea, drew swift criticism from activists, journalists, politicians, and other professionals engaged with the issue of climate change.

October 14, 2020

Papohaku Beach in Molokai, Hawaii (Maui County), April 2006. Credit: Patrick McNally, CC BY 2.0

Hawaii’s Maui County filed a liability claim against 20 fossil fuel firms on Monday, joining 23 other U.S. communities suing to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for their role in delaying action on climate change. Maui is the third community in Hawaii to file such a suit.

The county alleges that major petroleum corporations including BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil executed a decades-long campaign to downplay the climate risks of their products in order to delay regulation and maximize profits.

October 8, 2020

An ExxonMobil facility on the banks of the Mississippi River, Oct. 26, 2016. Credit: Terekhova, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

September saw a flurry of new lawsuits filed by cities and states against major fossil fuel companies over the climate crisis and the resulting impacts that are already being felt. After Hoboken, New Jersey sued Big Oil and its largest trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, on September 2, back-to-back lawsuits came the following week from Charleston, South Carolina and the state of Delaware. Connecticut then followed with a lawsuit singularly targeting ExxonMobil, which remains one of the largest oil companies in the world and appears determined to double down on its core fossil fuel business despite knowing decades ago about the climate consequences of using its products.

These climate lawsuits seek to hold companies like Exxon accountable for spending decades misleading the public on climate risks. Those dangers, projected long ago, have literally hit home in recent months with scorching heat, “record breaking” storms battering the Gulf Coast, and unprecedented and devastating wildfires burning millions of acres in the western U.S.

October 6, 2020

Canada's actions worsening climate change - like allowing tar sands expansion - are at the core of a constitutional climate lawsuit brought by youths against the federal government. Photo from protest on Parliament Hill, Sept. 26, 2011. Credit: Peter Blanchard, CC BY 2.0

Should young people suing their national government over climate change get the chance to tell their stories, and present climate science, at a courtroom trial? That is the question pending before the Federal Court of Canada, which heard arguments last week in a constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 15 youths against the Canadian federal government. The government wants the case tossed, and following last week’s hearing (held Sept. 30 and Oct. 1) the court will now decide if the case gets dismissed, or if it is allowed to proceed to trial.

October 2, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court. Credit: dog97209, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to intervene in a climate liability lawsuit brought against 26 fossil fuel companies by Baltimore, which seeks to hold them responsible for the substantial costs of grappling with the heavy impacts of climate change.

In their petition, BP, Chevron, and other fossil fuel companies have asked the court to examine a narrow legal question in the case, which Baltimore first filed in 2018. Since then, the petroleum firms have embroiled the case in a fight over whether it should be heard in state or federal court.

September 30, 2020

Youth plaintiffs in Vancouver, BC in October 2019. Credit: Robin Loznak & Our Children's Trust via David Suzuki Foundation Facebook page

A landmark constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 15 young Canadians against Canada’s federal government will come before a court this week for two days of hearings to determine if the case will advance to trial. Should the case go to trial, it would be one of the first courtroom trials anywhere in the world in litigation brought by youth against their national government over the climate crisis.

September 28, 2020

Providence River and skyline, Rhode Island. Credit: Craig Fildes via Flickr (via U.S. Dept. of State), CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

A federal district judge in Rhode Island has ruled to allow a climate adaptation lawsuit brought by a New England environmental law organization against oil major Shell to advance towards discovery and trial. According to Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the organization suing Shell over climate risks to its oil storage facility located in Providence, R.I., the case proceeding to discovery marks the first time a private fossil fuel entity will need to fully answer for its knowledge of climate change and the risks it presents.

September 25, 2020

Kelsey Juliana (age 24) and Levi Draheim (age 13), the oldest and youngest of the Juliana 21 youth plaintiffs, pass by the U.S. Capitol building in September 2019. Credit: Robin Loznak and Our Children's Trust, used with permission

On Wednesday, September 23, several members of Congress introduced a resolution in both houses that supports the principles and demands of the 21 youth suing the U.S. government in the landmark constitutional climate case Juliana v. United States. Titled the “Children’s Fundamental Rights and Climate Recovery Resolution,” this Congressional resolution, though nonbinding, demonstrates one way that Congress can play a key role in supporting the growing calls to hold the federal government and fossil fuel companies accountable for the devastating damages of the climate crisis.

In January, a divided federal appeals court dismissed the Juliana youth lawsuit, but the youths have asked the full court to review that dismissal and a decision is still pending.

Young people like the Juliana plaintiffs and communities across the country have turned to the courts in filing lawsuits demanding climate accountability. More than 20 municipalities and states are suing major oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil over the fossil fuel industry’s campaigns to discredit climate science, deceive the public on climate risks, and delay policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The young people suing the U.S. government in Juliana argued that the executive branch has promoted a fossil fuel energy system that contributes to dangerous climate change, putting their constitutional rights like rights to life and liberty at risk.

In both types of cases, Congress could signal its support for the youth and communities going to court over the climate crisis. That idea is essentially what the new concurrent resolution on children’s fundamental rights is about, a symbolic gesture backing the demands of the Juliana youth plaintiffs.

September 22, 2020

Bełchatów power plant and coal mine, April 18, 2020. Credit: Roman Ranniew, CC BY 2.0

A judge in Poland has ruled that operators of the Bełchatów coal plant – Europe’s single biggest emitter of carbon pollution – must negotiate a settlement with environmental lawyers that brought a lawsuit last year over the coal plant’s destructive environmental and climate impacts.

The ruling, which followed a hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 22 in the District Court of ŁódĽ, could put the Polish coal facility on a path towards closure. Lawyers for the environmental law charity ClientEarth argued that closing the Bełchatów plant’s coal operations is necessary in the face of the climate crisis. The power plant burns 45 million tons of coal every year, equivalent to a ton every second, and has emitted over a billion tons of CO2 over its lifetime. The plant’s annual emissions are roughly equal to the total annual emissions of New Zealand.

September 22, 2020

Minister of Environment of Spain Teresa Ribera at Climate Action for Jobs "Just Transition" Event, Dec. 11, 2019. Credit: UNclimatechange, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Environmental organizations have brought a climate change lawsuit against the government of Spain in an effort to compel more ambitious action in addressing the climate emergency.

Greenpeace Spain, Ecologistas en Acción and Oxfam Intermón filed their case before Spain’s Supreme Court on September 15 contending that Spain has failed to take adequate action on climate in violation of the nation’s international obligations and legal duties. It is the first domestic climate lawsuit initiated against the Spanish government.

“To avoid devastating climate change there is only one way: to drastically and rapidly reduce CO2 emissions and accelerate the ecological transition, which requires courageous political and judicial decisions,” Mario Rodríguez, director of Greenpeace Spain, said in a press release.

September 20, 2020

Wildfire burning near Enumclaw, Washington on September 9, 2020. Credit: Washington State Dept. of Transportation, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

As rampant wildfires worsened by climate change continued to batter the western U.S. this week, a Washington state appeals court examined the question of whether young people should be allowed to sue their state government over the climate crisis. The hearing, held Thursday, September 17, is part of a case brought by 13 Washington youth against the Evergreen State.

That case, Aji P. et al. v. State of Washington, argues that the government is violating the youths’ fundamental rights under the state constitution through policies that perpetuate fossil fuels and fail to reduce carbon emissions rapidly enough to avoid catastrophic climate consequences. At a time when the state is literally on fire and climate calamity impossible to ignore, the court appeared skeptical of the state’s argument that the political branches of government are doing enough to address the crisis and that climate change doesn’t undermine fundamental rights protected by the constitution.

September 15, 2020

Hurricane Irene damage in Connecticut, August 28, 2011. Credit: Office of Governor Dan Malloy/CT National Guard, CC BY 2.0

On Monday, September 14, Connecticut announced it had filed a lawsuit in state court against oil major ExxonMobil for alleged “decades of deceit” on the risks of climate change that stem from burning fossil fuels.

“ExxonMobil sold oil and gas, but it also sold lies about climate science,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a press release. “ExxonMobil knew that continuing to burn fossil fuels would have a significant impact on the environment, public health and our economy. Yet it chose to deceive the public. No more.”

At a time when much of the West Coast is engulfed in flames, fossil fuel companies are facing a torrent of climate accountability lawsuits from cities and states with four new cases filed this month alone.

September 12, 2020

School Strike for Climate Melbourne, Australia, November 30, 2018. Credit: julian meehan, CC BY 2.0

This week, a group of eight Australian teens has brought a groundbreaking new climate change lawsuit against Australia’s Federal Minister for the Environment in an effort to stop a proposed coal mine expansion in the state of New South Wales, roughly 267 miles north of Sydney.

Filing a class action lawsuit in federal court, these students are representing not just themselves but young people under age 18 across Australia and around the world, as the generation that is particularly imperiled from the climate crisis and the continued fossil fuel expansion driving climate breakdown.

“The climate crisis will disproportionately impact young people as many of us will live into the second half of this century, far beyond many projections of climate catastrophe,” said Laura Kirwan, a 16-year-old plaintiff from Sydney who is active in Australia’s School Strike 4 Climate.

The lawsuit is the latest in several climate cases brought by young Australians in recent months.

September 11, 2020

Chevron attorney Ted Boutrous. Credit: Getty Images

A climate change lawsuit brought by the state of Rhode Island against major fossil fuel producers like Chevron and Shell had a court hearing on Friday, September 11 where lawyers for each side presented diverging characterizations of the case, and the court appeared skeptical of the fossil fuel industry’s interpretation of the state’s claims.

September 10, 2020

Flood damage from Hurricane Irene at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. Credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service, public domain

Delaware, the home state of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, announced on Thursday, September 10 that it is taking dozens of major oil and gas companies including BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil to court over the rising costs of climate impacts such as sea level rise and coastal flooding.

Like other U.S. states and municipalities suing the fossil fuel industry, Delaware says that the industry knew half a century ago about the likely climate impacts resulting from the use of its products, but instead of warning the public or changing their business model, the fossil fuel companies engaged in campaigns to attack climate science and downplay the risks of burning coal, oil, and gas in order to stave off policy responses.

“Delawareans are already paying for the malfeasance of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies,” Attorney General Kathy Jennings said in a press release. “Exxon, Chevron, and other mega-corporations knew exactly what kind of sacrifices the world would make to support their profits, and they deceived the public for decades. Now we are staring down a crisis at our shores, and taxpayers are once again footing the bill for damage to our roads, our beaches, our environment, and our economy. We are seeking accountability from some of the world’s most powerful businesses to pay for the mess they’ve made.”

The lawsuit, filed September 10 in Delaware Superior Court, a state court, seeks monetary damages to help pay for costs the state is already incurring and that are expected to mount as climate impacts worsen.

September 10, 2020

Power lines spark as Charleston streets flood during Hurricane Dorian. Credit: Sean Rayford/Getty Images

The city of Charleston, South Carolina is going to court to hold two dozen oil and gas companies accountable for alleged deception about the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change.

Charleston filed its lawsuit against 24 petroleum firms in South Carolina state court on September 9, joining around 20 other communities across the country pursuing similar litigation against the fossil fuel industry. Hoboken, New Jersey filed a climate lawsuit just last week against six major oil and gas companies plus the industry’s largest trade association, the American Petroleum Institute. 24 hours after Charleston's announcement, the state of Delaware announced the filing of its climate liability suit, against several fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute.

The Charleston lawsuit names major petroleum companies and their affiliates such as BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Shell Oil.

September 8, 2020

Plaintiff Haana, from Haida Gwai, Northern Coastal BC, speaking at a press conference announcing Canada's youth climate lawsuit in October 2019. Credit: Our Children's Trust via Facebook

Lawyers representing 15 Canadian youth suing the federal government of Canada over the climate crisis have responded to the government’s bid to have lawsuit dismissed. The youth plaintiffs in the case La Rose et. al. v. Her Majesty the Queen argue that Canada is violating their constitutional rights by contributing to the climate crisis and that the government’s conduct in this context is subject to judicial review.

In its motion to strike (dismiss), the attorney general of Canada said the youths’ case presented non-justiciable “political” questions. This argument “fundamentally mischaracterizes the plaintiffs’ claims,” the response explains. Plaintiffs’ lawyers filed the response brief on August 31 in the Federal Court of Canada. That court will hold hearings on the motion to strike starting at the end of September.

September 3, 2020

Youth plaintiffs (and siblings) Sophia and Andre of Lisbon, Portugal. Credit: Youth 4 Climate Justice

Six young people from Portugal have filed an unprecedented climate change lawsuit against almost all of Europe, targeting 33 European nations for failing to take adequate action on the climate crisis that they say threatens their human rights.

It is the latest in a series of legal actions brought by young people around the world demanding urgent climate action to protect their fundamental rights and safeguard their futures.

The case was filed on September 3 in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. It is the first climate case brought directly to this international court. Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs will argue that European governments’ current plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change and therefore constitute human rights violations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“If successful, the 33 countries would be legally bound, not only to ramp up emissions cuts, but also to tackle overseas contributions to climate change, including those of their multinational companies,” the charity Global Legal Action Network, which is providing legal support for the case, explained in a press release.

September 2, 2020

Youth plaintiffs (from left) Fadya M., Daniela G., Naomi G., Leonardo T., Nelson G., Rafael M., Alexis R. Photo courtesy of Defensa Ambiental del Noroeste

The emerging global trend of youth taking their governments to court over the climate crisis has now reached Mexico. Lawyers representing a group of 15 young people from the State of Baja California (part of Mexico) announced on Sept. 2, 2020 a new lawsuit against the Mexican federal government urging the country to issue regulations and policies derived from the Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change and the Mexican Constitution.

September 2, 2020

New Jersey National Guard assisted displaced residents in Hoboken in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Credit: U.S. Army/Spc. Joseph Davis, via DVIDSHUB, CC BY 2.0

New Jersey has now joined the wave of lawsuits seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate impacts. The city of Hoboken today filed a case against major oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute (API), a powerful industry trade group which has played a major role in promoting “uncertainty” about climate science.

The lawsuit seeks to recover costs associated with climate impacts like extreme flooding and sea level rise. Like other climate liability lawsuits targeting fossil fuel companies, Hoboken's suit alleges that the oil and gas companies and their lobbying group not only knew early on about the climate harms resulting from their products, but actively engaged in campaigns of deception to undermine climate science and avoid policy responses.

“Here in Hoboken, we are now paying the price for these deceptive actions,” Hoboken Mayor Ravi S. Bhalla said during a press conference held Wednesday, September 2. “We cannot sit idly by and let Big Oil continue profiting at the expense of Hoboken residents.”

September 1, 2020

Several European climate cases, most recently one in Ireland, have been successful in court. Credit: Climate Case Ireland

Europe has in some ways been at the forefront of climate change litigation, particularly with cases brought against national governments seeking swifter action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to protect citizens’ fundamental rights in the face of the climate emergency. European courts have ruled in favor of climate litigants challenging their governments’ climate policies, first with the groundbreaking verdict in the Dutch Urgenda case and most recently with the Supreme Court victory for Climate Case Ireland.

Lawyers working on European climate litigation, including those who worked on these two trailblazing cases, shared their insights during a virtual panel discussion held Wednesday, September 1. The discussion focused on human rights strategies in European climate cases, and was the fourth in a climate litigation webinar series hosted by the Global Network for Human Rights and the Environment. Panelists included the Urgenda Foundation’s Dennis van Berkel, German lawyer Roda Verheyen, Andrew Jackson of Friends of the Irish Environment, and Louise Fournier with Greenpeace International.

August 28, 2020

Credit: Youth Verdict, CC BY 2.0

A court in Australia has rejected a coal company’s bid to dismiss a youth climate lawsuit challenging the Galilee Coal Project in Queensland on human rights grounds. The lawsuit, filed in May by a group called Youth Verdict, will now be able to proceed in Queensland Land Court under the state’s new Human Rights Act. This is the first time a coal mine has been challenged over human rights violations due to the climate crisis.

August 28, 2020

Great egret navigates flooding from king tide in San Mateo County, CA in Dec. 2016. Credit: Bonnie Crystal, CC BY NC 3.0

San Mateo County and five other California communities suing oil companies to recover costs associated with climate impacts will now have to wait before their suits proceed in state court.

On August 25, 2020 a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the oil companies’ request for a stay or pause of an order sending the cases back to California state court where they were originally filed. The Ninth Circuit panel upheld that remand order in a May 26, 2020 ruling, which the companies unsuccessfully contested with the panel recently denying a petition for a rehearing en banc, meaning review by the full court. The companies are next turning to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has paused the cases for 90 days while the companies prepare to file a petition with the Supreme Court. If the petition is granted the stay will extend, but if the high court denies the companies’ bid then the California cases will re-start immediately in state court.

August 20, 2020

Damaged homes in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, public domain

Advocates for holding fossil fuel companies accountable in court for the substantial costs of climate change are urging New Jersey to sue oil majors like ExxonMobil, as over a dozen municipal and state governments have done over the past three years.

A month after a New Jersey senate committee passed a resolution calling on the state to take this kind of legal action, New Jersey’s Monmouth University hosted a virtual panel discussion on Wednesday, August 19 titled “Accountability for Climate Change Harms in New Jersey: Scientific, Legal and Policy Perspectives.” The discussion was intended to outline the case for New Jersey to file a climate accountability lawsuit ahead of the full state senate voting on the resolution, which could come later this month.

New Jersey Democratic State Senator Joseph Cryan, one of the lead sponsors of Senate Resolution 57, said during his opening remarks Wednesday that he is hopeful the resolution will pass the full state senate this month. The resolution specifically calls on New Jersey’s governor and attorney general “to pursue legal action against fossil fuel companies for damages caused by climate change.”

“This resolution urges the Governor and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey to join 14 municipalities across the country and the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island in pursuing appropriate legal action against fossil fuel companies, in order to shift the past and present costs associated with the damage caused by climate change onto the companies responsible for causing those harms,” the resolution states. The New Jersey Senate’s Environment and Energy committee voted to advance the resolution on July 20, 2020.

August 14, 2020

High tides are already causing flooding on the Torres Strait Islands (pictured here: Saibai Island, 2012). Credit: Brad Marsellos, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Responding to a world-first legal complaint on climate change brought by a group of indigenous Australian islanders to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Australian government claimed that climate harms are distant “future” risks and denied it has a legal responsibility to act on climate given that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are relatively small in a global context.

“Australia’s response to the Islanders’ complaint states the case should be rejected because it concerns future risks, rather than impacts being felt now. Australia’s lawyers also stated that because the country is not the main or only contributor to global warming, climate change action is not its legal responsibility under human rights law,” a press release from the environmental law organization ClientEarth, which is providing legal representation to the Islanders, explains. Australia’s official response has not been made public.

August 13, 2020

East Providence, Rhode Island. Credit: JJBers, CC BY 2.0

A New England-based environmental law group is taking major oil companies to court, claiming the firms have failed to adapt some of their petroleum storage terminals to withstand increasingly severe storm and flooding events worsened by the climate crisis.

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is currently suing both ExxonMobil and Shell in two separate lawsuits brought under federal laws regulating water pollution and hazardous waste, including the Clean Water Act. The cases center around coastal oil terminals and their vulnerability to climate change impacts like sea level rise and heightened storm surge. Exxon operates an oil terminal in Everett, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston, that sits along the Mystic River. Shell's terminal is located in Providence, Rhode Island, along the Providence River.

CLF argues that these facilities pose a grave risk not only to the waterways and environment but also the surrounding communities, given that the oil terminals currently are not designed to standards that account for climate impacts.

August 12, 2020

Credit: Owwe, CC BY-SA 2.0

The oil companies defending against climate liability lawsuits brought by California communities received yet another setback in court with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying the companies’ petition for a rehearing or en banc review in a case filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the petition on August 12, just a week after the same panel denied a similar request from fossil fuel company defendants in cases filed by San Mateo County and five other California cities and counties.

August 4, 2020

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals courthouse in San Francisco. Credit: Ken Lund, CC BY-SA 2.0

As ExxonMobil seeks to dismiss a climate-related fraud lawsuit filed against the company by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, the oil major and its industry peers received yet another court setback in climate litigation brought by California communities. On Tuesday, August 4 a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the oil companies’ petition for a full court or en banc review of a May 26 decision by that same panel upholding an order to send (remand) six climate lawsuits filed by California cities and counties back to state courts. The denial of the en banc petition means the oil companies will likely be forced to fight these California climate cases in state courts, where they may have a harder time getting the cases dismissed.

July 31, 2020

Credit: Climate Case Ireland

The Supreme Court of Ireland has ruled in favour of an environmental group challenging the Irish government’s climate plans, finding its policies did not meet legal requirements for detailing how the country will meet emissions-reduction targets.

The decision is only the second time a country’s highest court has required a national government to reform its climate policy in order to meet legal obligations.

July 28, 2020

Credit: Johnny Silvercloud via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

ExxonMobil is leading the charge for Big Oil entities in moving two new climate-related lawsuits filed against the entities in June from state court to federal court, arguing the cases brought by the attorneys general of Washington DC and Minnesota are “political acts” seeking to dictate climate policy. Attorneys General Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Karl Racine of the District of Columbia filed their cases on June 24 and June 25, respectively, in state and local courts alleging Big Oil violated state and local consumer protection statutes by misleading consumers about the climate consequences of their fossil fuel products. Defendants in the Minnesota case include ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and two Koch subsidiaries, and the main U.S. oil and gas trade association, the American Petroleum Institute. Defendants in the DC case include ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell.

July 23, 2020

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Credit: G20 Argentina, CC BY 2.0

A 23-year-old law student in Melbourne, Australia has brought what is described as a “world-first” climate lawsuit against the Australian government for failing to disclose climate-related risks to holders of government bonds. The climate crisis poses a material financial risk to investors in Australian sovereign bonds, the lawsuit contends, and the government has a legal duty to disclose these risks.

July 21, 2020

Prime Minister Boris Johnson gives an economic recovery speech on June 30, 2020. Credit: Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

A nonprofit climate litigation organization in the UK is challenging the British government’s COVID economic recovery plan on climate change grounds, taking the first step in the legal process by sending a formal notice to the government on July 21.

The organization Plan B sent the notice, called a Pre-Action Protocol letter, to several UK government officials including Prime Minister Boris Johnson as well as Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey and Chair of UK Export Finance Noël Harwerth. The Pre-Action Protocol follows an informal letter that Plan B sent on July 7, and requests the government officials explain how the UK economic recovery program complies with the government’s legal obligations to act on the climate crisis. Plan B says it intends to file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court if the government does not provide an “adequate response” by August 4, 2020.

July 20, 2020

Attorney General of Canada David Lametti. Credit: BC Gov Photos, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The Canadian federal government is asking the Federal Court of Canada to dismiss a constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 15 young people alleging the government is failing to protect their fundamental rights through actions and inaction that worsen the climate crisis. Such a lawsuit is about questions of policy that cannot be handled by courts, the government argues.

“Canada moves to strike the Statement of Claim (“Claim”) not because it disagrees with the importance of addressing global climate change, but because the legal claims advanced by the Plaintiffs are not justiciable,” the Attorney General of Canada wrote in a motion to strike (dismiss) filed July 10 in the case La Rose et. al. v. Her Majesty the Queen. “The Claim does not target any particular law or its application. Instead, it asks the Court to decide whether the executive is governing well,” the Attorney General argued in the motion, adding that the issues raised are “legislative and political in nature.”

July 17, 2020

Credit: Andifeelfine, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Oil and gas companies – defendants in a climate liability lawsuit brought by Baltimore – filed a response brief on July 15 in their petition before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Court should resolve a question on the scope of appellate review of remand orders. According to the companies, there is a significant split among the federal appeals courts on this question, and the Supreme Court’s “review is urgently needed.”

Baltimore filed the suit to hold these companies – major producers of fossil fuels – liable for monetary damages to help pay for the localized impacts of climate change, impacts the city says are worsened by the companies’ alleged campaign of deception and denial to undermine the science and avoid climate action. The companies are waging a procedural battle to remove this case and similar climate lawsuits to federal courts, where they believe they have an easier path to dismissal. But four federal district judges and three federal appeals courts have now ruled that the cases should be remanded, or sent back, to state courts where they were originally filed. The companies are challenging these rulings.

July 16, 2020

Queensland's Mission Beach was directly hit by Cyclone Yasi in 2011

Australia is violating human rights in its continued support of fossil fuels and contributions to the climate crisis, environmental lawyers in Australia and the U.S. explain in a recent submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council. These lawyers are urging the Council to make recommendations that Australia take actions to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to “reflect the highest possible ambition” and to phase out fossil fuels.

Environmental Justice Australia, Environmental Defenders Office, and the U.S.-based group Earthjustice – nongovernmental organizations working on environmental law issues – submitted a document on July 8 to the UN Human Rights Council outlining how Australia is failing to uphold its legal obligations to protect human rights with respect to the climate crisis. The submission is part of a UN process called a Universal Periodic Review (UPR), whereby the Human Rights Council reviews UN member states’ human rights records approximately every five years. The Council issues a report to each country under review and countries can either accept or take notice of the report’s recommendations. Australia is scheduled for review in early 2021.

July 10, 2020

Credit: WildEarth Guardians, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Colorado Governor Jared Polis and a state environmental agency are facing a new lawsuit filed by an environmental advocacy group arguing the government failed to meet a legally required deadline to issue rules for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by statute.

The lawsuit, filed July 9 in Denver County District Court by the group WildEarth Guardians, seeks to compel Colorado regulators into action on meeting the state’s climate targets. Those emissions reduction targets are outlined in a bill signed into law last year, including a 26 percent cut in emissions by 2025, 50 percent cut by 2030, and 90 percent reduction by 2050. A related bill also signed into law last year includes a deadline of July 1, 2020 for the state to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for measures that would allow the state to meet its targets. WildEarth Guardians says the state has not met this deadline and claims this failure is “arbitrary and capricious” and unlawful under the statute.

July 10, 2020

San Francisco & Bay Bridge. Credit: ATIS547, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Fossil fuel companies defending against climate liability lawsuits filed by California communities are asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider recent rulings favoring the California plaintiffs looking to advance their cases in state courts.

July 7, 2020

"Flatirons on Fire" showing wildfire smoke in the Boulder area. Credit: Zach Dischner, CC BY 2.0

Colorado communities suing oil companies ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy over local climate impacts and associated costs can advance their case in Colorado state court, a federal appeals court has ruled. It is the latest setback for fossil fuel companies fighting similar climate liability lawsuits across the country.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, July 7 to uphold a lower court order remanding or sending back to state court a lawsuit originally filed in April 2018 in Boulder County District Court, a Colorado state court. The city and county of Boulder and the county of San Miguel brought the lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor alleging the unchecked sale and promotion of petroleum products in the state, despite the climate-related risks known to the industry, are exacerbating costly impacts like extreme heat, drought, wildfires and floods. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and includes legal claims of nuisance, trespass, and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

July 6, 2020

Climate litigation increasingly focuses on human rights violations stemming from the climate crisis

Climate litigation is not going away any time soon.

Lawsuits demanding accountability and action on the existential threat of climate change continue to take hold across the world with some significant new developments and new cases emerging over the past year, according to a new report on trends in global climate change litigation.

That report, published July 3 by the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, provides an overview of climate change lawsuits around the world including key developments between May 2019 and May 2020. Grantham Research Institute maintains a database of global climate change lawsuits and in recent years has issued annual reports on trends in climate litigation.

Over the past three decades climate change lawsuits have spread across six continents with over 1,500 cases identified in 37 countries, according to the latest report. Most of these cases are in the U.S., though increasingly cases are emerging outside the U.S. including 26 new cases in the last year alone. The Global South (Asia, Africa and Latin America) has seen 37 cases of climate litigation to date.

While a majority of climate-related lawsuits are routine cases such as challenges to fossil fuel permitting or regulatory procedures, cases are also being brought more strategically as a way to hold governments and companies accountable for damaging climate impacts. This kind of litigation against national governments and against fossil fuel companies has taken off in recent years.

July 1, 2020

A lawsuit brought by an environmental group against the Irish government seeking more urgent action to stave off climate catastrophe and protect citizens came before the country's Supreme Court last week. If successful, it could have a ripple effect on courts being used to hold national governments to account for failing to slash emissions at the required pace to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Climate Case Ireland, as the Irish lawsuit is called, challenges the country’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan. That policy sets out pathways for transitioning to a low carbon economy by 2050 but, as the lawsuit argues, does not include near-term requirements for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) is suing the government claiming that the 2017 policy is inadequate and violates Irish statutory law, the Irish Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights. According to FIE, data from the government’s own Environmental Protection Agency shows that Ireland’s emissions between 1990 and 2020 will increase by 11-12 percent, and the country is not on track to meeting its emission reduction goals by 2030.

June 25, 2020

DC Attorney General Karl Racine. Credit: Adam Fagen, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Washington, D.C. is suing the four largest investor-owned oil and gas companies — BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell — for allegedly misleading consumers about climate change, including historically undermining climate science and even now using deceptive advertising about the companies’ role in leading solutions to the climate crisis.

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine announced the consumer fraud lawsuit on Thursday, June 25. The lawsuit claims that the four oil majors violated the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act by engaging in misleading acts and practices around the marketing, promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products, which produce globe-warming pollution. The D.C. lawsuit alleges that these companies knew since at least the 1950s about the harmful consequences of burning fossil fuels and that they engaged in a campaign to deceive the public about those risks.

June 24, 2020

Credit: Lorie Shaull, CC BY-SA 2.0

Minnesota has officially joined the climate accountability movement with the announcement on Wednesday, June 24 of a groundbreaking lawsuit against fossil fuel behemoths such as ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and the nation's largest oil and gas lobbying group for alleged deception on climate change.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced the lawsuit at a press conference Wednesday. The lawsuit names as defendants ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and Koch Industries as well as Koch subsidiaries Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend. The lawsuit claims these organizations violated Minnesota consumer protection laws for orchestrating a campaign of deception around climate science and the danger of fossil fuels.

June 23, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court. Credit: US Capitol, public domain

California communities last month got an important procedural win in their efforts to get fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-related impacts. On May 26, a federal appeals court ruled that their lawsuits could go ahead in state court, which is their preferred venue, rather than federal court.

Similar lawsuits filed by Colorado communities, Baltimore, and Rhode Island are also marching on in state courts following unsuccessful attempts by fossil fuel companies to have the cases heard in federal courts, where they are more likely to be dismissed. Overall, the communities lodging these legal battles seem to be gaining momentum.

However, some of the companies facing those lawsuits appear to be gearing up for a larger battle, looking to the Supreme Court to weigh in and using their network of promoters to continue attacking these lawsuits outside the courtroom.

June 16, 2020

Credit: Smulan77, CC BY-NC 2.0

A Canadian youth climate lawsuit challenging the government of Ontario’s climate policy will have its day in court next month, when the Ontario Superior Court will hold a hearing on the government’s motion to strike (dismiss) the case.

On Monday, June 15 lawyers representing the youth plaintiffs – seven young Ontarians between the ages of 13 and 25 – filed a response to the Ontario government’s motion to strike, which was filed on April 15. Ontario argued that courts couldn’t address the issue of climate change, an argument that the youth plaintiffs are disputing. They say that the government’s inadequate actions to mitigate climate change violate young people’s fundamental constitutional rights, and that courts have a duty to adjudicate claims of constitutional violations. A full hearing on the motion to strike will be held on July 13.

JUNE 11, 2020

Credit: Youth Verdict, Flickr, CC BY 2.0

An organization of young people in Queensland, Australia called Youth Verdict has brought a rights-based climate lawsuit against the Galilee Coal Project. It is the first climate lawsuit challenging a coal mine on human rights grounds and the first legal challenge brought by youth against a coal project in Australia.

June 1, 2020

In a hearing before the Boulder County District Court on June 1, attorneys representing ExxonMobil and Suncor argued that a climate liability lawsuit brought by three Colorado communities should be dismissed on multiple grounds. The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2018 by the counties of Boulder and San Miguel and the city of Boulder, seeks to hold Exxon, Suncor and Suncor subsidiaries liable for harmful climate impacts and associated costs in those Colorado communities. The suit is part of a wave of lawsuits filed by U.S. municipalities against fossil fuel companies over climate change damages that are incurred in communities across the country.

June 1, 2020

Youth plaintiffs announcing their lawsuit against the State of Florida in April 2018 // Credit: Noya Fields, Flickr

*Update (July 1, 2020) - The Florida youth plaintiffs have filed an appeal

A Florida state court judge ruled on June 1 to dismiss a climate change lawsuit against the state brought by eight young Floridians. The ruling is the latest in a string of setbacks for young people suing their governments at the state and federal levels over the climate crisis.

More news/updates

Disclaimer: This site is informational and does not constitute legal advice.

news on climate change in the courts

Latest updates

Swiss Seniors Take Their Climate Case Against Switzerland to European Court of Human Rights

October 27, 2020

Oregon Supreme Court Rules Against Youth in Climate Case, But Chief Justice Pens Dissent Saying Judicial Branch "Has a Role to Play" in Addressing Climate Crisis

October 23, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett's Remarks on Climate Change Raise Alarm That a Climate Denier Is About to Join the Supreme Court

October 15, 2020

Hawaii's Maui County Takes Big Oil to Court Over Climate Crisis

October 14, 2020

Fossil Fuel Companies Keep Getting Sued Over Climate Impacts. Here's Where the Cases Stand

October 8, 2020

Court to Decide if Kids Suing Canada Over Climate Get a Trial

October 6, 2020

Supreme Court Will Hear Fossil Fuel's Appeal of Baltimore's Climate Lawsuit

October 2, 2020

Court Set to Hear Arguments in Youth Climate Case Against Canadian Federal Government

September 30, 2020

Rhode Island Judge Refuses to Toss Climate Adaptation Lawsuit Against Shell

September 28, 2020

How Congress Can Support Lawsuits Demanding Climate Accountability

September 25, 2020

Polish Court Recognizes Climate Damage, Rules Coal Plant Operators Negotiate Closure with Environmental Lawyers

September 22, 2020

Climate Lawsuit Filed in Spain Demanding Government Increase Ambition in Confronting Climate Crisis

September 22, 2020

Court Considers if Washington State, Smothered by 'Climate Fires' and Smoke, is Violating Youths' Rights to Life and Liberty

September 20, 2020

Connecticut Becomes the Fifth State to Sue Big Oil Over Climate Change

September 15, 2020

Australian Teens Bring Class Action Climate Lawsuit to Stop Coal Mine Expansion

September 12, 2020

Appeals Court Repeatedly Questions Big Oil Lawyer on Allegations of Deception During Hearing in Rhode Island Climate Case

September 11, 2020

Delaware Just Sued 30 Fossil Fuel Companies and the American Petroleum Institute over Climate 'Denial and Disinformation'

September 10, 2020

Climate Litigation Reaches American South with Charleston, SC Filing Latest Suit

September 10, 2020

Canadian Government "Fundamentally Mischaracterizes" Constitutional Climate Case, Youth Plaintiffs Argue

September 8, 2020

Latest Youth Climate Lawsuit Filed Against 33 European Countries over Human Rights

September 3, 2020

Youth Climate Lawsuit Filed Against Mexican Government

September 2, 2020

Hoboken, New Jersey Sues Oil Industry For Climate Impacts from its 'Deceptive actions'

September 2, 2020

Panel Discussion Examines Strategies, Including Human Rights Claims, in European Climate Litigation

September 1, 2020

Australian Youth Climate Case Against Queensland Coal Mine Can Advance, Court Rules

August 28, 2020

U.S. Climate Litigation Update: Ninth Circuit Court Panel Pauses Set of California Climate Cases; Hawaii Judge Orders Honolulu's Climate Suit to Proceed

August 28, 2020

New Jersey Should Sue Fossil Fuel Companies Over Climate Costs, Panel Says

August 20, 2020

Australia Says Torres Strait Islanders' Human Rights Complaint on Climate Should Be Tossed

August 14, 2020

Big Oil Faces Mounting Legal Battles Over Climate Threats to its New England Oil Terminals

August 13, 2020

Another Court Setback for Big Oil as Ninth Circuit Rejects Petition for Rehearing in Oakland and San Francisco Climate Cases

August 12, 2020

U.S. Climate Litigation Update: Ninth Circuit Panel Rejects Oil Companies' En Banc Petition in California Climate Cases; Exxon Looks to Dismiss Mass. AG Case

August 4, 2020

Historic Supreme Court Verdict Means Ireland's Government Must Increase climate Ambition

July 31, 2020

Exxon Removes DC and Minnesota Consumer Protection Climate Cases to Federal Courts

July 28, 2020

Law Student Sues Australia Over Failing to Disclose Climate-Related Financial Risks

July 23, 2020

UK Government Faces Legal Action Challenging COVID Recovery Program on Climate Grounds

July 21, 2020

Canada Says Kids Can't Sue Over Climate Crisis: Federal Government Moves to Dismiss Canadian Youth Climate Case

July 20, 2020

Oil Companies Say Supreme Court Review is "Urgently Needed" in Baltimore Climate Case

July 17, 2020

Australia is Fueling Climate Crisis and Violating Human Rights, Environmental Law Groups Tell UN Human Rights Council

July 16, 2020

Colorado Governor and State Agency Sued for Missing Deadline to Act on Climate

July 10, 2020

Oil Companies Demand Re-Hearings in Bid to Keep California Climate Cases From Advancing in State Courts

July 10, 2020