Cases against governments
Juliana v. United States
Current Status: Awaiting ruling on plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. The case was previously dismissed by Ninth Circuit panel in January 2020. Plaintiffs then filed a petition for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit denied on February 10, 2021. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion on March 9, 2021 with the U.S. District Court to amend their original complaint and adjust their requested remedy. A ruling on that motion is pending, with a hearing held on June 25, 2021.
Background: Landmark youth climate case first filed in 2015 alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Public Trust Doctrine. According to the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust that spearheaded the case, the “complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.” Plaintiffs are 21 young people from across the country who all have compelling stories of their own experiences of the adverse effects of climate change. Defendants include the U.S. federal government, specifically the executive branch and cabinet secretaries charged with energy and environmental policy.
The U.S. District Court in Oregon, where the suit was filed, had green-lighted the case for trial, and the plaintiffs had overcome numerous attempts by the government to stop the case before trial. Defendants had appealed repeatedly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and twice requested a stay or pause with the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the Supreme Court’s second denial of a stay in November 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court granted defendants’ petition for an interlocutory appeal in December 2018. Oral arguments on that appeal were held on June 4, 2019. The three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, by a 2-1 vote, to dismiss the case on January 17, 2020. The majority dismissed the case based on standing, finding that plaintiffs did not satisfy the third element of standing, redressability. The requested redress or relief – a court order for the government to execute a climate recovery plan – is not within judicial bounds, according to the majority decision. In other words, the majority determined that a court cannot order the other branches of government to undertake sweeping policies to address climate change.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for a re-hearing with the full Ninth Circuit Court, or en banc review, on March 2, 2020. Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs’ petition were filed March 12 and included briefs from children’s rights advocates, environmental groups, public health experts including two former Surgeons General, law professors and international law organizations, members of Congress, and 17 of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. The U.S. government filed its brief opposing en banc review on March 24. On Feb. 10, 2021 the Ninth Circuit denied the en banc request without providing a reason, leaving the youth plaintiffs will little recourse. According to the nonprofit law firm representing the youth, Our Children's Trust, "it is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to correct the legal errors made in the 9th Circuit's January 2020 ruling...The youth are also requesting that the Biden-Harris administration defendants and Department of Justice come to the settlement table." On March 9, 2021, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to seek only declaratory, not injunctive, relief. According to Our Children's Trust: "If U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken grants the motion to amend, the youth plaintiffs’ case would be able to move forward in the trial court on the question of whether the federal government’s fossil fuel-based energy system, and resulting climate destabilization, is unconstitutional." A hearing on the motion to amend the complaint took place (by telephone) on June 25, 2021. A decision on that motion is pending.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us
http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/
Our Children’s Trust is supporting youth-led climate lawsuits at the state level. Suits are currently pending in a handful of states:
Hawaii
Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation
Current Status: Case pending, awaiting ruling on the government defendants' motion to dismiss.
Background: Fourteen young Hawaiians brought a constitutional climate lawsuit against their state government on June 1, 2022, alleging that Hawaii's fossil fuel-based transportation system contributes substantially to the state's carbon emissions and disproportionately harms the state's youths in violation of their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment as well as the public trust doctrine. Defendants include the governor, the Department of Transportation director, the state's Department of Transportation, and the State of Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, or a court declaration affirming the allegations of constitutional and public trust violations. This is the first youth climate lawsuit specifically targeting the transportation sector.
A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss was held on January 26, 2023, and the parties are awaiting the court's decision.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/hawaii
http://climatecasechart.com/case/navahine-f-v-hawaii-department-of-transportation/
Montana
Held v. State of Montana
Current Status: Case is advancing after the state district court issued a ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Trial set for Summer 2023.
Background: Case filed on March 13, 2020 by 16 youth from across Montana against the state including the Montana governor and several state agencies. The complaint claims the state is knowingly contributing to the climate crisis in supporting a fossil fuel-driven energy policy, and that affirmative actions encouraging fossil fuel exploitation expressly violate young people’s constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment; to seek safety, health, and happiness; and to individual dignity and equal protection of the law.
A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss was held on February 18, 2021. On August 4, 2021 District Court Judge Kathy Seeley denied the motion to dismiss. Trial preparation is underway. The trial - the first in a youth-led constitutional climate case in the U.S. - had been scheduled for February 6 to February 17 in Helena. The state requested more time to prepare, pushing the trial back several months. New trial dates are scheduled for June 12 - June 23, at the First Judicial District Court in Helena, Montana.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/montana
http://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/
Utah
Nathalie R. v. State of Utah
Current Status: Case pending as plaintiffs seek an appeal of the trial court's dismissal of the case.
Background: Lawsuit filed against the state government by 7 young people (ages 9 to 18) in Utah, alleging the state's affirmative support of fossil fuels amounts to constitutional violations of the youths' rights to life, health, and safety. The case challenges Utah's energy policy favoring fossil fuel development and seeks declaratory relief - a ruling from the court that such a policy is unconstitutional.
The case was filed on March 15, 2022. A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss was held November 4, 2022, and five days later the judge ruled in the state's favor and dismissed the case. The youth plaintiffs are appealing.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/utah
Virginia
Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Current Status: Case dismissed following a hearing on the state's response to the complaint (called a Demurrer) on September 16, 2022. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are working on an appeal.
Background: Case filed on February 9, 2022 against Virginia's state government by 13 young Virginians alleging the state's permitting and continued support for fossil fuels violates the youths' constitutional rights and the state's public trust duties.
An initial hearing was held on September 16, 2022 at Richmond City Circuit Court. The state argued the case should be tossed, citing the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Judge Clarence N. Jenkins Jr. ruled from the bench in favor of Virginia, dismissing the youths' case without addressing the merits or factual allegations. Youth plaintiffs plan to appeal.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/virginia
Current Status: Awaiting ruling on plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. The case was previously dismissed by Ninth Circuit panel in January 2020. Plaintiffs then filed a petition for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit denied on February 10, 2021. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion on March 9, 2021 with the U.S. District Court to amend their original complaint and adjust their requested remedy. A ruling on that motion is pending, with a hearing held on June 25, 2021.
Background: Landmark youth climate case first filed in 2015 alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution and the Public Trust Doctrine. According to the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust that spearheaded the case, the “complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.” Plaintiffs are 21 young people from across the country who all have compelling stories of their own experiences of the adverse effects of climate change. Defendants include the U.S. federal government, specifically the executive branch and cabinet secretaries charged with energy and environmental policy.
The U.S. District Court in Oregon, where the suit was filed, had green-lighted the case for trial, and the plaintiffs had overcome numerous attempts by the government to stop the case before trial. Defendants had appealed repeatedly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and twice requested a stay or pause with the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the Supreme Court’s second denial of a stay in November 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court granted defendants’ petition for an interlocutory appeal in December 2018. Oral arguments on that appeal were held on June 4, 2019. The three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, by a 2-1 vote, to dismiss the case on January 17, 2020. The majority dismissed the case based on standing, finding that plaintiffs did not satisfy the third element of standing, redressability. The requested redress or relief – a court order for the government to execute a climate recovery plan – is not within judicial bounds, according to the majority decision. In other words, the majority determined that a court cannot order the other branches of government to undertake sweeping policies to address climate change.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for a re-hearing with the full Ninth Circuit Court, or en banc review, on March 2, 2020. Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs’ petition were filed March 12 and included briefs from children’s rights advocates, environmental groups, public health experts including two former Surgeons General, law professors and international law organizations, members of Congress, and 17 of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. The U.S. government filed its brief opposing en banc review on March 24. On Feb. 10, 2021 the Ninth Circuit denied the en banc request without providing a reason, leaving the youth plaintiffs will little recourse. According to the nonprofit law firm representing the youth, Our Children's Trust, "it is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to correct the legal errors made in the 9th Circuit's January 2020 ruling...The youth are also requesting that the Biden-Harris administration defendants and Department of Justice come to the settlement table." On March 9, 2021, attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to seek only declaratory, not injunctive, relief. According to Our Children's Trust: "If U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken grants the motion to amend, the youth plaintiffs’ case would be able to move forward in the trial court on the question of whether the federal government’s fossil fuel-based energy system, and resulting climate destabilization, is unconstitutional." A hearing on the motion to amend the complaint took place (by telephone) on June 25, 2021. A decision on that motion is pending.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us
http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/
Our Children’s Trust is supporting youth-led climate lawsuits at the state level. Suits are currently pending in a handful of states:
Hawaii
Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation
Current Status: Case pending, awaiting ruling on the government defendants' motion to dismiss.
Background: Fourteen young Hawaiians brought a constitutional climate lawsuit against their state government on June 1, 2022, alleging that Hawaii's fossil fuel-based transportation system contributes substantially to the state's carbon emissions and disproportionately harms the state's youths in violation of their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment as well as the public trust doctrine. Defendants include the governor, the Department of Transportation director, the state's Department of Transportation, and the State of Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, or a court declaration affirming the allegations of constitutional and public trust violations. This is the first youth climate lawsuit specifically targeting the transportation sector.
A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss was held on January 26, 2023, and the parties are awaiting the court's decision.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/hawaii
http://climatecasechart.com/case/navahine-f-v-hawaii-department-of-transportation/
Montana
Held v. State of Montana
Current Status: Case is advancing after the state district court issued a ruling denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Trial set for Summer 2023.
Background: Case filed on March 13, 2020 by 16 youth from across Montana against the state including the Montana governor and several state agencies. The complaint claims the state is knowingly contributing to the climate crisis in supporting a fossil fuel-driven energy policy, and that affirmative actions encouraging fossil fuel exploitation expressly violate young people’s constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment; to seek safety, health, and happiness; and to individual dignity and equal protection of the law.
A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss was held on February 18, 2021. On August 4, 2021 District Court Judge Kathy Seeley denied the motion to dismiss. Trial preparation is underway. The trial - the first in a youth-led constitutional climate case in the U.S. - had been scheduled for February 6 to February 17 in Helena. The state requested more time to prepare, pushing the trial back several months. New trial dates are scheduled for June 12 - June 23, at the First Judicial District Court in Helena, Montana.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/montana
http://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/
Utah
Nathalie R. v. State of Utah
Current Status: Case pending as plaintiffs seek an appeal of the trial court's dismissal of the case.
Background: Lawsuit filed against the state government by 7 young people (ages 9 to 18) in Utah, alleging the state's affirmative support of fossil fuels amounts to constitutional violations of the youths' rights to life, health, and safety. The case challenges Utah's energy policy favoring fossil fuel development and seeks declaratory relief - a ruling from the court that such a policy is unconstitutional.
The case was filed on March 15, 2022. A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss was held November 4, 2022, and five days later the judge ruled in the state's favor and dismissed the case. The youth plaintiffs are appealing.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/utah
Virginia
Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Current Status: Case dismissed following a hearing on the state's response to the complaint (called a Demurrer) on September 16, 2022. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are working on an appeal.
Background: Case filed on February 9, 2022 against Virginia's state government by 13 young Virginians alleging the state's permitting and continued support for fossil fuels violates the youths' constitutional rights and the state's public trust duties.
An initial hearing was held on September 16, 2022 at Richmond City Circuit Court. The state argued the case should be tossed, citing the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Judge Clarence N. Jenkins Jr. ruled from the bench in favor of Virginia, dismissing the youths' case without addressing the merits or factual allegations. Youth plaintiffs plan to appeal.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/virginia
Australia
Torres Strait Islanders’ Complaint Against Australia (Billy et al. v. Commonwealth of Australia)
Current Status: Case decided in September 2022 in what is described as a "groundbreaking decision" finding that Australia's inadequate climate response violates several human rights of the Torres Strait Islanders.
Background: In May 2019 a group of indigenous Australians from the Torres Strait Islands filed a first-of-its-kind legal complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee against the Australian government challenging Australia’s inadequate response to climate change. This is the first climate change case in Australia based on human rights claims. Plaintiffs, who are especially vulnerable to climate impacts like sea level rise and flooding, allege that Australia is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Human Rights Committee issued a decision on September 23, 2022, finding that Australia's failure to safeguard its most vulnerable inhabitants from damaging climate impacts constitutes violations under several articles of the ICCPR - specifically Article 17 (the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family and home) and Article 27 (the right to culture). The Committee majority declined to find Australia in violation of Article 6 (the right to life), though some Committee members dissented and thought the right to life was breached in this case. The Committee ordered Australia to compensate the Torres Strait Islanders for climate-related harms, and to engage in meaningful consultations and take measures to ensure the safe continued existence of the island communities.
More info on this case:
https://www.clientearth.org/press/climate-threatened-torres-strait-islanders-bring-human-rights-claim-against-australia/
http://ourislandsourhome.com.au/
Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v. Commonwealth of Australia
Current Status: Case pending, filed in October 2021.
Background: Lawsuit filed in the Federal Court of Australia by two indigenous Australians from the Torres Strait Islands, Pabai and Paul, demanding that Australia take urgent action to cut GHG emissions to protect their island home, which may soon become uninhabitable as sea levels rise. The plaintiffs allege the Australian government has breached its duty of care (under the Torres Strait Treaty) by failing to prevent dangerous climate change. The case was filed as a class action on behalf of Torres Strait Islanders and is supported by the Grata Fund and the Urgenda Foundation.
The case is proceeding, with a four-week initial trial (Part 1) scheduled for June 2023. The court will hear evidence from the plaintiffs and other Torres Strait islanders, and will visit Cairns and the Torres Strait Islands to hear directly from the affected communities.
More info on this case:
https://australianclimatecase.org.au/the-case/
O'Donnell v. Commonwealth
Current Status: Case pending before the Federal Court of Australia.
Background: Class action lawsuit filed by a 23-year-old Melbourne law student (Katta O'Donnell) against the federal government of Australia for failing to disclose material risks relating to climate change to holders of sovereign (government-issued) bonds. The lawsuit argues that Australia's economy and its standing in international financial markets will be significantly impacted by the the climate crisis, and in failing to disclose climate risks the government is breaching its legal duty to investors. The complaint, filed in Australia's Federal Court on July 22, 2020, has been described as a "world first" legal action, one alleging a national government is misleading investors on climate risk in the sovereign bond market. According to Equity Generation Lawyers, the law firm representing Katta O'Donnell, remedies sought include declarations of breach of duty and an injunction relating to retail bonds.
The case had an initial hearing in November 2020. Following that hearing, Ms. O'Donnell filed a more detailed Statement of Claim. The government filed an application in March 2021 to strike parts of the claim, and a hearing on the application to strike was held on July 28, 2021. In October 2021 the court declined to strike the claim, permitting the case to proceed. The case is advancing to discovery, and a case management conference was slated for October 25, 2022. A next case management hearing is scheduled for March 23, 2023.
More info on this case:
https://equitygenerationlawyers.com/cases/odonnell-v-commonwealth/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/odonnell-v-commonwealth/
Austria
Mex Müllner v. Austria
Current Status: Case paused or temporarily adjourned.
Background: Climate lawsuit brought against the Austrian government by an individual whose health is severely impacted by extreme heat linked to global warming. An Austrian citizen suffering from a temperature-sensitive form of multiple sclerosis (MS) called Uhthoff's syndrome is suing his government for failing to take adequate action to address the climate crisis. According to the lawsuit, the MS patient is unable to walk without a wheelchair at temperatures at or above 25°C, and he loses complete control over muscular movement at temperatures around 30°C plus. The lawsuit was filed with the European Court of Human Rights on March 25, 2021 and alleges violation of the plaintiff's right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case is currently "adjourned" until the Court's Grand Chamber has ruled on several other pending climate cases before it.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/mex-m-v-austria/
Austrian Youth v. Austria
Current Status: Case pending, filed on February 21, 2023.
Background: A group of a dozen youths (ages 5 through 16) filed a constitutional climate lawsuit in February 2023 against the Austrian government, claiming the government is failing to protect them from dangerous climate change. The case specifically challenges a 2011 climate law that plaintiffs say is ineffective and outdated. The case, filed with the Austrian Constitutional Court, is grounded in Austrian constitutional law that explicitly protects the rights of children.
More info on this case:
https://www.fridaysforfuture.at/klimaklage/english
Belgium
VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others
Current Status: Case pending on appeal. A ruling was issued in June 2021 by the Brussels Court of First Instance finding the government in violation of domestic law and international human rights law due to its inadequate climate action, but the court refused to order specific emissions reductions.
Background: Case filed in 2015 by a group of Belgian citizens, and similar to the Urgenda case it seeks to compel the government to take more stringent climate action to protect citizens’ human rights. "The claimants seek an order that the governments reduce the country’s GHG emissions by at least 42% by 2025 and by at least 55% by 2030, against 1990 levels, to avoid dangerous climate change," according to a summary of the case.
According to a summary of global climate litigation, “The case initially got held up in court over a language dispute that was decided by the Belgian Court of Cassation in early 2018. In 2019, the claimants and the governments filed their submissions with the court." Hearings are slated from March 16-26, 2021.
UPDATE (Jan. 2021) - According to the Sabin Center's climate litigation database: "From February 2019 through March 2020, the parties submitted their main conclusions and final conclusions. In their main conclusions, the plaintiffs demanded that the government reduce emissions 42 to 48% in 2025 and at least 55 to 65% in 2030. Oral hearings are set for March 2021."
Following the oral arguments in March 2021, the Belgian court ruled on June 17, 2021 that the government authorities were failing to protect citizens from climate harms and were therefore violating their legal obligations, including the duty of care under Belgian civil law and human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to order Belgium to revise its climate policy or make steeper GHG emissions cuts due to the separation of powers doctrine. Plaintiffs are appealing this aspect of the ruling.
More info on this case:
https://www.klimaatzaak.eu/en
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/vzw-klimaatzaak-v-kingdom-of-belgium-et-al/
Canada
La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen
Current Status: Case pending on appeal. The Federal Court of Canada dismissed the case on Oct. 27, 2020, following a two-day hearing on the government's motion to dismiss on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 2020. The youth plaintiffs filed an appeal on Nov. 24, 2020. Case initially filed in Oct. 2019.
Background: This case, filed by 15 Canadian youth against the Canadian federal government, is mirrored after the Juliana case in the U.S. The plaintiffs argue that Canada’s affirmative actions promoting fossil fuels and contributing to climate change constitute violations of young people’s fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as their rights as beneficiaries under the Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the government to create and implement a climate recovery plan. The Canadian government has moved to strike (dismiss) the case, arguing the claims are "political" in nature and not justiciable. The Federal Court ultimately ruled in favor of the government and dismissed the case in October 2020. The youth are now appealing. A hearing on appeal was held in February 2023, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/canada
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/la-rose-v-her-majesty-the-queen/
Several other cases have been filed at the sub-national level.
Mathur et al. v. Her Majesty in Right of Ontario
Current Status: Case proceeding, with the Ontario Superior Court rejecting the government's motion to dismiss. A hearing on the merits - a trial - was held September 12-14, 2022.
Background: Case filed in November 2019 by seven young people in Ontario with support from the nonprofit Ecojustice. The complaint challenges the Ontario government’s weakening of its 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target and claims the government is abdicating its responsibility to address climate change, violating young people’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The lawsuit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, seeks a court order requiring the government to set a science-based emissions reduction target that aligns with the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Ontario government filed a motion to dismiss in April 2020. A hearing on the motion was held July 13. The Superior Court ruled on Nov. 12, 2020 to reject the motion to dismiss, allowing the case to continue towards trial.
More info on this case:
https://www.ecojustice.ca/case/genclimateaction-mathur-et-al-v-her-majesty-in-right-of-ontario/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/mathur-et-al-v-her-majesty-the-queen-in-right-of-ontario/
Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy
Current Status: Case dismissed in January 2023.
Background: Case filed in March 2022 challenging the BC government’s reporting on its progress in meeting GHG emissions reduction targets as required under the 2019 Climate Change Accountability Act. That law mandates that provincial governments publish annual accountability reports describing plans to meet the climate targets. Sierra Club BC argues that BC’s 2021 report fails in describing how plans will progress towards meeting the 2025, 2040, and 2050 GHG emissions reduction targets and that it lacks a plan for meeting the 2030 target for the oil and gas sector. According to Ecojustice, an environmental law charity representing the plaintiff, “B.C.’s 2021 Climate Change Accountability Report failed to explain how far the government’s plans will move the province toward achieving its 2025, 2040 and 2050 targets, as well as the crucial oil and gas sector target in 2030.”
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/canada/litigation_cases/sierra-club-of-british-columbia-foundation-v-minister-of-environment-and-climate-change-strategy
Czech Republic
Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic
Current Status: Ruling issued by Prague Municipal Court on June 15, 2022 deciding in favor of plaintiffs that the Czech government's progress in responding to the climate crisis is inadequate, another victory in strategic climate litigation against national governments.
Background: Climate lawsuit brought against the Czech government over its inadequate response to the climate crisis, filed in Prague Municipal Court on April 21, 2021. Plaintiffs are an association (Klimatická žaloba) representing over 200 Czech citizens, a Czech municipality, and four individuals. The lawsuit is brought on constitutional and human rights grounds, with plaintiffs saying the government has not done enough to protect them from climate harms. According to the Czech climate litigation website: "The aim of the lawsuit is a court ruling stating that the Czech state authorities do not sufficiently protect the rights of Czech citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and do not fulfill their international obligations in relation to climate change."
The court ruled in June 2022 that the Czech government had not taken sufficient measures to date to achieve the target of reducing emissions 55% by 2030. Per the court's order, the Czech State must take stronger actions to mitigate emissions in accordance with its obligations under European and international law.
More info:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/klimaticka-zaloba-cr-v-czech-republic/
https://www.klimazaloba.cz/en/
Finland
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and Greenpeace v. Finland
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: First climate lawsuit in Finland challenging the government's compliance with its climate commitments as outlined in the state's new Climate Change Act. According to a summary of the case, "the collapse of Finland’s carbon sinks in 2021 has created a situation where the government’s climate policy plans are insufficient for meeting the Climate Act’s targets. The reason is due to the intensive forest logging and the slowing down of forest growth that has become a source of greenhouse emissions." The lawsuit was filed by Finnish environmental groups as an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. The government's submission of its Annual Climate Report, required under the new law, failed to consider the need for additional greenhouse gas mitigation measures, the plaintiffs argue.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/finnish-association-for-nature-conservation-and-greenpeace-v-finland/
France
Carême v. France
Current Status: Case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, to be examined by the Grand Chamber.
Background: Case filed with the ECHR on January 28, 2021 by Damien Carême, who resides in the northern French coastal community of Grande-Synthe and served as mayor from 2001 to 2019. In 2019 he and his municipality brought legal action against the French State for refusing to take stronger measures to meet its objective of reducing emissions 40% by 2030. The Conseil d’État handled the case, finding in favor of the municipality and ordering the national government to take additional actions as necessary by March 31, 2022; the court however dismissed Carême's interest in the case. This dismissal formed the basis for the application to the ECHR. Carême contends that he does have a stake or interest in whether or not the government takes more stringent climate action, as escalating climate change impacts his capacity to enjoy his property and private life in a place vulnerable to impacts like coastal flooding. He brings his case before the ECHR under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In June 2022 the Court announced the case would proceed to the Grand Chamber. A hearing is scheduled for March 29, 2023.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/careme-v-france/
Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. France
Current Status: Case closed, a victory for plaintiffs' demands that France to take all necessary measures to meet its climate targets. The Administrative Court held a hearing on Jan. 14, 2021, and a decision was issued on February 3, 2021 determining France could be held responsible for failing to meet its climate targets and for ecological damage from climate change. The ruling has been hailed as "historic" because it is the first time the French judiciary has acknowledged the State's responsibility for the climate crisis.
Background: Case filed in March 2019 by four environmental organizations - Greenpeace France, Oxfam France, Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme, and Notre Affaire à Tous – against the French government claiming France’s action on climate is inadequate. Plaintiffs argue that France has legal obligations to take stronger climate action that protects citizens’ fundamental rights.
Following a hearing in January 2021, the Administrative Court ruled on February 3, 2021 that the French government does bear responsibility but stopped short of requiring stronger climate action, instead ordering the government to disclose steps it was taking to meet its climate targets within two months. According to the Sabin Center's climate litigation database, the court also recognized "that France's inaction has caused ecological damage from climate change and awarded the plaintiffs the requested one euro for moral prejudice caused by this inaction." In April 2021 the plaintiffs filed new observations or evidence that France is falling short of its own climate commitments, and requested the court order the state to take all necessary measures to meet its climate targets. A second hearing was held in October 2021, and a judgment from the Administrative Court ordered the government to take necessary actions to comply with its commitments by December 31, 2022.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-france/
Germany
Steinmetz, et al. v. Germany
Current Status: Case pending, filed in January 2022.
Background: Building on the successful Neubauer et al. case, this lawsuit brought by German young people (supported by the organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe) argues that Germany's updated climate law - the Federal Climate Protection Act - and the amended GHG reduction targets are still insufficient to protect fundamental rights under Germany's constitution. The amended 2030 climate target, aiming for 65% GHG reductions, came in response to the Constitutional Court's ruling in the Neubauer case, and has been in effect since August 31, 2021. The latest challenge to Germany's climate policy relies on new scientific consensus on the worsening climate emergency as represented by the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report. According to a summary of the case: "Claimants ask the Constitutional Court to declare parts of the amended [climate law] unconstitutional and to order the federal legislature to re-regulate the reduction pathway in light of new scientific constraints."
More info on this case:
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/germany/litigation_cases/steinmetz-et-al-v-germany
Guyana
Thomas and de Freitas v. Guyana
Current Status: Case pending, filed May 21, 2021 in Guyana's Constitutional Court.
Background: Constitutional climate lawsuit challenging ExxonMobil's major oil and gas extraction project off the coast of Guyana. Plaintiffs are two Guyanese citizens - Dr. Troy Thomas, a scientist and university lecturer, and Quadad de Freitas, an Indigenous youth from South Rupununi. They are suing the Guyanese government over its approval of the massive petroleum project, which represents Exxon's largest oil play outside the U.S.'s Permian Basin. Exxon has reported discoveries of 9 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas offshore Guyana, which has a massive potential climate impact. This is the Caribbean's first lawsuit challenging fossil fuel production on climate change and human rights grounds. The plaintiffs argue that Exxon's extraction project violates the right to a healthy environment as protected in Guyana's constitution and the rights of future generations.
More info:
https://www.ciel.org/news/guyana-consitutional-court-case-oil-and-gas/
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/thomas-de-freitas-v-guyana/
Italy
A Sud et al. v. Italy
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Climate lawsuit filed brought by over 200 plaintiffs against the Italian state on June 5, 2021 challenging the government's insufficient climate policies. The case was filed in Rome's Civil Court, and plaintiffs allege the government is in breach of its obligations under international law and agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights (articles 2 and 8) and the Paris Agreement as well as domestic law including the Italian constitution and Civil Code. The lawsuit seeks to compel the Italian state to reduce its GHG emissions by 92% (below 1990 levels) by 2030. As stated on the website for the Italian climate litigation campaign Giudizio Universale: "The objective of the legal initiative is to ask the Civil Court for a ruling requiring the adoption of state decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, capable of defining climate stability and at the same time guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights for present and future generations, in accordance with the constitutional duty of solidarity and with the international duty of equity between States." The 203 plaintiffs bringing the case include 24 organizations, led by the Italian environmental and human rights group A Sud Association, as well as 17 youths and 162 adults.
The court held an initial hearing in December 2021. A second hearing was scheduled for September 13, 2023.
More info:
https://giudiziouniversale.eu/la-causa-legale/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/a-sud-et-al-v-italy/
Mexico
Jóvenes v. Gobierno de México
Current Status: Case pending on appeal.
Background: Lawsuit (announced September 2, 2020) brought by 15 young people from Baja against the federal government of Mexico over the climate crisis. The lawsuit argues the government must immediately issue climate policies and regulations per its legal obligations under the country's constitution and Mexico's General Law on Climate Change. That law was passed in 2012 but since then there have been no policies passed to allow for the law's implementation. The youth plaintiffs also say the government has a duty to ensure citizens have access to a healthy environment as established in the constitution. Youth plaintiffs are between the ages of 17 and 23 and all are from the State of Baja California (part of Mexico). They are represented by lawyers from Defensa Ambiental del Noroeste (DAN) with support from Our Children's Trust.
According to Our Children's Trust, a hearing was scheduled for Jan. 4, 2022 in the District Court in Mexico City. The District Court decided to dismiss the case on May 20, 2022, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing or grounds to sue over this matter. Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/mexico
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-v-government-of-mexico/
Norway
Nature and Youth, Greenpeace Nordic v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy
Current Status: Case "adjourned" or paused, was pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
Background: Case filed in 2016 challenging the Norwegian government’s licensing of new oil drilling in the Barents Sea. “The People v. Arctic Oil,” as the case is informally called, claims the government has violated Section 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which guarantees a right to a healthy environment. The case seeks to invalidate the drilling licenses.
The Oslo District Court ruled in favor of the government in January 2018. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in November 2019. The Court upheld the lower court ruling in January 2020, refusing to vacate the drilling licenses. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, and in April 2020 the Supreme Court accepted the case. The Supreme Court heard arguments and evidence in the case in a week-long proceeding Nov. 4-12, 2020. On December 22, 2020 the Supreme Court issued its decision in favor of the Norwegian government, upholding the government's licensing of offshore petroleum production.
In June 2021 the Norwegian environmental groups Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth along with six young climate activists filed an application to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. The plaintiffs contend that Norway's grant of offshore oil licenses violates human rights law under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2 and 8).
The court has asked the government to respond to the plaintiffs' allegations. In April 2022 the Norwegian government submitted a response requesting the case be dismissed. The court has temporarily adjourned the case, punting it until such time as the Grand Chamber rules in several other climate cases pending before it.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-and-nature-youth-v-norway-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-v-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy-ecthr/
Poland
Górska et al. v. Poland
Current Status: Cases initiated in June 2021.
Background: Five Polish citizens are suing the Polish state challenging Poland's "regressive" stance on climate action and the state's failure to protect its citizens from worsening climate impacts. The plaintiffs are brining five individual cases before regional courts, claiming violation of individual rights, including the right to a healthy environment and a stable climate system. The cases are grounded in Polish civil law and refer to human rights law under the European Convention on Human Rights. Plaintiffs seek to compel Poland to reduce its GHG emissions 61% (below 1990 levels) by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2043. Poland remains heavily reliant on coal with 70% of its electricity coming from coal power, and Poland has failed to announce any long-term strategy to meet its international climate obligations. The plaintiffs - including a farmer, a plant wholesaler, an ecotourism business owner, parents, and a youth climate campaigner - are all directly impacted by the unfolding climate crisis in Poland, which is already seeing more extreme conditions like drought, floods, wildfires and crop failures. Plaintiffs are supported in their legal actions by the Polish law firm Gessel along with climate litigation charity ClientEarth.
More info:
https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/polish-people-take-their-government-to-court-as-climate-impacts-hit-home/
https://climate-laws.org/geographies/poland/litigation_cases/gorska-et-al-v-poland
Russia
Ecodefense and Others v. Russia
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Case brought by climate activist organizations in Russia against the Russian government, alleging that Russia's highly insufficient climate action endangers its citizens and violates the Russian constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was filed on September 11, 2022 in the country's Supreme Court. Plaintiffs want the court to order Russia to reduce its GHG emissions to abide by the Paris Agreement objectives and Russia's obligations under domestic and international law.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ecodefense-other-ngos-v-russia/
South Korea
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Case filed on March 12, 2020 by 30 youth climate activists in South Korea against their national government, alleging that the nation’s greenhouse gas reduction target is inadequate and violates youths’ fundamental rights under the South Korean Constitution. The case is the first youth-led, constitutional climate lawsuit filed in Asia.
More info on this case:
https://youthclimatelawsuit.kr/2020/03/13/press-release-korean-youth-launches-legal-action-against-government-over-climate-crisis/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kim-yujin-et-al-v-south-korea/
Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Constitutional climate case brought in June 2022 challenging South Korea's 2030 climate target, claiming the policy goal to slash GHG emissions 40% by 2030 is inadequate to safeguard fundamental rights - including rights of future generations. Plaintiffs in this case are all young children and infants, and the youngest and lead plaintiff is an unborn fetus (nicknamed "Woodpecker). There are 62 plaintiffs in total, and it is the first climate case in the world involving infants and an unborn child. Plaintiffs claim the government's emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement is unconstitutional and places undue burdens on children and future generations.
More info on this case:
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1046962.html
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/foetus-heads-legal-challenge-carbon-emissions-south-korea
Spain
Greenpeace et al. v. Spain
Current Status: Case pending on a final decision from the Supreme Court.
Background: Three environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) - Greenpeace Spain, Oxfam International, and Ecologists in Action (Ecologistas en Acción) are taking the Spanish government to court for inadequate climate action, specifically for failing to produce a national climate and energy plan with concrete climate targets for 2030. Plaintiffs filed a notice intending to sue Spain in September 2020, and the court promptly admitted the case. The environmental NGOs filed their lawsuit on Dec. 15, 2020, alleging that Spain failed to produce a National Energy and Climate Plan with 2030 climate targets, in violation of national law, EU regulations, and their obligations under the Paris Agreement.
The Supreme Court rejected the government's motion to dismiss in June 2021. The government promptly appealed that ruling, and the Court rejected the appeal.
*A second lawsuit was filed against the government by most of the same plaintiffs on May 28, 2021 challenging the National Energy and Climate Plan issued in March 2021. Plaintiffs claim the plan is not ambitious enough to comply with the Paris Agreement objectives. The Supreme Court admitted this second Spanish climate case on July 1, 2021.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-v-spain/
Sweden
Foley et al. v. Sweden
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Class-action lawsuit brought by over 600 young people, including Swedish youth climate activist Greta Thunberg, against the Swedish government alleging the state's insufficient climate policies infringes on their fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The youth are suing the state as a group, called Aurora, demanding that Sweden take all necessary measures to reduce emissions according to its fair share to align with a pathway of limiting warming to no more than 1.5 degrees C. The lawsuit was filed on November 25, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://xn--auroramlet-75a.se/juridik/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/anton-foley-and-others-v-sweden-aurora-case/
Switzerland
Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council et al.
Current Status: Case proceeding (on fast-track) in the European Court of Human Rights.
Background: Case initially brought against the Swiss government (the Federal Council and several agencies) in 2016 challenging the government's inadequate climate policies. The plaintiffs, a group of senior women, are particularly at risk from climate impacts like extreme heat. They allege the government's climate targets are insufficient to limit warming to below 2 degrees C and violate their fundamental rights under the Swiss constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Following an initial rejection of the women's petition by the federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communications, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the case in November 2018. The court decided the Swiss seniors are not particularly harmed since they are not the only population vulnerable to climate impacts. The Swiss seniors took their case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rejected their case on May 20, 2020, finding the plaintiffs' rights had not yet been violated and that they must seek their remedy through political (not legal) means. The Swiss seniors then filed their case with the European Court of Human Rights in late 2020. According to the Sabin Center's climate litigation database: "The application listed three main complaints: Switzerland's inadequate climate policies violate the women's right life and health under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR; the Swiss Federal Supreme Court's rejected their case on arbitrary grounds, in violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6; and the Swiss authorities and courts did not deal with the content of their complaints, in violation of the right to an effective remedy in Article 13." The ECHR granted the case priority status on March 26, 2021 and invited the Swiss government to respond by July 16, 2021. In April 2022 the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber of the Court, where a full slate of 17 judges will examine the case on the merits. The hearing will take place on March 29, 2023.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-council-and-others/
https://klimaseniorinnen.ch/english/
Tanzania
Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights et al. v. Tanzania and Uganda
Current Status: Case pending in the East African Court of Justice.
Background: Lawsuit filed in November 2020 by four African civil society organizations against the Tanzanian and Ugandan governments over their approval of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). French oil giant TotalEnergies is building the nearly 1500-km pipeline through ecologically sensitive and protected areas in Eastern Africa, and the project is expected to displace thousands of people while damaging local biodiversity and water sources. The pipeline will also have a massive carbon footprint that will worsen the climate crisis. Plaintiffs claim the governments authorized the pipeline without adequate environmental and social impact assessments as required under national, regional and international law. There was no assessment on the pipeline's impact on human rights or on climate change. The case was filed in the East African Court of Justice.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/center-for-food-and-adequate-living-rights-et-al-v-tanzania-and-uganda/
https://cefroht.org/2020/12/23/eacop-case/
Uganda
Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environment Management Authority
Current Status: Case pending.
Background: Youth constitutional climate lawsuit brought on behalf of Ugandan youth plaintiffs against the Ugandan government. The complaint was originally filed in 2012 and amended in 2015, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs argue the government has a public trust duty, under Articles 39 and 237 of the Ugandan constitution, to protect natural resources including the atmosphere for present and future generations. The plaintiffs seeks a science-based climate mitigation plan to protect Ugandan children from the worst impacts of climate change. A Ugandan environmental organization called Greenwatch, along with Our Children's Trust, are supporting the youth plaintiffs.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/uganda
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/mbabazi-et-al-v-attorney-general-et-al/
UK
Plan B and Others v. Prime Minister
Current Status: Case dismissed, deemed "inadmissible" by the European Court of Human Rights.
Background: Climate lawsuit brought by climate litigation charity Plan B and three young people against the UK government (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the Energy Minister) alleging the government is in breach of its obligations under the Paris Agreement and is violating human rights. According to the Sabin Center climate litigation database: "Plaintiffs allege that while the UK government has pledged itself to net zero emissions by 2050, it has undercut this commitment by supporting coal and aviation, granting oil and gas leases, investing more than 25 billion pounds in roads, and financing fossil fuel projects overseas." The case is brought under the UK Human Rights Act 1998 (corresponding to Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and seeks a court order for the government to implement an emergency plan in line with its Paris Agreement obligations.
On Oct. 4, 2021 the High Court rejected the legal claim, saying the case concerns policy choices and the government has a "wide margin of discretion." Plan B and the plaintiffs appealed the ruling, and the UK Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal.
Plaintiffs then turned to the European Court of Human Rights, filing an application on July 11, 2022. The application contends the government is in breach of its human rights obligations under Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
More info on this case:
https://planb.earth/plan-b-v-government-bailouts-for-polluters/
Other Cases
Agostinho et al. v. Austria et al.
Current Status: Complaint filed September 3, 2020. Case proceeding, with European Court of Human Rights granting priority status to fast-track the case. The case has been communicated to the Grand Chamber.
Background: Six young people from Portugal filed an "unprecedented" climate change lawsuit against 33 European countries for inadequate action to address the climate crisis, which plaintiffs say threatens their fundamental human rights. The case is brought under the European Convention on Human Rights and filed before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. It is the first climate case that has been brought directly to this international court. Countries targeted include member states of the European Union as well as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. As Climate Home News reported, lawyers for the Portuguese youth are "seeking a court order to make countries deepen their emissions reductions both at home and abroad in line with the toughest 1.5C warming limit in the Paris [Climate Agreement]."
The European Court of Human Rights announced on Nov. 30, 2020 it had accepted the case and granted it priority given the urgency of the climate issue. The 33 countries must each respond by the end of February 2021. On February 26, 2021 the Court rejected the 33 governments' request to overturn the decision to grant the case priority status, as well as the governments' request to find the case inadmissible. The case is advancing. It will proceed to a hearing before the Grand Chamber.
More info on this case:
https://youth4climatejustice.org/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al/
Soubeste et al. v. Austria et al.
Current Status: Case pending in the European Court of Human Rights
Background: Rights-based climate case brought by 5 young European citizens against 12 European States alleging the governments' membership in the Energy Charter Treaty hinders necessary climate action and infringes on their rights, as the treaty is designed to protect fossil fuel investors. Plaintiffs claim that maintaining membership in the controversial treaty - which allows fossil fuel developers to sue States for actions or policies that hurt profits - amounts to violations of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/soubeste-and-others-v-austria-and-11-other-states/
