Cases against governments
Juliana v. United States
Current Status: Case dismissed by Ninth Circuit panel in January 2020. Plaintiffs have since filed petition for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit denied on February 10, 2021. The case may next be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, 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. District Judge Ann Aiken has also ordered the parties to begin settlement talks.
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:
Alaska
Sagoonick v. State of Alaska (previously named Sinnok v. Alaska)
Current Status: Case narrowly denied by the Alaska Supreme Court, and plaintiffs' request for a rehearing was subsequently rejected.
Background: Case filed in October 2017 by 16 young Alaskans against the state’s governor, the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner, and five state agencies. Plaintiffs claim that Alaska’s energy policies promoting fossil fuel development endanger their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property and violate Alaska’s Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs seek relief including orders for defendants to complete an accounting of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions and to develop a climate recovery plan.
Alaska Superior Court Judge Gregory Miller dismissed the case in October 2018 following a hearing on the motion to dismiss in April 2018. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court in November 2018. A hearing on the appeal was held on October 9, 2019, and a long-awaited decision was handed down on January 28, 2022 - the court ruled 3-2 to uphold the case's dismissal. Given the split decision with two now-retired justices ruling against the youths' case, lawyers for the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing. The Alaska Supreme Court denied that petition on February 25, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/alaska
http://climatecasechart.com/case/sinnok-v-alaska/
Florida
Reynolds v. Florida
Current Status: Case closed. The Florida appeals court affirmed dismissal of the case on May 18, 2021. Case was originally dismissed following a hearing on motions to dismiss held on June 1, 2020. Plaintiffs appealed on July 1, 2020.
Background: Case filed in April 2018 by eight young Floridians against the state’s governor and several state agencies. The complaint alleges the state knowingly contributes to climate change and promotes a fossil fuel energy policy in violation of the youngest generation’s rights under the Florida constitution and in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in September 2018. Plaintiffs responded to that motion in March 2019, and in January 2020 attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to add allegations about recent actions Florida government officials had taken to worsen the climate crisis. Defendants agreed to the motion, and a hearing on the original motion to dismiss was scheduled for June 1, 2020. The judge ruled from the bench to dismiss at that hearing. Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling.
On May 18, 2021 the First District Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding the lower court's dismissal of the case and agreeing that the case raises non-justiciable political questions.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/florida
http://climatecasechart.com/case/reynolds-v-florida/
Hawaii
Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation
Current Status: Case filed on June 1, 2022
Background: Fourteen young Hawaiians brought a constitutional climate lawsuit against their state government, 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.
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. A scheduling conference is set for April 2023, and the trial could commence in early summer 2023.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/montana
http://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/
Oregon
Chernaik v. Brown
Current Status: Case closed. Oregon Supreme Court ruled in a divided opinion on Oct. 22, 2020 to deny the youth plaintiffs' public trust claims, with Chief Justice Martha Walters issuing a dissent arguing the judicial branch must not shirk from its responsibilities in climate change cases. The Oregon plaintiffs filed a petition in November 2020 asking the court to reconsider its ruling to dismiss the case, but the court denied this request.
Background: Originally filed in 2011 by Oregon teens Olivia Chernaik and Kelsey Juliana against former Governor John Kitzhaber (case has since been inherited by Governor Kate Brown), alleging the state was failing to protect vital natural resources, including the atmosphere and climate, under the Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs are seeking an order requiring the state to create and implement a climate recovery plan to reduce carbon emissions and protect the state’s natural resources. Judge Karsten Rasmussen of the Lane County Courthouse initially dismissed the case, but in 2014 the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ordered the lower court to review the case and determine whether the atmosphere could be considered a public trust resource. Following a hearing in April 2015, Judge Rasmussen ruled in May 2015 that the atmosphere is not protected under the Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs appealed that decision and a hearing was held in December 2016. The Oregon Court of Appeals issued its decision in January 2019, finding that the Public Trust Doctrine imposes no affirmative duty on the state. Plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ruled to dismiss the case in October 2020. According to Our Children's Trust: "Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are considering next steps to obtain climate justice for Oregon youth."
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/oregon
http://climatecasechart.com/case/chernaik-v-kitzhaber/
Utah
Nathalie R. v. State of Utah
Current Status: Case filed on March 15, 2022.
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.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/utah
Virginia
Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Current Status: Case filed on February 9, 2022.
Background: Case brought 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.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/virginia
Washington
Aji P. v. State of Washington
Current Status: Case closed. On October 6, 2021 the state's Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the case. The Washington Court of Appeals previously had rejected the youth plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court decision to dismiss the case.
Background: Case filed in February 2018 against the state’s governor and several state agencies. Plaintiffs are 13 young people from across Washington State seeking an order requiring the state to prepare an accounting of Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions and create a climate recovery plan. The complaint alleges constitutional and Public Trust Doctrine violations based on the state’s continued support and operation of a “fossil-fuel based energy and transportation system.”
In August 2018, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott dismissed the case without a hearing (granted defendants’ judgment on the pleadings), determining that the claims raised “political questions” that could not be resolved by the courts. Plaintiffs appealed and both sides have submitted briefs on appeal. A hearing was held on Sept. 17, 2020 and a decision issued on February 8, 2021 upholding the Superior Court's ruling against the youth plaintiffs. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for review to the Washington Supreme Court on March 10, 2021. The Washington State Supreme Court declined to review the case in an order issued October 6, 2021. That decision was not unanimous with two Justices dissenting.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/washington
http://climatecasechart.com/case/aji-p-v-state-washington/
Current Status: Case dismissed by Ninth Circuit panel in January 2020. Plaintiffs have since filed petition for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit denied on February 10, 2021. The case may next be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, 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. District Judge Ann Aiken has also ordered the parties to begin settlement talks.
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:
Alaska
Sagoonick v. State of Alaska (previously named Sinnok v. Alaska)
Current Status: Case narrowly denied by the Alaska Supreme Court, and plaintiffs' request for a rehearing was subsequently rejected.
Background: Case filed in October 2017 by 16 young Alaskans against the state’s governor, the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner, and five state agencies. Plaintiffs claim that Alaska’s energy policies promoting fossil fuel development endanger their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property and violate Alaska’s Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs seek relief including orders for defendants to complete an accounting of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions and to develop a climate recovery plan.
Alaska Superior Court Judge Gregory Miller dismissed the case in October 2018 following a hearing on the motion to dismiss in April 2018. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court in November 2018. A hearing on the appeal was held on October 9, 2019, and a long-awaited decision was handed down on January 28, 2022 - the court ruled 3-2 to uphold the case's dismissal. Given the split decision with two now-retired justices ruling against the youths' case, lawyers for the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing. The Alaska Supreme Court denied that petition on February 25, 2022.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/alaska
http://climatecasechart.com/case/sinnok-v-alaska/
Florida
Reynolds v. Florida
Current Status: Case closed. The Florida appeals court affirmed dismissal of the case on May 18, 2021. Case was originally dismissed following a hearing on motions to dismiss held on June 1, 2020. Plaintiffs appealed on July 1, 2020.
Background: Case filed in April 2018 by eight young Floridians against the state’s governor and several state agencies. The complaint alleges the state knowingly contributes to climate change and promotes a fossil fuel energy policy in violation of the youngest generation’s rights under the Florida constitution and in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in September 2018. Plaintiffs responded to that motion in March 2019, and in January 2020 attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to add allegations about recent actions Florida government officials had taken to worsen the climate crisis. Defendants agreed to the motion, and a hearing on the original motion to dismiss was scheduled for June 1, 2020. The judge ruled from the bench to dismiss at that hearing. Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling.
On May 18, 2021 the First District Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding the lower court's dismissal of the case and agreeing that the case raises non-justiciable political questions.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/florida
http://climatecasechart.com/case/reynolds-v-florida/
Hawaii
Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation
Current Status: Case filed on June 1, 2022
Background: Fourteen young Hawaiians brought a constitutional climate lawsuit against their state government, 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.
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. A scheduling conference is set for April 2023, and the trial could commence in early summer 2023.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/montana
http://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/
Oregon
Chernaik v. Brown
Current Status: Case closed. Oregon Supreme Court ruled in a divided opinion on Oct. 22, 2020 to deny the youth plaintiffs' public trust claims, with Chief Justice Martha Walters issuing a dissent arguing the judicial branch must not shirk from its responsibilities in climate change cases. The Oregon plaintiffs filed a petition in November 2020 asking the court to reconsider its ruling to dismiss the case, but the court denied this request.
Background: Originally filed in 2011 by Oregon teens Olivia Chernaik and Kelsey Juliana against former Governor John Kitzhaber (case has since been inherited by Governor Kate Brown), alleging the state was failing to protect vital natural resources, including the atmosphere and climate, under the Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs are seeking an order requiring the state to create and implement a climate recovery plan to reduce carbon emissions and protect the state’s natural resources. Judge Karsten Rasmussen of the Lane County Courthouse initially dismissed the case, but in 2014 the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ordered the lower court to review the case and determine whether the atmosphere could be considered a public trust resource. Following a hearing in April 2015, Judge Rasmussen ruled in May 2015 that the atmosphere is not protected under the Public Trust Doctrine. Plaintiffs appealed that decision and a hearing was held in December 2016. The Oregon Court of Appeals issued its decision in January 2019, finding that the Public Trust Doctrine imposes no affirmative duty on the state. Plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ruled to dismiss the case in October 2020. According to Our Children's Trust: "Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs are considering next steps to obtain climate justice for Oregon youth."
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/oregon
http://climatecasechart.com/case/chernaik-v-kitzhaber/
Utah
Nathalie R. v. State of Utah
Current Status: Case filed on March 15, 2022.
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.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/utah
Virginia
Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Current Status: Case filed on February 9, 2022.
Background: Case brought 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.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/virginia
Washington
Aji P. v. State of Washington
Current Status: Case closed. On October 6, 2021 the state's Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the case. The Washington Court of Appeals previously had rejected the youth plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court decision to dismiss the case.
Background: Case filed in February 2018 against the state’s governor and several state agencies. Plaintiffs are 13 young people from across Washington State seeking an order requiring the state to prepare an accounting of Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions and create a climate recovery plan. The complaint alleges constitutional and Public Trust Doctrine violations based on the state’s continued support and operation of a “fossil-fuel based energy and transportation system.”
In August 2018, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott dismissed the case without a hearing (granted defendants’ judgment on the pleadings), determining that the claims raised “political questions” that could not be resolved by the courts. Plaintiffs appealed and both sides have submitted briefs on appeal. A hearing was held on Sept. 17, 2020 and a decision issued on February 8, 2021 upholding the Superior Court's ruling against the youth plaintiffs. Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for review to the Washington Supreme Court on March 10, 2021. The Washington State Supreme Court declined to review the case in an order issued October 6, 2021. That decision was not unanimous with two Justices dissenting.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/washington
http://climatecasechart.com/case/aji-p-v-state-washington/
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.
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.
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/
ENvironnement JEUnesse v. Canada
Current Status: Case pending, with plaintiffs intending to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Hearing before the Québec Court of Appeal was held on February 23, 2021 and a decision was issued on Dec. 13, 2021 rejecting the appeal.
Background: Case filed in November 2018 by the Quebec-based environmental education group ENvironnement JEUnesse as a class action on behalf of all Quebec citizens under age 35 against the Canadian federal government. The complaint argues that Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction target is insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change, and that the government is endangering young people’s fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec. In July 2019 the court issued a narrow ruling declining to authorize the class action, determining that the 35-year age cut-off was arbitrary. The court did, however, conclude that the impact of climate change on human rights is a justiciable issue. ENvironnement JEUnesse appealed the court’s ruling on class action in November 2019.
ENvironnement JEUnesse presented its arguments on appeal before the Québec Court of Appeal on February 23, 2021. A decision was issued on Dec. 13, 2021 dismissing the appeal. ENvironnement JEUnesse says it intends to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/environnement-jeunesse-v-canadian-government/
https://enjeu.qc.ca/justice/
Mexico
Jóvenes v. Gobierno de México
Current Status: Case pending.
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.
More info on this case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/mexico
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-v-government-of-mexico/
Australia
Torres Strait Islanders’ Complaint Against Australia
Current Status: Case pending.
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.
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.
More info on this case:
https://www.australianclimatecase.org.au/about_the_case
Sharma et al. v. Minister for the Environment
Current Status: Case closed following the government's successful outcome on appeal. Case was filed September 8, 2020, and five-day trial began March 2, 2021. Ruling issued on May 27, 2021 finding the Environment Minister has a duty of care to not cause future harm to young people from climate change, a ruling celebrated by the plaintiffs, though the court stopped short of issuing an order to stop the coal project. The government appealed the ruling, and a three-judge panel decided in favor of the government that a duty of care does not apply in this case.
Background: Class action climate lawsuit brought by eight young Australians against Australia's Federal Minister for the Environment seeking an injunction (court order) to stop this government official from approving a coal mine expansion in New South Wales. The Australian teen plaintiffs say the environment minister has a "duty of care" under Australian common law to prevent foreseeable harm, and they argue that expanding coal production will worsen the climate crisis, which disproportionately impacts younger generations. The case is brought as a class action on behalf of young people under age 18 across Australia and around the world. Following a trial in March 2021, the Federal Court of Australia issued a decision on May 27, 2021 holding the government accountable to protecting youth from climate harms under the "duty of care" standard. But the court declined to prohibit the Environment Minister from approving the Vickery coal mine extension. According to a press release from Equity Generation Lawyers, an Australian law firm supporting the youth plaintiffs, the legal action is not over as there will be "further submissions on what the duty means for the Minister’s decision and the mine." The Environment Minister has since appealed the ruling, and a hearing on the appeal was held in October 2021. In Sept. 2021 the Minister issued an approval for the Vickery Extension Project. A decision on the appeal was handed down on March 15, 2022, accepting the appeal and reversing the decision that a duty of care is owed in the context of climate change. Counsel for the youth plaintiffs decided not to challenge the appeal but condemned the government for fighting the initial declaration.
More info on this case:
https://equitygenerationlawyers.com/cases/sharma-v-minister-for-environment/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/raj-seppings-v-ley/
O'Donnell v. Commonwealth
Current Status: Case pending before 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.
More info on this case:
https://equitygenerationlawyers.com/cases/odonnell-v-commonwealth/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/odonnell-v-commonwealth/
South Korea
Kim Yujin 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/
The Netherlands
Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands
Current Status: Case closed. In December 2019 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the final judgment in a landmark climate case that is considered the first successful climate change lawsuit in the world.
Background: The Urgenda Foundation brought a first-of-its-kind climate lawsuit grounded in human rights claims on behalf of nearly 900 Dutch citizens against the Dutch government, and won an initial historic victory in June 2015 when the District Court of The Hague ruled the government must cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. It was the first court ruling in the world establishing that a government has a legal obligation to take more ambitious climate action in order to protect citizens’ fundamental human rights. The Dutch government appealed, and in October 2018 the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Urgenda. The government appealed once more, and a hearing was held in May 2019 by the Dutch Supreme Court. On December 20, 2019 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal ruling, meaning that Urgenda ultimately prevailed.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/
https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/
France
Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. France
Current Status: Case pending on plaintiffs' demands that the court order 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
Family Farmers and Greenpeace Germany v. Germany
Current Status: Case dismissed in October 2019.
Background: Greenpeace Germany and three farming families brought a climate lawsuit against the German government in October 2018 seeking to compel the government to meet its 2020 target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent. Failure to meet the target and take more aggressive climate action, plaintiffs claimed, violates their rights under the German Constitution. In October 2019 the Berlin Administrative Court dismissed the case, though the court did recognize that climate change harms could be considered human rights violations “in principle.” According to a summary of global climate litigation, “The plaintiffs decided not to appeal, but see the judgment as an important step in the recognition that governments have legal duties to take climate action.”
Neubauer et al. v. Germany
Current Status: Case closed. Ruling issued in favor of youth plaintiffs.
Background: Nine young plaintiffs (between age 15 and 32) sued the German government in early 2020 challenging Germany’s climate protection law, which the plaintiffs say doesn’t go far enough to protect their fundamental rights. Plaintiffs filed the case in the Federal Constitutional Court, alleging violation of their rights under the German Constitution. It is the first climate lawsuit brought by young people against the German government on constitutional grounds. The youth plaintiffs are supported in this litigation by several NGOs including Germanwatch, Greenpeace, and Protect the Planet.
Decision issued on April 29, 2021 affirming the fundamental rights of youth plaintiffs and declaring Germany's 2019 climate law partially unconstitutional. The court determined the statute - which sets a goal of 55% emissions reduction by 2030 - does not go far enough to protect the rights of youth, delaying significant emissions reductions to post-2030. According to the ruling, [part of] the statute is "incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as there is no provision on the updating of the reduction targets for periods from 2031 onwards that satisfies the constitutional requirements." The German legislature must update the statute, by the end of 2022, with clear provisions for emission reduction targets from 2030 onwards.
More info on this case:
https://www.germanwatch.org/en/constitutional-complaint
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/neubauer-et-al-v-germany/
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/
Austria
Mex M. v. Austria
Current Status: Case pending, filed with the European Court of Human Rights on March 25, 2021.
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 has been filed with the European Court of Human Rights and alleges violation of the plaintiff's right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/mex-m-v-austria/
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/
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/
Italy
A Sud et al. v. Italy
Current Status: Case filed on June 5, 2021.
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 is scheduled for June 21, 2022.
More info:
https://giudiziouniversale.eu/la-causa-legale/
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/a-sud-et-al-v-italy/
Spain
Greenpeace et al. v. Spain
Current Status: Complaint officially filed with the Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2020. The Court admitted the case and the case is pending on the government's appeal of a decision rejecting the motion to dismiss.
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.
*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/
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. Swiss government must submit a response by July 16, 2021.
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.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/
https://klimaseniorinnen.ch/english/
Ireland
Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland
Current Status: Case closed, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Friend of the Irish Environment on July 31, 2020.
Background: Case filed in October 2017 by the environmental group Friends of the Irish Environment challenging the country’s climate policy, specifically the Irish National Mitigation Plan. The complaint alleged violations of Ireland’s 2015 Climate Act, the Irish Constitution as well as obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court dismissed the case in September 2019 finding that the government had broad discretion to set climate policy. Friends of the Irish Environment appealed the ruling and requested a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. In February 2020 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were scheduled for June 22-23, 2020. The Supreme Court issued its decision on July 31, 2020 holding that the National Mitigation Plan did not meet statutory requirements under Ireland's 2015 climate law. This decision is only the second verdict in the world in a climate lawsuit from a nation's highest court ordering a government to revise its climate policy to meet legal obligations.
More info on this case:
https://www.climatecaseireland.ie/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/friends-of-the-irish-environment-v-ireland/
Norway
Nature and Youth, Greenpeace Nordic v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy
Current Status: Case 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.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-and-nature-youth-v-norway-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy/
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
ClientEarth v. UK Government; Friends of the Earth v. UK Government
Current Status: Cases pending, with initial hearing scheduled for June 8-9, 2022.
Background: In January 2022, environmental NGOs ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth (along with Good Law Project) filed separate claims against the UK government challenging its net zero strategy, alleging the strategy fails to demonstrate sufficient policies to reduce GHG emissions under legally binding targets set forth in the 2008 Climate Change Act. According to a press release: "ClientEarth lawyers argue that the Government has failed to introduce sufficient and credible policies to ensure the net zero strategy will succeed, while betting on speculative and unproven technologies that risk the UK having to introduce more drastic measures in future." ClientEarth is also basing its claim on section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires that so far as possible legislation must be given effect in way that is compatible with rights protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
The High Court granted permission to advance the cases, and they will be heard together in an initial hearing scheduled for June 2022.
Plan B and Others v. Prime Minister
Current Status: Court rejected the application for judicial review on Oct. 4, 2021. Plaintiffs plan to appeal. Case filed with the UK High Court on May 1, 2021.
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 says the plaintiffs will appeal the ruling.
More info:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/plan-b-earth-and-others-v-prime-minister/
https://planb.earth/plan-b-v-government-bailouts-for-polluters/
Guyana
Thomas and de Freitas v. Guyana
Current Status: Case 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/
Other Cases
Armando Ferrão Carvalho et al. v. The European Parliament and the Council
Current Status: European Court of Justice ruled against the plaintiffs on appeal, finding they lack standing (permission to bring a case) because they have not demonstrated they are uniquely or individually harmed by climate impacts, a ruling that aligns with the European General Court's decision to dismiss the case.
Background: The “People’s Climate Case” was filed in May 2018 by 10 families representing the countries of Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Kenya, Fiji, and the Swedish Sami Youth Association. Defendants include the European Parliament and European Council. The case includes claims of human rights violations and challenges the European Union’s 2030 GHG reduction target.
The European General Court dismissed the case in May 2019, determining that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate specific harm since climate change impacts everyone generally. The plaintiffs appealed in July 2019 to the European Court of Justice. On March 25, 2021 the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeal.
More info on this case:
https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/armando-ferrao-carvalho-and-others-v-the-european-parliament-and-the-council/
Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al.
Current Status: Case closed, with the Committee ultimately rejecting the youths' case.
Background: Legal petition filed in September 2019 by 16 young people including Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. The petition was filed with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and targets the five nations with the highest greenhouse gas emissions that have ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. Those nations include Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey. The young petitioners assert these countries have violated the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Specifically, they ask the Committee to recommend that the five nations review, and where necessary, amend their laws and policies to ensure that mitigation and adaptation efforts are accelerated; initiate cooperative international action to establish binding and enforceable climate measures; and ensure children’s right to be heard in all efforts to mitigate or adapt to the climate crisis.
In early May 2020, the countries of France, Germany and Brazil responded to the children’s petition, arguing that the case should not advance. Argentina and Turkey responded in August, and lawyers for the youth petitioners will respond by October 2020.
In October 2021 the CRC issued its decision on whether to admit the case, finding that the youth petitioners had not exhausted domestic remedies by pursuing litigation in national courts.
More info on this case:
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sacchi-et-al-v-argentina-et-al/
https://childrenvsclimatecrisis.org/
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.
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 - the governments had until May 27, 2021 to submit their defenses, and plaintiffs will next submit responses to these defenses.
More info on this case:
https://youth4climatejustice.org/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al/
