Climate in the Courts
  • Home
  • News/Updates
  • Climate Case Tracker
    • Cases Against Governments
    • Cases Against Corporations
  • About
    • Resources

Cases against governments

U.S.
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 is pending.
           
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.

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

Sinnok v. Alaska


Current Status: Decision pending from Alaska Supreme Court
           
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 decision is pending.

More info on this case:

                        https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/alaska

                        http://climatecasechart.com/case/sinnok-v-alaska/

Florida

Reynolds v. Florida

Current Status: Case dismissed following 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.

More info on this case:

                        https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/florida

                        http://climatecasechart.com/case/reynolds-v-florida/

Montana

Held v. State of Montana

Current Status: Complaint filed in March 2020
 
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.
 
            More info on this case:

                        https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/montana

                        http://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/

Oregon

Chernaik v. Brown

Current Status: 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.
 
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.
 
            More info on this case:

                        https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/oregon

                        http://climatecasechart.com/case/chernaik-v-kitzhaber/

Washington

Aji P. v. State of Washington

Current Status: Case pending before the Washington Court of Appeals
 
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. The case is currently pending before the Washington Court of Appeals.
 
            More info on this case:

                        https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/washington

                        http://climatecasechart.com/case/aji-p-v-state-washington/

Non-U.S.

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 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: Appeal pending
 
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.

More info on this case:

                        http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/environnement-jeunesse-v-canadian-government/

Mexico

Jóvenes v. Gobierno de México

Current Status: Case pending

Background: New 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.

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/


Sharma et al. v. Minister for the Environment

Current Status: Case filed September 8, 2020

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.  

More info on this case:

                  
https://equitygenerationlawyers.com/cases/sharma-v-minister-for-environment/

                  
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/raj-seppings-v-ley/


South Korea

Kim Yujin et al. v. South Korea

Current Status: Complaint filed in March 2020
 
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
 
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.
 
            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: Complaint filed in February 2020

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.

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
 
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.

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. The final responses from the governments are due to be filed in March 2020, and a final judgment is expected in Autumn 2020.”
 
            More info on this case:

                        https://www.klimaatzaak.eu/en


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 Supreme Court. Decision expected soon
 
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 and a final ruling is expected in 1-3 months. 

More info on this case:

                        http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordic-assn-and-nature-youth-v-norway-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy/


Other Cases

Armando Ferrão Carvalho et al. v. The European Parliament and the Council

Current Status: Appeal pending
 
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.     

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 pending
 
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. The CRC then will decide if the case is admissible.

More info on this case:

                        http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sacchi-et-al-v-argentina-et-al/

                       https://childrenvsclimatecrisis.org/


Youth for Climate Justice 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.

More info on this case:

                   https://youth4climatejustice.org/

                 
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al/

                 
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • News/Updates
  • Climate Case Tracker
    • Cases Against Governments
    • Cases Against Corporations
  • About
    • Resources