Climate change litigation
Climate change litigation consists of legal proceedings in which anthropogenic climate change serves as a central element, typically involving claims to enforce mitigation measures, adaptation efforts, or accountability for emissions and related harms.[1][2] These cases span national and international courts, targeting governments for alleged failures to meet emissions targets or international obligations, corporations for contributions to greenhouse gas emissions or disclosures, and occasionally insurers or investors for climate-related risks.[3] The phenomenon has expanded significantly since the 1980s, with a marked surge following the 2015 Paris Agreement, driven by non-governmental organizations, affected communities, and youth activists employing strategies rooted in constitutional rights, tort law, human rights, and administrative review.[4] As of June 2025, over 3,099 such cases have been documented across 55 jurisdictions and 24 international bodies, with the United States accounting for the majority, though Europe has seen influential rulings.[4][5] While proponents view these suits as essential supplements to political inaction, enabling judicial enforcement of scientific imperatives, outcomes remain mixed, with many cases dismissed on procedural grounds like standing or justiciability, limiting their direct impact on global emissions trajectories.[3] Prominent examples include the Dutch Urgenda case, where the Supreme Court in 2019 upheld a mandate for the government to achieve a 25% emissions reduction by 2020 relative to 1990 levels, citing human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 2021 Hague District Court ruling against Royal Dutch Shell, requiring the company to cut its global emissions footprint by 45% by 2030.[6] These victories have inspired similar actions worldwide but faced appeals and implementation challenges, highlighting tensions over enforceability.[3] Critics contend that such litigation often embodies judicial activism, with courts venturing into complex policy domains involving economic trade-offs, technological feasibility, and international coordination—areas constitutionally reserved for legislatures and executives—potentially undermining democratic accountability and prioritizing unsubstantiated causal attributions over empirical cost-benefit analyses.[7][8] Despite this, the strategy persists, reflecting broader efforts to leverage judicial forums amid stalled legislative progress on emissions controls.[4]Definition and Scope
Core Objectives and Strategies
Climate change litigation primarily aims to enforce accountability for greenhouse gas emissions and policy failures by governments and corporations, often seeking judicial mandates for emission reductions or compensatory damages for attributable harms. Plaintiffs typically pursue these objectives to bridge perceived gaps in legislative or executive action, leveraging courts to impose binding obligations aligned with international agreements like the Paris Accord or scientific consensus on safe warming limits. For instance, cases target national emission reduction targets deemed insufficient, arguing violations of duties to protect public health and future generations from foreseeable risks.[9][10] A key strategy involves framing claims under human rights frameworks, asserting that inadequate climate policies infringe rights to life, health, or a stable environment enshrined in national constitutions or international law. This approach, evident in over 100 global cases by 2023, seeks to establish justiciable standards for government action, as seen in the 2019 Dutch Urgenda ruling requiring a 25% emissions cut by 2020 relative to 1990 levels. Complementary tactics include tort-based suits for public nuisance or negligence, where plaintiffs attribute localized damages like sea-level rise or extreme weather to specific emitters' contributions, aiming to internalize externalities through liability.[11][9] Litigants also employ disclosure-focused strategies to combat corporate greenwashing, challenging false or misleading statements on climate risks in financial filings or public communications, with goals of enforcing accurate reporting under securities laws or consumer protection statutes. By 2024, such cases numbered in the dozens worldwide, often resulting in settlements mandating enhanced transparency rather than outright emission curbs. Administrative challenges target permitting decisions for fossil fuel projects, arguing they contravene statutory climate obligations, thereby delaying or blocking developments to align infrastructure with low-carbon pathways. These multifaceted strategies reflect an intent not only for direct remedies but also to catalyze broader policy shifts and deter inaction through litigation risk.[12][9]Distinction from Traditional Environmental Litigation
Climate change litigation is distinguished from traditional environmental litigation by its focus on the anthropogenic causes and global, intergenerational consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than discrete, localized environmental harms such as point-source pollution or habitat disruption from specific projects. Traditional cases typically enforce compliance with established regulatory frameworks, like violations of the U.S. Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, targeting immediate, traceable impacts from individual actors.[13][14] In contrast, climate suits explicitly frame disputes around mitigation failures or adaptation shortfalls, often challenging cumulative emissions contributions without direct, singular causation.[1] Legal theories in climate change litigation diverge significantly, employing emerging doctrines such as atmospheric public trusts, constitutional rights to a stable climate, or human rights obligations tied to future generations, which extend beyond the statutory interpretations dominant in conventional environmental actions. For instance, cases like Juliana v. United States (2016) invoked Ninth Amendment rights and due process claims against federal fossil fuel policies, whereas traditional suits prioritize administrative enforcement under acts like the Clean Air Act.[14] This shift reflects the need to address systemic policy gaps rather than isolated regulatory breaches, though it invites scrutiny over judicial overreach into political domains.[14] Causation and standing pose amplified hurdles in climate proceedings due to the attenuated, probabilistic links between any single defendant's emissions and observed or projected harms, unlike the proximate, demonstrable traceability in standard environmental claims against proximate polluters. Courts have frequently dismissed climate cases on these grounds, as seen in Kivalina v. ExxonMobil (2009), where diffuse global contributions undermined traceability, contrasting with successes in localized suits like those enforcing monitoring for deforestation hotspots.[14][13] Remedies pursued further underscore the divergence: climate litigation seeks transformative mandates, such as nationwide emission caps or reforestation on vast scales (e.g., 13,235 km² in Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil, 2021), aiming for structural policy reforms, while traditional remedies emphasize operational injunctions, fines, or project suspensions to avert immediate damage.[13] Defendants also expand to include governments for alleged inaction on climate targets, broadening from the private-sector focus prevalent in conventional litigation.[1] These elements collectively render climate cases more procedurally precarious, with higher dismissal rates on justiciability doctrines like the political question barrier.[14]Historical Evolution
Pre-2000 Foundations
The foundations of climate change litigation before 2000 were laid primarily through procedural challenges in the United States under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, which mandates federal agencies to evaluate significant environmental impacts, including potential effects from greenhouse gas emissions, before approving major actions.[1] These early cases sought to compel environmental impact statements (EIS) to address global warming risks, marking the initial judicial recognition of anthropogenic climate change as a cognizable environmental concern, though courts often dismissed claims due to perceived scientific uncertainty, remoteness of effects, and difficulties in attributing specific harms to individual projects.[15] Globally, such litigation was negligible, with no comparable precedents outside the U.S. until the early 2000s, as international climate frameworks like the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had yet to generate enforceable domestic disputes.[1] The first documented climate-related lawsuit was filed in 1986 by environmental groups, cities, states, and other entities challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) approval of a runway extension at Kahului Airport in Maui, Hawaii.[15] Plaintiffs argued that the EIS failed to analyze the project's contribution to global warming via increased jet fuel combustion and associated carbon dioxide emissions, estimated to add measurable greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The court dismissed the suit, ruling that the climate effects were too speculative and indirect under prevailing NEPA standards, which emphasized foreseeable, site-specific impacts over diffuse, long-term global phenomena.[1] This outcome highlighted early barriers: the nascent state of climate science, with global temperature models still rudimentary, and judicial reluctance to extend NEPA's scope to transboundary or cumulative effects without clear causal chains.[16] Throughout the 1990s, a handful of similar NEPA challenges emerged, targeting fossil fuel infrastructure such as power plants and oil leases, where litigants invoked emerging reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988) to assert that emissions warranted EIS inclusion. For instance, in cases like those involving federal approvals for energy projects, courts occasionally required brief mentions of climate risks but rarely mandated mitigation, citing insufficient evidence of localized harm or agency discretion in prioritizing impacts.[16] These efforts yielded no substantive victories but incrementally normalized climate considerations in administrative reviews, fostering legal arguments that emissions constituted "significant" effects under NEPA's broad mandate. By 2000, fewer than a dozen such U.S. cases had been filed, underscoring litigation's marginal role amid diplomatic focus on treaties like the Kyoto Protocol (1997).[17] This era's precedents, though limited, provided causal templates for post-2000 escalation by demonstrating courts' willingness to engage climate evidence, albeit constrained by evidentiary thresholds.[15]Post-Paris Agreement Acceleration (2015 Onward)
Following the Paris Agreement's adoption in December 2015, climate change litigation accelerated markedly, with roughly 70% of all tracked cases filed thereafter.[9] By June 2025, cumulative filings exceeded 3,000 across 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international or regional bodies, reflecting a sharp rise in strategic suits against governments and corporations for alleged failures to curb emissions.[18] Annual new cases peaked around 2020-2023, with 233 initiated in 2023 alone, driven by NGOs leveraging human rights frameworks and perceived shortfalls in national commitments under the Agreement.[9] Europe led this wave, particularly the Netherlands, where the Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands yielded a landmark ruling. On December 20, 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld lower courts' orders, mandating a 25% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2020 relative to 1990 levels to protect citizens' rights to life and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[19][20] This decision, the first to compel a sovereign state to achieve specific emissions cuts, inspired replication elsewhere, though enforcement relied on subsequent policy adjustments rather than direct judicial oversight.[21] Corporate defendants faced escalating claims, with suits against fossil fuel majors nearly tripling post-2015.[22] In Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc, a Dutch district court ruled on May 26, 2021, that Shell must cut its global carbon emissions— including scope 1, 2, and 3—by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 baselines, citing the company's unwritten duty of care under Dutch tort law to prevent climate hazards. This order, groundbreaking for imposing quantified reductions on private actors, was partially reversed on November 12, 2024, by The Hague Court of Appeal, which rejected the precise percentage but confirmed Shell's responsibility for end-use emissions and required enhanced efforts aligned with Paris goals.[23][24] Beyond Europe, litigation proliferated in the United States, where over 1,500 cases concentrated by 2024, often challenging federal inaction via youth-led suits like Juliana v. United States (filed 2015, ongoing appeals dismissed on standing).[9] Australia's 2021 Sharma v. Minister for the Environment ordered ministers to protect youth from climate harms, though later overturned, while Global South filings grew, emphasizing adaptation and loss claims in regions like Latin America.[25] Outcomes remained mixed, with judicial caution on enforceability prevailing in common-law jurisdictions, contrasting bolder civil-law precedents.[26]Legal Foundations
Constitutional and Rights-Based Theories
Constitutional and rights-based theories in climate change litigation posit that government inaction on greenhouse gas emissions violates fundamental rights enshrined in national constitutions or international human rights instruments, such as the right to life, health, private life, and a healthy environment.[27] These claims impose positive obligations on states to adopt and enforce mitigation measures, drawing on principles of due diligence and protection from foreseeable harms.[28] Litigants argue that climate change effects, including extreme weather and ecosystem degradation, directly infringe these rights, particularly for vulnerable populations and future generations.[11] In Europe, such theories have yielded notable successes. The German Federal Constitutional Court, in Neubauer et al. v. Germany on April 29, 2021, held that provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act were incompatible with fundamental rights under Articles 1 (human dignity), 2 (right to life and physical integrity), and 20a (environmental protection) of the Basic Law, as they failed to ensure adequate safeguards against climate risks for present and future individuals.[29] The Court mandated revisions to set binding emission reduction paths beyond 2030, emphasizing intergenerational equity and the state's duty to limit global warming.[30] Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on April 9, 2024, ruled that Switzerland's inadequate climate policies violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life), requiring a robust domestic framework for mitigation aligned with Paris Agreement goals of 1.5°C warming.[31] The decision affirmed states' obligations to assess climate risks scientifically and legislate accordingly, rejecting Switzerland's emissions targets as insufficiently ambitious and enforceable.[32] The Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands case, culminating in the Dutch Supreme Court's December 20, 2019, affirmation, provided an early benchmark, though primarily grounded in tort law and articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR rather than the Dutch Constitution directly.[33] The Court ordered a 25% reduction in emissions by 2020 relative to 1990 levels, citing the government's duty of care to protect citizens from dangerous climate change, informed by human rights norms and international commitments.[34] In the United States, rights-based claims have invoked state constitutions, as in Held v. Montana, where on August 14, 2023, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a trial ruling that a state law barring climate considerations in permitting violated the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment under Article II, Section 3, allowing youth plaintiffs to challenge fossil fuel approvals.[35] These theories often integrate atmospheric trust doctrines, asserting public trust responsibilities over the atmosphere akin to navigable waters.[36] Success in these cases hinges on demonstrating victim status, causal links between state action and rights harms, and judicial deference to science over policy discretion, though outcomes vary by jurisdiction's separation of powers.[14] European rulings have set precedents for incorporating climate science into rights adjudication, while U.S. federal attempts, such as Juliana v. United States, faced dismissal on justiciability grounds despite alleging violations of due process and equal protection.[37] Critics note potential overreach into executive functions, but proponents highlight enforcement of constitutional mandates against known existential threats.[38]Tort, Nuisance, and Common Law Claims
Common law claims in climate change litigation primarily invoke tort doctrines such as public nuisance, private nuisance, negligence, and trespass to seek abatement of greenhouse gas emissions or compensation for harms attributed to major emitters, particularly fossil fuel producers. Public nuisance claims allege that defendants' contributions to global emissions interfere with public rights to a stable climate, while negligence suits assert failure to mitigate foreseeable risks despite knowledge of climate impacts. These approaches bypass statutory frameworks by relying on established precedents for diffuse harms, though plaintiffs must demonstrate specific causation linking defendants' actions to localized injuries.[39][40] In the United States, subnational governments have filed numerous nuisance suits against oil and gas companies. For instance, in City of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C. (2021), the city sought damages for climate-related flooding and sea-level rise, alleging public nuisance from defendants' production and promotion of fossil fuels; the case advanced past initial dismissal but faced ongoing challenges regarding federal preemption under the Clean Air Act. Similarly, Hawaii's 2020 lawsuit against companies including ExxonMobil and Shell claimed trespass and nuisance for ocean acidification and erosion, with the state supreme court in 2024 allowing the case to proceed by rejecting arguments that climate harms are non-justiciable political questions. However, federal courts have frequently dismissed analogous claims, as in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011), where the Supreme Court ruled that nuisance suits against emitters displace into statutory domain, citing separation of powers concerns. Outcomes remain mixed, with over 20 U.S. municipal suits consolidated or ongoing as of 2023, but causation hurdles—requiring proof that defendants' emissions materially exacerbated specific events—persist due to the global, cumulative nature of climate change.[41][42] Internationally, common law tort claims have seen limited but notable progress. In New Zealand's Smith v. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited (2024), the Supreme Court overturned lower dismissals, permitting negligence, public nuisance, and Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability claims against dairy exporters for exporting products whose production emits GHGs, holding that statutory emissions schemes do not preclude tort liability and that causation could be addressed at trial via market-share analogies. This marked a rare advancement to discovery, contrasting with Australia's Sharma v. Minister for the Environment (2021), where a trial court initially recognized a novel tortious duty of care on government but was reversed on appeal for overstepping judicial bounds into policy. In the United Kingdom, prospective claims against fossil fuel firms invoke negligence for failing to disclose climate risks, though courts emphasize evidentiary rigor, as noted in analyses of mitigation torts.[43][44][45] Key obstacles to these claims include establishing standing, where plaintiffs must show concrete, particularized injury traceable to defendants rather than generalized environmental degradation, and remoteness of damage, as climate effects unfold diffusely over decades. Causation demands robust attribution science linking emissions to events like wildfires or storms, yet courts often deem such chains too attenuated or speculative without direct evidence of foreseeability and avoidability. Defendants argue preemption by regulatory regimes like the Paris Agreement or national emissions trading, viewing tort as ill-suited for coordinating global responses best left to legislatures. Empirical trends indicate rising filings—86 against major oil firms globally by 2023—but low success rates underscore tort law's limitations for systemic risks, with most resolutions favoring defendants on justiciability grounds.[46][40][22]Statutory and Administrative Challenges
Statutory challenges in climate change litigation invoke existing environmental statutes to compel regulatory action or scrutinize government decisions for inadequate consideration of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, the Clean Air Act (CAA) has served as a primary vehicle, with plaintiffs arguing that its broad definition of "air pollutants" encompasses greenhouse gases. The landmark case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 2, 2007, exemplifies this approach; a coalition of states and environmental groups challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, asserting that the agency had statutory authority under CAA Section 202(a) to do so.[47] The Court ruled 5-4 that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the CAA and that the EPA must evaluate their risks to public health or welfare before deciding whether to regulate, rejecting the agency's policy-based denial as arbitrary.[47] This decision prompted the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding, which formalized greenhouse gases as threats warranting regulation, though subsequent administrations have oscillated in implementing related rules, leading to further litigation.[48] Administrative challenges often target agency permitting, rulemaking, or enforcement under statutes like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requiring federal agencies to assess environmental impacts, including climate effects, in environmental impact statements (EIS) for major projects. Since the 2010s, over 200 U.S. cases have invoked NEPA to contest approvals for fossil fuel infrastructure, such as pipelines and oil leases, claiming insufficient quantification of downstream emissions or cumulative climate risks.[49] For instance, challenges to the Keystone XL pipeline repeatedly alleged NEPA violations for underestimating climate impacts, resulting in court-ordered remands for supplemental analysis but ultimate project cancellation in 2021 under executive policy rather than judicial mandate. Courts have upheld NEPA's applicability to climate considerations, as in the 2020 D.C. Circuit ruling on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline requiring better accounting of downstream emissions, yet agencies prevail in approximately 80% of NEPA disputes overall, with remedies typically limited to procedural corrections rather than project halts.[50] These challenges leverage the Administrative Procedure Act to deem agency actions arbitrary or capricious if climate analyses are deemed inadequate, though empirical evidence shows limited direct impact on national emissions reductions.[51] In the European Union, statutory and administrative challenges frequently arise under directives like the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the Habitats Directive, where plaintiffs contest national project approvals or emissions policies for failing to integrate climate obligations from the Effort Sharing Regulation or national climate acts. Environmental NGOs have filed administrative suits against fossil fuel permits, arguing violations of EU law requiring consideration of climate externalities, as seen in ongoing German litigation over coal plant extensions post-2030, where courts have remanded decisions for enhanced emissions modeling.[52] The Aarhus Convention further facilitates such claims by mandating public access to environmental justice, enabling challenges to administrative opacity in climate-related decisions across member states.[53] Success rates vary, with European administrative climate cases yielding procedural wins in about 40-50% of instances since 2015, often prompting revised policies but rarely imposing specific emissions targets due to deference to executive discretion.[52] These approaches highlight tensions between statutory mandates for environmental protection and administrative flexibility, with outcomes influenced by judicial interpretations of scientific uncertainty in climate attributions.Litigants and Defendants
Plaintiffs: Governments, NGOs, and Individuals
Subnational governments, including cities, counties, and states, represent a significant portion of plaintiffs in climate change litigation, often targeting fossil fuel companies for alleged misinformation on emissions risks and seeking damages for adaptation measures such as sea walls and infrastructure repairs. In the United States, over 30 municipalities and several states had filed such suits by 2023, invoking public nuisance and consumer protection statutes to claim billions in costs attributable to anthropogenic warming.[54] For example, Honolulu sued major oil producers including ExxonMobil and Chevron in 2017, alleging the companies created a public nuisance through decades of deceptive practices that exacerbated local flooding and erosion risks. These actions typically argue that defendants' historical knowledge of climate impacts, derived from internal research, imposed a duty to disclose or mitigate, though courts have dismissed many on grounds of extraterritoriality or separation of powers, as federal common law claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act.[55] Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), frequently environmental advocacy groups, initiate litigation to enforce emissions reductions or challenge policy inaction, often framing claims under human rights or administrative law. Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and other NGOs sued Shell in 2019, resulting in a 2021 Hague District Court order for the company to cut its global carbon footprint by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, based on Dutch tort law and the need to avert dangerous interference with the climate system. Similarly, the Urgenda Foundation, representing 900 Dutch citizens, prevailed in a 2019 Supreme Court ruling against the national government, mandating a 25% emissions cut by 2020 from 1990 levels to fulfill mitigation obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, though the case hinged on procedural failures rather than direct causation of harm. NGO-led cases, such as those by ClientEarth or Greenpeace against entities like TotalEnergies, frequently leverage duty-of-vigilance laws in jurisdictions like France, alleging complicity in ecocide or failure to align operations with Paris Agreement goals, but outcomes vary with appellate reversals emphasizing judicial overreach into executive policy domains.[56] Individuals, particularly youth plaintiffs, assert personal harms from government inaction on emissions, invoking constitutional rights to a stable climate or due process protections against foreseeable dangers. In Juliana v. United States, filed in 2015 by 21 minors and young adults, plaintiffs claimed federal promotion of fossil fuels violated their Fifth Amendment rights by endangering life, liberty, and property through elevated atmospheric CO2 levels; the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case in 2020 for lack of judicially manageable standards, deeming remediation a political question unfit for courts.[57] Exceptions include the 2023 Montana District Court ruling in favor of 16 youth plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, which struck down a state statute prohibiting climate impact analyses in environmental permits, finding it violated the state constitution's clean environment guarantee amid evidence of warming-driven wildfires and droughts.[58] Individual suits like Peruvian farmer Luciano Lliuya's 2015 claim against RWE seek proportional liability for glacier melt risks, quantifying corporate emissions shares, but remain pending after years of evidentiary disputes over attribution. These cases highlight standing hurdles, as plaintiffs must demonstrate traceable, concrete injuries beyond generalized environmental degradation.[59]Defendants: National Governments
![Supreme Court of the Netherlands courtroom][float-right]National governments serve as defendants in a substantial share of climate change litigation, where plaintiffs typically allege inadequate mitigation efforts, violations of human rights protections against environmental harms, or failures to fulfill international commitments such as those under the Paris Agreement. Between 2021 and 2022, over 70% of climate-related cases worldwide targeted governments or public actors, reflecting a strategy to compel policy changes through judicial enforcement of due care obligations or constitutional mandates.[26] These suits often invoke rights to life, health, and private life, arguing that state inaction exacerbates foreseeable risks from greenhouse gas emissions.[10] In Europe, courts have issued several landmark rulings against governments. The Dutch Supreme Court in Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands on December 20, 2019, upheld lower court decisions ordering the government to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% below 1990 levels by the end of 2020, grounding the obligation in the state's duty of care derived from Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as tort law principles.[60] The ruling rejected arguments that such reductions would unduly burden the economy or encroach on political discretion, emphasizing the scientific consensus on required emission cuts. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on April 9, 2024, unanimously held that Switzerland's climate framework violated Article 8 of the ECHR by lacking sufficient mitigation targets and evidence-based measures, marking the court's first explicit linkage of climate inaction to human rights breaches and requiring remedial legislation within timelines set domestically.[31] The decision dismissed parallel claims against the United Kingdom and Portugal on procedural grounds but affirmed the justiciability of such challenges.[31] In the United States, efforts to hold the federal government accountable have encountered significant barriers under doctrines of standing and separation of powers. Juliana v. United States, initiated in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs, alleged constitutional violations from fossil fuel policies contributing to a stable climate system essential for life and liberty; despite initial trial court advancements, appellate courts dismissed the case multiple times for lack of redressability, with the Ninth Circuit in 2019 and 2020 mandating dismissal, though a 2023 district ruling briefly revived claims before the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in March 2025, concluding the litigation without substantive relief.[61] Outcomes vary globally: while European precedents have prompted policy adjustments, such as Dutch emission trajectories and Swiss legislative reviews, many cases elsewhere, including Australia's Sharma v. Minister for the Environment (2021), have failed to establish novel duties of care toward future harms, highlighting jurisdictional limits on judicial intervention in complex policy domains.[6]
Defendants: Private Corporations and Financial Institutions
Private corporations, particularly those in the fossil fuel sector, have become prominent defendants in climate change litigation, facing claims that their operations contribute disproportionately to global greenhouse gas emissions and that they have failed to exercise due care in mitigating associated risks. These suits often invoke tort law, human rights obligations, or statutory duties, alleging liability for both direct emissions and scope 3 emissions from product use and supply chains. In Europe, such cases have seen limited judicial success in establishing corporate reduction mandates, while in the United States, federal courts have frequently dismissed similar actions on grounds of political question doctrine or interstate commerce preemption.[62][22][63] A landmark example is Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc in the Netherlands, where environmental groups sued Shell in 2019, demanding a 45% reduction in the company's global CO2 emissions by 2030 relative to 2019 levels, encompassing its own operations, sold products, and supply chain. On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, imposing the reduction obligation based on unwritten standards of care under Dutch tort law and the European Convention on Human Rights, though it exempted emissions from end-users of non-substitutable fuels. Shell's appeal succeeded in part on December 10, 2024, when the Court of Appeal upheld the duty to reduce emissions but rejected the specific 45% target as unsubstantiated by scientific consensus for a single corporation, citing the global and collective nature of climate causation; the case is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court as of February 2025. This ruling highlights judicial reluctance to dictate precise targets absent legislative guidance, despite affirming corporate responsibility for feasible reductions.[64][24][65] In the United States, municipalities and states have pursued damages against oil majors like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP under public nuisance or consumer protection theories, seeking recovery for climate-related costs such as sea-level rise adaptation. For instance, Honolulu's 2017 suit against major energy firms alleged creation of a public nuisance through deceptive practices and emissions; while initial claims survived motions to dismiss, broader federal precedents like the U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 denial of certiorari in related cases signal ongoing hurdles, with many suits stalled or narrowed to state-law fraud claims. European courts have similarly advanced cases against companies like TotalEnergies and Eni, but outcomes emphasize evidentiary burdens in attributing localized harms to specific emitters amid global atmospheric diffusion.[37][66][67] Financial institutions, including commercial banks and insurers, face growing scrutiny for underwriting or financing carbon-intensive projects, with plaintiffs arguing that such activities breach fiduciary duties, human rights standards, or anti-greenwashing regulations. Litigation has surged, with a reported 12-fold increase in cases against banks from 2021 to 2023, often centered on claims of misleading sustainability disclosures or failure to align lending with Paris Agreement goals. In March 2025, Milieudefensie filed suit against ING Bank, the Netherlands' largest lender, alleging that its €100 billion+ in fossil fuel financing since 2015 violates tort law duties to prevent dangerous climate interference; the case remains pending. ClientEarth's actions against central banks, such as the 2021 suit against the Belgian National Bank for inadequate climate considerations in bond purchases, illustrate parallel challenges to public financial actors, though private banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citibank have encountered U.S. shareholder suits over ESG-related disclosures rather than direct emissions liability. Success rates remain low, as courts grapple with indirect causation and the role of financial intermediaries in emission pathways, but reputational and regulatory pressures have prompted some institutions to tighten fossil fuel policies.[68][69][70]Involvement of International Bodies
International bodies have engaged in climate change-related proceedings primarily through advisory opinions, which, while non-binding, provide interpretive guidance on states' obligations under international law and influence domestic litigation strategies. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued its unanimous advisory opinion on May 21, 2024, in response to a request from the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), established by Antigua and Barbuda and supported by vulnerable nations facing sea-level rise.[71] The opinion interpreted anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as "pollution of the marine environment" under Article 1(1)(4) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), imposing due diligence obligations on states to protect and preserve the marine environment from climate impacts, including through control of emissions from land-based sources.[72] It emphasized that compliance with the Paris Agreement does not suffice to fulfill UNCLOS duties, requiring states to adopt measures aligned with the best available science, such as limiting global warming to 1.5°C.[72] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) followed with its own advisory opinion on July 23, 2025, prompted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 77/276 adopted on March 29, 2023, which sought clarification on states' obligations under international law concerning climate change.[73] [74] The unanimous ruling affirmed that climate change constitutes an existential threat, obligating states to protect the climate system by preventing significant harm from greenhouse gas emissions, drawing on customary international law, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Paris Agreement.[74] It rejected limitations confining duties solely to climate-specific treaties, instead integrating broader environmental and human rights norms, and required states to pursue global cooperation for emission reductions consistent with limiting warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, while addressing loss and damage for affected populations.[74] Oral proceedings occurred from December 2-13, 2024, involving over 90 states and organizations.[75] These opinions have bolstered strategic climate litigation by establishing legal benchmarks for state accountability, with ITLOS focusing on ocean-specific protections under UNCLOS and the ICJ providing a comprehensive framework applicable across international law.[76] For instance, the ICJ explicitly referenced ITLOS findings on greenhouse gases as marine pollutants, fostering judicial convergence.[77] Although advisory, they carry moral and persuasive authority, potentially informing contentious cases at bodies like the Permanent Court of Arbitration and national courts, where plaintiffs cite them to challenge inadequate government policies.[78] No international body has yet adjudicated binding disputes between states over climate emissions, as such cases require mutual consent under statutes like the ICJ's, limiting enforcement to diplomatic or domestic avenues.[74]Global Trends and Scale
Case Volume and Growth Metrics
As of June 2025, a cumulative total of 3,099 climate-related litigation cases have been filed globally across 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international or regional courts and tribunals.[4] This figure, tracked by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), reflects cases explicitly addressing climate change mitigation, adaptation, or impacts through legal challenges.[4] By July 2025, the total reached approximately the same level, up from 2,550 cases in July 2023, indicating continued but moderated expansion.[5] Historical growth accelerated markedly after the 2015 Paris Agreement, with cumulative cases roughly doubling from 884 in 2017 to 2,180 by 2022.[37] Annual filings rose from around 120 new cases in 2015 to a peak exceeding 300 in 2021, driven largely by increased activity in the United States and Europe.[79] The United States accounts for the majority of cases, with approximately 1,899 of the 2,967 tracked through 2024, including 164 new filings that year alone.[79] Outside the US, 62 new cases were filed in 2024 across nearly 60 countries, contributing to a global total of 2,967 by year-end.[79] Recent trends show a slowdown in growth rates, with 226 new cases in 2024 representing stabilization after the post-2021 peak, particularly beyond the US where filings have plateaued.[79] This moderation aligns with maturing legal doctrines and varying jurisdictional receptivity, though databases like Sabin Center's continue to identify over 3,000 cases overall, encompassing diverse claims from human rights violations to corporate disclosures.[6] Variations in totals across trackers stem from definitional differences—such as inclusion of administrative challenges versus strict judicial filings—but empirical counts from these sources provide consistent evidence of exponential growth since the mid-2010s followed by recent tapering.[80]Geographic and Thematic Shifts
Climate change litigation has expanded geographically beyond its early concentration in the United States and a handful of developed nations, with cases now documented in nearly 60 countries as of the end of 2024.[79] The United States remains the epicenter, accounting for 1,899 of the 2,967 total cases filed globally since 1986, including 164 new filings in 2024, but growth has stabilized there amid a broader global slowdown to 226 new cases that year.[79] Significant shifts include rapid proliferation in the Global South, where over 260 cases have been filed, approximately 60% since 2020, driven by jurisdictions such as Brazil (131 total cases, nearly 100 post-2020), India, and South Africa.[79] Other regions show dynamism, with Australia tallying 164 cases and the United Kingdom 133, while new frontiers emerged in 2024, including Costa Rica's inaugural filings and East Asia's advances, such as South Korea's first successful challenge to government climate frameworks.[79] Apex court involvement underscores this diffusion, with 276 climate-related cases reaching high courts between 2015 and 2024, only 117 in the US versus 159 elsewhere, including 19 in Brazil, 15 in Germany, and 13 in Colombia.[79] South Asia has seen 10 of its 20 total cases escalate to apex levels, reflecting localized pushes against national policies amid uneven regulatory enforcement.[79] This geographic broadening aligns with intensified climate impacts in vulnerable regions, prompting litigation in previously underrepresented areas like Latin America and East Asia, though the field's maturation has led to strategic consolidation rather than unchecked expansion.[79] Thematically, litigation has evolved from predominant challenges to government inaction on emissions mitigation—targeting states in 75% of 2024 cases—toward greater scrutiny of private actors, with corporations facing about 20% of new suits that year.[79] In apex courts, government-focused cases comprise 82% but yield mixed outcomes, whereas corporate targets represent 14% with a 54% success rate, signaling a pivot to accountability for supply chain emissions (Scope 3) and financial institutions' roles in funding high-carbon activities.[79] Human rights framing has surged, underpinning 99 claims since 2015 where 41% advanced climate action, often linking environmental harms to protections against degradation.[79] Adaptation claims mark another shift, with 80 "failure-to-adapt" cases since 2015, including 7 in 2024, particularly in Colombia, contrasting earlier mitigation-centric suits demanding emissions cuts.[79] Emerging motifs include climate-washing allegations (25 cases in 2024, down from 53 in 2023), polluter-pays principles (11 new cases, 85 total), and just transition disputes (60 worldwide), alongside "green v. green" conflicts balancing conservation against low-carbon infrastructure.[79] These developments reflect litigation's adaptation to regulatory gaps and tangible impacts, though overall case volume deceleration suggests tactical refinement over proliferation.[79] By mid-2025, totals reached 3,099 across 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international bodies, per Sabin Center tracking.[4]Empirical Data on Filing Patterns
As of June 2025, a cumulative total of 3,099 climate-related litigation cases had been filed globally since 1986, spanning 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international or regional bodies. This represents substantial growth from earlier benchmarks, including 884 cases by 2017, 1,550 by 2020, and 2,180 by 2022, with the pace of new filings accelerating markedly after 2015—reaching over 300 annually by 2021 before moderating to 226 in 2024.[18][79] The United States accounts for the majority of filings, with approximately 1,899 cases through 2024, including 164 of the 226 global new cases that year.[79] Filing patterns reveal a strong concentration against government defendants, comprising 75% of cases overall and 170 of the 226 filed in 2024, reflecting strategies to compel policy changes or enforce existing climate frameworks.[79] Cases targeting private corporations, such as energy firms or financial institutions, constitute about 20% of the total, often focusing on emissions contributions, greenwashing, or investment decisions, though these have shown higher success rates in some analyses.[79] [80] Plaintiffs are predominantly non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals, accounting for 60% of filings, with youth-led actions prominent in strategic challenges; however, in the Global South, government bodies initiated 56% of 2024 cases.[79] Geographically, while the US dominates, filings outside North America have diversified, with over 260 cases in the Global South by 2024—60% of which occurred since 2020—indicating emerging patterns in regions like Latin America (e.g., Brazil with 131 cases) and South Asia.[79] [18] Other key jurisdictions include Australia (164 cases), the United Kingdom (133), and Germany (69), often involving human rights or administrative claims. This shift correlates with localized climate impacts and evolving legal theories, such as attribution science, though Global South cases remain under 10% of the global total.[79] [18]| Jurisdiction | Approximate Cases (through 2024) |
|---|---|
| United States | 1,899 [79] |
| Australia | 164 [79] |
| United Kingdom | 133 [79] |
| Brazil | 131 [79] |
| Germany | 69 [79] |