Climate Change: Cases

In 2015, a group of youths filed a constitutional climate change lawsuit in the District of Oregon federal court. The group, Earth Guardians, is also a plaintiff along with the youngsters. The complaint asserted that the U.S. government acted in a manner that caused climate change, and by doing so, violated the youths' constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as the public trust resources. In January 2020, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit recognized the gravity of the plaintiffs' injuries from climate change, but determined that the proper remedy should be addresses by the legislative and executive branches of government and not the courts, and remanded the case to the district court for dismissal for lack of standing under Article III. As of January 2022, the parties are awaiting a ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint and a motion by 18 states to intervene.

The case was brought by the Urgenda Foundation on behalf of the group and around 900 Dutch citizens claiming that the Kingdom of the Netherlands was responsible for contributing to climate change and all of its ensuing dangers. In June of 2015, the District Court ruled that the Dutch government needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% of 1990 levels by the end of 2020. The Dutch government appealed the case and in October 2018, the The Hague Court of Appeal upheld the 2015 decision.

The group Dejusticia brought a lawsuit on behalf of 25 children against the Colombian government alleging that deforestation in the Amazon and increasing temperatures threaten their right to a healthy environment, life, health, water, and food. In April 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia granted the plaintiffs' petition and ordered the President and Ministries of Environment and Agriculture to create an intergenerational pact for the life of the Amazon in Colombia. In doing so, the court ruled that the Amazon is an entity that is entitled to rights, and the state must protect, conserve, maintain, and restore the forest. The government was ordered to have a plan within 4 months to reduce deforestation. Municipalities in the Amazon were ordered to update their land management plans within 5 months in order to develop a plan to reduce deforestation to 0.

Milieudefensie and other claimants brought an action against Royal Dutch Shell in The Hague District Court alleging that Shell was not doing enough to ensure the reduction of Carbon Dioxide emissions reductions. They asked for the company to be ordered to reduce emissions by 45% as compared to 2019 by 2030. In the alternative, they were seeking reductions of emissions of 25% or 35%. The claimants alleged that Shell owed an obligation stemming from the unwritten standard of care in Book 6 Section 162 of the Dutch Civil Code to aid in the prevention of climate change through its policies. The Court ruled that Shell must reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 as compared to 2019 levels. Shell will need to create its own policies to achieve this goal and must use its influence to have its suppliers and customers also work to meet the goal.

Case brought by sixteen youth in Montana questioning the constitutionality of the State's fossil fuel energy system. The suit sought a declaration of law regarding their constitutional rights; a declaration of law that the fossil fuel provisions of the Montana State Energy Policy are unconstitutional; and a declaration that defendants' past and ongoing aggregate actions to implement a fossil fuel based energy system are unconstitutional. The suit also sought to enjoin the Defendants from subjecting them to the fossil fuel based state energy policy. Additionally, they also sought an order requiring Defendants prepare a statewide GHG accounting, develop a remedial plan for efficacy, and an order awarding reasonable fees and costs. In its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the claims; the Plaintiffs proved that Montana's GHG emission are fairly traceable to the MEPA Limitation and a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment and harm and injury to the Plaintiffs; the judgment will influence the State's conduct by invalidating statutes prohibiting analysis and remedies based on GHG emissions and climate impacts, which will alleviate injury to the Plaintiffs and prevent further injury; prohibiting analysis of GHG emissions and corresponding climate impacts means that MEPA violates the Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment and MEPA is unconstitutional on its face; Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including climate as part of the environmental life-support system; the 2023 version of MEPA Limitation, Mont. Code Ann. sec. 75-1-201(2)(a) is declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined; Mont. Code Ann. sec. 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii) is unconstitutional and permanently enjoined; injunctive relief is appropriate, prohibiting Defendants from acting in accordance with the statutes that are declared unconstitutional. The court also directed the Plaintiffs to submit their motion for fees and costs.