Youth Lawsuits

In the past couple of decades, there has been a trend of lawsuits involving the younger generation bringing government or other entities to court for inaction on climate change. This is a global phenomenon and the number of youth-related cases has increased dramatically since the early 2000s. Cases are separated by country and then in chronological order, with the newest at the top.

Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al.
Sixteen children filed suit against five countries--Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey--because the countries allegedly violated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child were violated due to insufficient greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The case was filed in 2019 and is currently pending.

International Youth Organizations

 * Our Children's Trust
 * Fridays for Future
 * Zero Hour
 * Earth Uprising
 * Youth 4 Nature
 * Youth Climate Movement
 * Earth Guardians
 * Turning Green
 * Earth Youth Environmental Society (EYES)
 * Youth Climate Leaders
 * TakingITGlobal
 * CliMAtes
 * Global Youth Biodiversity Network
 * Youth for Our Planet
 * Generation Green
 * OneUpAction
 * Power Shift Network
 * Youth Climate Lab
 * Bye Bye Plastic Bags
 * Global Scan of Youth-led Organisations Active on Climate and/or Biodiversity and Youth-supporting Partners (2020) - Not an organization, but a study of the global youth-led climate change movement

Auroramålet
The organization Auroramålet (the Aurora Goal in English) is a group of Swedish children and young people, along with climate researchers, psychologists, lawyers, and university students concerned about the climate and its effect on children. The claimants are asking the government to set more aggressive climate goals, get rid of loopholes, and stop funding harmful industries.

They plan to file suit in the European Court of Justice as well as the Swedish court system in early 2021.

Fridays for Future Estonia v. Eesti Energia
Young Estonian climate activists brought a suit seeking to block the construction of a new shale oil plant. The group Fridays for Future Estonia, supported by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Europe, filed suit in April 2020 against the Estonian energy company for the new plant's potential environmental impact. They argued that inadequate consideration had been given to the Paris Agreement during the approval process. Fridays for Future Estonia is the Estonian branch of a global youth movement that pressures governments to restore the environment and mitigate the climate crisis.

The official applicant is MTÜ Loodusvõlu, a non-profit founded by members of Fridays for Future Estonia. The case is currently pending.

Youth for Climate Justice v. Austria, et al.
In early 2020, six Portuguese youth were joined by the Global Legal Action Network in a suit against 33 European Countries for failing to act on climate change. They litigated in the European Court of Human Rights, which fast-tracked the case.

It is currently pending.

Young People v. UK Government
Adetola Onamade, Marina Tricks, and Jerry Amokwandoh, along with climate advocacy organizations, have brought proceedings against several members of the United Kingdom Government for its failure to follow the Paris Agreement. The climate litigation group Plan B and the Stop The Maangamizi Campaign helped bring the charges. The three youth feel that the non-action by the UK Government has violated their human rights to life and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the claim, the three declare they are seeking admission from the UK Government that they have violated human rights and an order from the Court to establish legislation that will meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The case is currently pending.

Neubauer, et al. v. Germany
In 2020, nine young people, Greenpeace Germany, Germanwatch, and Protect the Planet filed a constitutional complaint challenging Germany's newly adopted Climate Action Law. They argue that the Act's target of a 55% greenhouse gas reduction by 2030 (compared with 1990 levels) is inadequate, violates their constitutionally protected human rights, and is. incompatible with the Paris Agreement. They instead call for a 70% reduction. The case was inspired by the Urgenda case.

In April 2021, Germany's highest court ruled that the government's climate policies are insufficient and violate the freedoms of the complainants. The court ordered the German government to specify how emissions reductions will occur for periods after 2030. However, the also court ruled that the German government did not violate its constitutional duty to protect the young complainants from the risks of climate change under Article 20a of the Grundgesetz.

PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of Sweden
A Swedish state-owned energy company agreed to sell coal-fired plants and mining assets to a Czech holding company. Environmental NGOs, such as PUSH Sverige (PUSH Sweden) and Fältbiologerna (Nature and Youth Sweden), as well as individual plaintiffs, challenged the sale as violating the Government's duty of care to protect their citizens' right to a non-harmful climate. They argued that the sale would result in excess emissions, which Sweden had committed to avoiding.

The case was dismissed after the Stockholm District Court determined that the plaintiffs had not experienced an injury from the government's decisions.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands
This landmark case was the first in the world in which citizens established that their government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change. The case against the Netherlands was brought by the Urgenda Foundation and 900 Dutch citizens, who argued that continued emissions violated their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In June 2015, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the Netherlands must by 2020 cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% compared with 1990 levels. The state appealed, with the Dutch Supreme Court ultimately upholding the ruling in 2019.

Carvalho v. The European Parliament and the Council
Known as The People's Climate Case, ten families, including children, brought an action in the European Union General Court seeking to compel the EU to take more stringent greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions reductions. The case was brought in May 2018 against the EU, asking them to create more aggressive climate policies. The plaintiffs argued that the inadequate emission targets violate the fundamental rights to health, education, occupation, and equal treatment.

The European General Court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs did not have standing since they were not sufficiently and directly harmed by the policies. The ruling was upheld in 2019.

Europe Youth Organizations

 * Youth and Environment Europe
 * Generation Climate Europe
 * European Youth Forum
 * AEGEE-Europe
 * Auroramålet (Sweden)
 * PUSH Sweden
 * Nature and Youth Sweden

Sharma v. Minister for the Environment
In September of 2020, eight teenage students and an octogenarian nun brought a class-action lawsuit seeking to stop an expansion of a coal mine in New South Wales, Australia. The students argue that Australia's environmental minister has a common law duty of care to protect younger people from climate change.

The case is currently pending.

Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal
On May 13, 2020, the environmental group Youth Verdict lodged an objection to the proposed Galilee Coal Project in the Queensland Land Court. According to news reports, the plaintiffs allege that by contributing to climate change the mine will infringe on their right to life, the protection of children, and the right to culture as protected by the Queensland Human Rights Act. The Galilee Coal Project has received federal and state approval but needs to be assessed by the Queensland Land Court before the final state environmental authority can be issued.

On August 28, 2020, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. It is currently pending.

Thomson v. Minister for Climate Change Issues
Sarah Thomson, a law student, sued the New Zealand government in 2015, claiming its greenhouse gas reduction targets were not sufficient under New Zealand's Climate Change Response Act of 2002.

The High Court of New Zealand issued its decision after the 2017 election had ousted the prior government, replacing it with a government whose members had campaigned on a commitment to eliminate all GHG emissions by 2050. The court ruled that the New Zealand government should have considered the new standards for greenhouse gas reductions under the IPCC 5th Assessment Report, but made no determination as to whether the emission reduction targets met this standard or not.

Australia/New Zealand Youth Organizations

 * Youth Verdict
 * Australian Youth Climate Coalition
 * Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network (Australia)
 * Millennium Kids (Australia)
 * Forest and Bird Youth (New Zealand)
 * Generation Zero (New Zealand)
 * Young Reporters for the Environment (New Zealand)

Ali v. Federation of Pakistan
In 2016, Rabab Ali, a 7-year-old girl living in Karachi, sued the Pakistani federal government over its failure to address climate change and its plans to develop coal mines in the Thar desert region. The petition was filed on behalf of Ali, the people of Pakistan, and future generations. The Petition alleges violations of constitutionally protected Fundamental Rights, of the Public Trust Doctrine as it relates to Pakistan's atmosphere and climate, and of rights relating to the environmental degradation expected to result from burning coal to generate electricity.

Despite being filed in 2016 the case has not moved forward.

Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority
Greenwatch, a Ugandan NGO, with the support of Our Children's Trust filed a complaint in the High Court of Uganda Holden at Kampala against the Attorney General of Uganda in 2012. The complaint names four Ugandan youth and "all children of Uganda born and unborn" as plaintiffs. The lawsuit asks the High Court of Uganda Holden at Kampala to develop a climate change mitigation plan in accordance with the best science, and protect Ugandan children from the adverse impacts of climate change because the Ugandan government is failing to uphold the Public Trust Doctrine.

The youth plaintiffs are awaiting a hearing scheduled for June 2021.

Africa/the Middle East Youth Organizations

 * Green Africa Youth Organization
 * Arab Youth Climate Movement Quatar (State of Quatar)
 * Greening Foundation West African Branch
 * Ghana Youth Environmental Movement
 * Sudan Youth Organization for Climate Change

Álvarez et al v. Peru
Peruvian youth filed an action against the Peruvian government in 2019 alleging that failure to take action on climate change violated their human rights. The plaintiffs pointed specifically to the government's failure to halt deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.

The case is currently pending.

Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment
In 2018, a group of 25 young Colombians and the Dejusticia organization sued the Colombian government, Colombian municipalities, and a number of corporations arguing that the failure to reduce deforestation as agreed under the Paris Agreement and National Development Plan threatens plaintiffs' fundamental rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food, and water.

The Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia ordered the government, in the four months following the notification, to formulate a short, medium, and long-term action plan that counteracts the rate of deforestation in the Amazon, where it will face the effects of climate change. It went further and stated that the Colombian Amazon was a "subject of rights" and entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration.

South America Youth Organizations

 * Engajamundo (Brazil)
 * Youth Climate Action Coalition Latin America
 * Youth Congress for Sustainable Americas

Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea
In March 2020, 19 young people from the Korean Youth Climate Action Group filed a complaint in the South Korean Constitutional Court alleging the government of South Korea was failing to protect their constitutional rights. Their claims center around the constitutional rights to life, to health, to a healthy environment, and their rights to equality and non-discrimination as children, drawing on the principle of intergenerational justice. The complaint calls upon the South Korean Constitutional court to declare these acts unconstitutional and create effective climate change mitigation in line with the Constitution and the Paris Agreement.

The case is currently pending.

Asia/Pacific Islands Youth Organizations

 * Asian Youth Climate Network
 * Asian Environmental Youth Network
 * South Asia Youth Environmental Network

Youth v. Government of Mexico
In 2020, fifteen young people from the State of Baja, California filed a federal lawsuit against the Mexican Government asks that the Mexican government issue regulations and public policies derived from the General Law on Climate Change and the Mexican Constitution. The General Law on Climate Change was passed in 2012 but, according to the plaintiffs, there are no regulations or public policies to implement the statute.

The case is currently pending.

La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen
Fifteen children and youths brought suit against the Queen and Attorney General of Canada in October 2019, alleging that Canada emits and contributes to emitting greenhouse gases that are incompatible with a stable climate. The plaintiffs argue that Canada's actions have violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, as well as the rights of present and future Canadian children under the public trust doctrine. They seek declaratory relief and an order requiring the government to adopt a Climate Recovery Plan.

On October 27, 2020, a Federal Court judge dismissed the lawsuit by Canadian youth against the Canadian government on a pretrial motion to strike for failing to state a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs plan to appeal.

Juliana v. United States
Juliana v. United States is one of the most high-profile instances of climate litigation globally. In the case, 21 American youth, the non-profit organization Earth Guardians, and future generations represented by climate scientist Dr. James Hansen sued the United States federal government in 2015 for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property and for failing to protect resources under the Public Trust Doctrine.

The case was dismissed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court in January 2020. The youth plaintiffs filed a petition for an en banc rehearing but this was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court in February 2021. The plaintiffs are currently working on a petition for writ of certiorari to get the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. They have also filed a motion to amend their complaint, hoping to proceed to trial in U.S. District Court.

Aji P. v. State of Washington
Represented by Our Children's Trust, 13 youth from Washington State filed suit against the government of Washington, arguing that their “fundamental and inalienable constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, equal protection, and a healthful and pleasant environment, including a stable climate system” had been violated by Washington State’s Fossil Fuel Energy and Transportation policies.

A Washington State Superior Court dismissed the case in 2018 ruling that the case was fundamentally a political question. A Washington State Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal in February 2021.

ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada
ENVironnement JEUnesse, an environmental non-profit environment operated out of Quebec, brought a class action suit against the Government of Canada (the respondent) in a Quebec Tribunal in 2018. The plaintiff was seeking remedies on behalf of all Quebec residents under 35 years old for the respondent setting less-than-adequate greenhouse gas emission goals, and for their failure to meet these goals at the time of the suit.

The tribunal dismissed the application for a class action suit without ruling on whether the emissions targets constituted a violation of guaranteed Charter rights. The tribunal explained that including only residents under the age of 35 in this class action was an arbitrary measure, thereby not satisfying the requirements for a class action process.

Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology
In 2014, Our Children's Trust brought a suit on behalf of eight young climate activists arguing that the State of Washington's Department of Ecology needed to adopt and implement stricter greenhouse gas emissions regulations based on the most recent climate science.

In 2015, a district court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the Department of Ecology to reconsider the youths' petition in light of the urgent situation presented by climate science. The Department of Ecology again denied the petition for rulemaking and a series of appeals followed. Finally, in 2018, a Washington Court of Appeals judge sided with the state and dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Washington State Constitution has no right to a clean environment and that addressing climate change was a matter for the executive and legislative branches.

Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. Harvard College
In 2014, Harvard Climate Justice Coalition and individual Harvard students filed a lawsuit against the President & Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard Corporation) and Harvard Management Company, Inc. and asked them to divest from fossil fuel companies. Plaintiffs argued that the university’s investment in fossil fuel companies was a breach of its duties because it contributed to climate change and other harms to “the public’s prospects for a secure and healthy future".

The Massachusetts Superior Court dismissed the action in 2015 because the individual students did not have the standing because their rights as students were “widely shared” with thousands of other Harvard students and were not “specific” and “personal” enough to endow them with standing. The Massachusetts Appellate Court upheld the decision in 2016.

Kain v. Department of Environmental Protection
Four youth plaintiffs and two New England environmental groups--Conservation Law Foundation and the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance--sued the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2014. They allege that the DEP had not satisfied the requirements of Massachusetts' Global Warming Solutions Act. The plaintiffs asked the DEP to develop and implement more aggressive emissions limits and a declaration from the Court that the DEP is required to disseminate emissions regulations.

In 2015, a Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that the DEP had substantially satisfied the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act and said that the plaintiffs’ “various quarrels” with the regulatory actions were “hypertechnical and overly exacting". The ruling was overturned in 2016 by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which said that the Global Warming Solutions Act does require more from the DEP and the state must make extensive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

North America Youth Organizations

 * Sunrise Movement (America)
 * Sustain US (America)
 * Defend Our Future (America)
 * Uplift (America)
 * Student PIRGs 100% Renewable Campaign (America)
 * Alliance for Climate Education (America)
 * Student Conservation Association (America)
 * Future Coalition (America)
 * Greening Youth Foundation (America)
 * US Climate Strike Coalition (America)
 * Divest Ed (America)
 * Youth United for Climate Crisis Action (New Mexico, America)
 * Canadian Youth Climate Coalition
 * Sustainable Youth Canada
 * Manitoba Environmental Youth Network (Manitoba, Canada)
 * Environmental Youth Alliance (Canada)
 * Youth Congress for Sustainable Americas