Case Library

Cases Against Corporations, Business, and Industry
Baltimore v. BP The City of Baltimore filed suit against 26 fossil fuel companies seeking to hold the companies liable for injuries caused by climate change.

Beyond Pesticides v. ExxonMobil A nonprofit sued Exxon for violating a D.C. Consumer Protection law, arguing that Exxon had engaged in a greenwashing campaign that led the public to believe it engages in clean forms of energy at a significant level while in reality its business remains entrenched in the production and delivery of fossil fuels.

Comer v. Murphy Oil The plaintiffs brought a class action suit against a number of fossil fuel companies for their contribution to climate change which contributed to the destructive power of Hurricane Katrina, which damaged the plaintiffs' properties.

Commonwealth v. ExxonMobil Action by Massachusetts attorney general asserting that Exxon Mobil Corporation committed deceptive practices against Massachusetts investors and consumers, including by failing to disclose climate change risks.

Complaint against BP in respect of violations of the OECD Guidelines ClientEarth, a British environmental group, brought a suit against BP after it released a large ad campaign in the UK that touted its investment in clean energy. The suit alleged BP misled the public by overstating its investment in clean energy. Before the case could be heard, BP announced it was ending the advertising campaign and would not replace it. It also announced it would end corporate reputation advertising unless it is to promote policies that support net zero.

Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. Harvard College A group of Harvard students brought a legal action to try to compel Harvard to divest from fossil fuels.

In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation Consolidated shareholder derivative action against directors and senior officers of Exxon Mobil Corporation for misleading the public concerning climate change and its impacts on Exxon's business.

In Re Greenpeace Southeast Asia and Others Greenpeace Southeast Asia and numerous other organizations and individuals filed a petition asking the Commission to investigate a general issue—“the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and the resulting rights violations in the Philippines”—and a more specific one—“whether the investor-owned Carbon Majors have breached their responsibilities to respect the rights of the Filipino people.” The core factual allegation of the petition draws on research identifying particular entities’ quantum of responsibility for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions since 1751. The original petition names 50 of those entities, all publicly traded corporations, as respondents. It identifies multiple sources of human rights, but draws most heavily on the UN Human Rights Commission’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil The Arctic village of Kivalina filed a case seeking redress of financial harm from some of the largest producers and emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Peabody, etc.) for their contribution to climate change. A United States District Court dismissed the federal nuisance claim for lack of jurisdiction over the matter because the claim raised a political issue and plaintiffs lacked standing. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a Ninth Circuit’s decision finding that its lawsuit seeking damages under state common law was displaced by the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court denied the writ without comment.

Lliuya v. RWE Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya filed a letter of complaint against RWE, a German energy company, over the impact of its activities on climate change. The plaintiff alleges that his home in Huaraz, on the flood path of Palcacocha Lake, is “acutely threatened” by the potential collapse of two glaciers into the lake that would cause significant flooding as a consequence of global warming. Lliuya argues that RWE has contributed to the emission of greenhouse gases that have in turn contributed to the thawing of the two glaciers. He requests compensation of £ 14,250. LLiuya seeks to use the compensation to address the potential flooding in two ways: 1) to install an early warning system designed to alert of sudden melting of the glacier that drains into the Palchoa Lagoon and 2) to build new, as well as make improvements to existing dams in an effort to prevent future flooding risk to the surrounding area. Currently, the case is active, and it could set an important precedent for holding companies accountable for their actions that contribute to significant greenhouse gas emissions.

McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust Mark McVeigh, a pension fund member, sued the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust over it's lack of accounting for climate impacts in its investment decisions.

New York v. ExxonMobil An action brought by the New York Attorney General alleging that Exxon had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deceive investors about the company's management of risks posed by climate change regulation.

Oakland v. BP City of Oakland and City of San Francisco filed a suit in California Superior Court against five oil and gas companies for financing the San Francisco Climate Adaptation Program, alleging that carbon emissions from their fossil fuel production had created an illegal public nuisance. The Court held that the claim was outside of their scope of jurisdiction. However, the court did recognize the science behind the explanation of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. It likewise highlighted the need for measures to be taken on a larger scale to resolve the conflict. Currently, appeals are being made for this case.

Ramirez v. ExxonMobil Shareholders brought a suit against Exxon for failure to disclose climate risks, arguing that it had misled the public and shareholders by using different accounting for the costs of GHG emissions in public than they did in private.

Cases against government
Ali v. Federation of Pakistan A suit brought by, among others, a 7-year old girl against the Pakistani government and the Province of Sindh. The petition accuses the Pakistani government of violating human rights and the public trust doctrine through various actions and inactions, including the proposed development of coal fields in the Thar desert region.

Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment A number of young Colombians 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.

Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy A coalition of environmental groups sought a declaratory judgment from the Oslo District Court that Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy violated the Norwegian constitution by issuing a block of oil and gas licenses for deep-sea extraction from sites in the Barents Sea.

Juliana v. United States Distinctive because the case was filed by 21 youth plaintiffs, along with an organization called Earth Guardian. They demand that the United States government act affirmatively to promote climate change. They allege that the government's current actions violate the constitutional rights of the younger generation to life, liberty, and property, and it has not succeeded in protecting essential public trust resources (the case is currently in force). Plaintiffs argued that the judiciary’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, particularly those of children without voting power. Notable: US District Judge Ann Aiken- Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. 3/24/2020: Appellants filed opposition to petition for hearing en banc.

Kim Yujin et al. v. South Korea On March 12, 2020, 30 youth activists who were members of the organization Youth 4 Climate Change filed a complaint against the South Korean Government’s climate change laws in the South Korean Constitutional Court. The complaint alleges that Article 42 Section 1 Subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Article 25 Section of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, the abolition of the “2020 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target” as set out in Article 25 Section of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Low Carbon are all unconstitutional and infringe upon the petitioners rights. Those individual rights being the basic rights of human dignity (Article 10 of the Constitution), the equal protection right (Article 11 of the Constitution), the right to live a humanly life (Article 34 of the Constitution), the environmental right (Article 35 of the Constitution), the protection of  environmental rights backed by the law (Article 35 Section 2 of the Constitution), and the nondelegation doctrine (Article 75 of the Constitution). This complaint calls upon the South Korean Constitutional court to declare these acts unconstitutional and create effective climate change mitigation that follows the promises the South Korean government made not only in their Constitution but in the Paris Climate Accord.

Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan An appellate court in Pakistan granted the claims of Ashgar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, who had sued the national government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). On September 4, 2015, the court, citing domestic and international legal principles, determined that "the delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the fundamental rights of the citizens." As a remedy, the court 1) directed several government ministries to each nominate "a climate change focal person" to help ensure the implementation of the Framework, and to present a list of action points by December 31, 2015; and 2) created a Climate Change Commission composed of representatives of key ministries, NGOs, and technical experts to monitor the government's progress. On September 14 the court issued a supplemental decision naming 21 individuals to the commission and vesting it with various powers.

Massachusetts v. EPA On April, 2nd 2007, a group of private organizations along with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts successfully won a case in which they appealed the denial of a petition made by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States for the EPA to begin regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases and to make a formal determination as to whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The EPA claimed that under the Clean Air it did not have the authority to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and, even if it had the power to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a 5-4 decision stating that Massachusetts does have a stake in this case due to potential damages of climate change and that the EPA's argument rests on the erroneous assumption that GHG regulation is a small incremental step because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum.

Petition of Torres Strait Islanders On May 13th 2019, A group of 8 Torres Strait Islanders filed the first human rights based climate change legal action complaint in Australia. The complaint submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee alleges that the Australian government’s failure to address climate change violates Article 27 (the right to culture), Article 17 (the right to be free from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home), and Article 6 (the right to life) under the ICCPR (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The complaint also calls upon Canberra to help protect the Torres Strait, a region made up of over 270 islands as well as part of the Great Barrier Reef, by committing at least 20 million dollars for emergency and long-term adaptation measures, reducing its emissions by 65% below 2005 levels by 2030 and going net zero by 2050, and phasing out thermal coal. As of February 2020 the Australian government has agreed to give 25 million dollars for the emergency and adaptive measure but has not agreed to the other two requests.

Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council In 2016, a group of senior women, filed suit against the Swiss Government, alleging that the government had failed to uphold obligations under the Swiss Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by not steering Switzerland onto an emissions reduction trajectory consistent with the goal of keeping global temperatures below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels/ Specifically, petitioners alleged the government had violated articles 10 (right to life), 73 (sustainability principle), and 74 (precautionary principle) of the Swiss Constitution and by articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The women’s petition noted that their demographic group is especially vulnerable to the heat waves expected to result from climate change. It asked that the legislature and the federal agencies responsible for transportation, environmental protection, and energy be required to develop a regulatory approach to several sectors that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. It criticized both the targets currently under discussion in the legislature (20% by 2020 and 30% by 2030) and the measures by which the Government would pursue those targets.

Thomson v. Minister for Climate Change Issues A New Zealand law student brought a suit against the New Zealand government for inadequate targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands A Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation, and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government to require it to do more to prevent global climate change. The court in the Hague ordered the Dutch state to limit GHG emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, finding the government’s existing pledge to reduce emissions by 17% insufficient to meet the state’s fair contribution toward the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial conditions. The court concluded that the state has a duty to take climate change mitigation measures due to the “severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of climate change occurring.” In reaching this conclusion, the court cited (without directly applying) Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution; EU emissions reduction targets; principles under the European Convention on Human Rights; the “no harm” principle of international law; the doctrine of hazardous negligence; the principle of fairness, the precautionary principle, and the sustainability principle embodied in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the principle of a high protection level, the precautionary principle, and the prevention principle embodied in the European climate policy. The court did not specify how the government should meet the reduction mandate, but offered several suggestions, including emissions trading or tax measures.'''

Youth for Climate Justice v. Austria, et al. In the summer of 2017, GLAN, the Global Legal Action Network, set up a crowdfunding campaign to help fund a case on behalf of Portuguese children against the 47 European countries who signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights for their failure to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. The goal of this case would be to have at least 22 of these 47 countries, which are responsible for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen their emissions-cutting policies, and commit to keeping the fossil fuel reserves they have in the ground. This crowdfunding campaign is still up and has reached its first goal of 20,000£ and has stretched its goal to 100,000£.

Freedom to protest activist cases
UK coal activists Climate activists are preparing to close coal mines in the United Kingdom for three days. They are dissatisfied with the expansion plans because the burning of fossil fuels accelerates the climate emergency. This type of action pursues the interest of demanding that the government implement policies that are consistent with the problems that are experienced as a consequence of climate change.

Valve turners Five climate activists shut down pipeline valves that transport tar sands to the United States, aiming to demonstrate in court the need to take these actions. The effects of climate change have not been considered real and are not being considered by governments for the implementation of policies.

Weisweiler coal plant disruption On November 15th, 2017 activists used technical equipment to block the coal-fired power plant Weisweiler. They almost forced a complete shutdown of the power plant. As a result, the power plant emitted over 27,000 tons less CO2 into the atmosphere. The action was called “WeShutDown.” The identified activists are now facing both civil proceedings (for damages amounting to more than two million euros) and criminal proceedings. The activists will make political use of the trial and will seize the opportunity to accuse RWE of destroying the livelihoods of millions of people worldwide. Public attention was critical, so they started a solidarity campaign called “WeDontShutUp” in February.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Ward Ken Ward and Jay O'Hara were prosecuted in October 2013 on four charges related to their May 2013 coal blockade at Brayton Point: disturbing the peace, conspiracy, failure to act to prevent a collision, and the negligent operation of a motor boat. The defense used by the lawyers is interesting, as they wanted to demonstrate that the blocking of the ship was necessary due to the threat it represents for climate change. This defense of necessity had to unravel three important elements. First: that the accused faced a clear and imminent danger, not debatable or speculative; Second: that the accused reasonably expected that his actions would be effective in directly reducing or eliminating the danger; and Third, that there was no legal alternative that would have been effective in reducing or eliminating the hazard. The origin of this action was to demonstrate that the crisis caused by climate change is real.