litigation
Newsletter
Credit: Douglas Fischer
Montana’s Supreme Court debates climate law's constitutionality
A landmark climate lawsuit in Montana questions whether a state law supporting fossil fuel development infringes on constitutional rights to a healthy environment.
Nicholas Kusnetz and Najifa Farhat report for Inside Climate News.
In short:
- Montana's Supreme Court heard arguments about a law that prohibits considering climate impacts in fossil fuel project approvals, challenged by 16 youths.
- Plaintiffs argue the law violates Montana’s constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment," with potential national implications.
- The state’s defense claims Montana's emissions are too minor to affect global climate change, questioning the court's jurisdiction.
Key quote:
“Any environmental case that gets to the Supreme Court is dead on arrival. That’s why people are going to the states.”
— Patrick Parenteau, professor of law emeritus and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School
Why this matters:
The case could set a precedent for constitutional climate rights, influencing environmental policy and legal actions nationwide, especially as federal regulations face challenges. Read more: Youth v. Montana — Young adults speak up.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: World Travel & Tourism Council/Flickr
Texas’ new appellate court raises concerns for environmentalists
Texas Governor Greg Abbott's recent creation of the 15th Court of Appeals, a body seen as favorable to business interests, has sparked fears among environmental advocates who believe it undermines regulatory oversight.
Jim Morris, Leah Clark and Manuela Silva report for Public Health Watch.
In short:
- The new court, established by the Texas Legislature, will hear civil cases involving the state and significant business disputes.
- Environmentalists worry the court will bypass the more progressive 3rd Court of Appeals, which has historically been more sympathetic to environmental concerns.
- High-stakes cases, including those involving major pollution permits, will now be handled by the new court, potentially weakening environmental protections.
Key quote:
“This is a way for Texas to create a very conservative court that I suspect the governor believes will be less friendly to environmental interests and probably very friendly to business.”
— Ilan Levin, senior counsel, Environmental Integrity Project.
Why this matters:
Critics argue that this move undermines judicial impartiality, potentially leading to laxer enforcement of environmental protections and health regulations. Read more: Texas has more chemical emergencies than any other state and they’re disproportionately affecting Latino communities.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm/Unsplash
States push for fossil fuel companies to fund climate resilience
Several U.S. states are advancing legislation to make oil companies pay for the climate damages caused by their emissions.
In short:
- Vermont has enacted a climate superfund law, with New York and others considering similar measures.
- These bills, inspired by the federal Superfund program, would make oil companies pay for climate-related damages.
- The proposed laws would calculate costs based on emissions attributed to fossil fuels sold over specified periods.
Key quote:
“States and municipalities are suffering enormous costs from the damage associated with climate change and the money they have to spend now to prepare for the consequences they’re going to face in the future, at the same time as fossil fuel industry actors are posting record profits from creating these harms.”
— Martin Lockman, climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University
Why this matters:
Climate superfund bills represent a significant step in holding fossil fuel companies accountable for environmental harm. They aim to provide essential funding for climate adaptation and resilience, shifting financial responsibility to those who contributed most to the problem.
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Okan Caliskan/Pixabay
Companies face rising number of climate lawsuits
The number of climate lawsuits against corporations worldwide has surged, with over 230 cases filed since 2015, mostly after 2020.
In short:
- Climate-washing, where companies are accused of misleading environmental progress, saw 47 cases in 2023.
- The US led with 129 cases filed in 2023, followed by the UK with 24.
- New climate litigation cases emerged in Panama and Portugal in 2023, adding to the 55 countries recording such cases.
- A growing number of cases were filed in the global south.
Key quote:
"Climate litigation ... has become an undeniably significant trend in how stakeholders are seeking to advance climate action and accountability."
— Andy Raine, head of international environment law at the United Nations Environment Programme
Why this matters:
Increasing litigation pressures companies to get on board with climate goals, potentially changing corporate behaviors. The rise in climate-washing cases reflects growing scrutiny of environmental claims, which could lead to more honest and effective corporate climate actions.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Adam Michael Szuscik/Unsplash
Supreme Court ruling could impact environmental policies
The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision on the Chevron doctrine could significantly affect environmental regulations, including those on pollution and climate change.
In short:
- The Chevron doctrine allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes reasonably.
- Overturning Chevron may limit agencies' flexibility to adapt regulations to new scientific findings.
- The decision could shift more policy-making power to the judiciary, leading to increased litigation and regulatory instability.
Key quote:
"Overturning or enfeebling Chevron would have negative consequences."
— Jody Freeman, Harvard Law School
Why this matters:
Removing the Chevron doctrine could reduce agencies' ability to address evolving environmental challenges effectively. This shift might undermine regulatory stability, impacting public health and environmental protection.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Alisdare Hickson/Flickr
Climate activists convicted in court despite urgency of climate change
Two environmental activists were convicted in a Nanaimo court for civil disobedience, with the judge ruling that the climate crisis does not justify breaking the law.
Peter Fairley reports for The Tyee.
In short:
- The activists presented a necessity defense, arguing that climate change justifies their actions, but the judge disagreed.
- The judge acknowledged climate change as an existential threat but said it didn't meet the standard of imminent danger required to excuse illegal acts.
- Despite the conviction, activists see progress, as the trial marked the first time climate activists presented expert testimony for a necessity defense.
Key quote:
“I’ve no doubt on the evidence that climate change constitutes an existential threat to life in Canada and everywhere else in the world.”
— Judge Ronald Lamperson, Provincial Court Judge
Why this matters:
The case highlights the ongoing debate over the appropriate response to climate change with this court ruling that the peril of climate change was not sufficiently imminent and unavoidable to justify the activism. Read more: Youth v. Montana — Young adults speak up.
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: throgers/Flickr
The court orders dismissal of a youth-led climate lawsuit against the US government
A federal appeals court has instructed the district court to dismiss a climate change lawsuit filed by youth plaintiffs against the U.S. government, denying them the chance to amend their case.
In short:
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the lower court to dismiss the youth-led climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States.
- Despite a 2020 ruling dismissing the case, the district court had allowed an amended lawsuit, which the appellate court ruled was against its mandate.
- The ruling signifies the difficulty of bringing climate action lawsuits against the federal government, even as state-level cases like one in Montana have shown success.
Key quote:
“We held that the Juliana plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and told the district court to dismiss.”
— Judges Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, and Eric Miller, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Why this matters:
The court's decision reinforces the challenges of pursuing legal action against the federal government on climate issues, blunting efforts to push for policy changes to address the climate crisis. Read more: Youth v. Montana — Young adults speak up.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
