Category: Fossil fuel extraction

Categories
Access to a remedy Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to health Right to life Russian Federation

Danilov et al. v. Russia (Russian Climate Case)

Summary:
In August 2023, a group of individuals and NGOs filed a climate application against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants, made up of two NGOs and 18 individuals (including Indigenous persons and human‑rights defenders) challenges Russia’s climate policies and (in)actions for violating their human rights, citing Russia’s high per capita greenhouse gas emissions and particularly its high methane emissions. They argue that:

Russia is ranked as responsible for the third largest cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial era. Currently, it is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world and the second biggest source of global energy-related methane emissions. As of 2021, it was the world’s largest exporter of fossil gas, the second largest exporter of oil, the third largest coal exporter and the largest gas flaring nation. It has the world’s second-largest coal reserves, and its 2020 Energy Strategy plans an increase in domestic coal production annually up to 2035. Russia has no quantifiable methane reduction plans and did not sign up to the COP26 global methane pledge. These factors materially affect global and Arctic climate risk.

As well as that:

Expert evidence shows Russia’s published policy from 2020 and 2021 allows emissions to continue rising to 2030 and only minimally decline thereafter — far above levels compatible with protecting human life and health or with Paris Agreement temperature targets. The Climate Action Tracker assesses Russia’s climate action as ‘critically insufficient’. The case argues that these policies breach constitutional and international human‑rights standards and Russia’s climate obligations. Most recently, Russia has issued a new emissions decree providing for a weaker 2035 emissions target. The new target is about 22% greater than Russia’s reported 2021 emissions.

After being rejected by the domestic courts, the applicants brought their case to the ECtHR, describing it as “the first and only climate challenge by Russian citizens to Russia’s policies at Strasbourg. Given Russia’s withdrawal/expulsion from the Council of Europe and the repressive context for human rights and environmental defenders, this is likely the last such case within a legally binding international forum during the critical climate mitigation window.” In Strasbourg, the applicants argue that the case remains in the Court’s temporal jurisdiction and invoke the rights to life, health, home and family life (Articles 2 and 8 ECHR), as well as the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) and that prohibition of discrimination in relation to youth applicants and Indigenous applicants (Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8 ECHR). They also argue that the Russian Government has sought to undermine the case, thereby interfering with their right to bring the case, in violation of Article 34 ECHR. Notably, it is reported that since the case began, both applicant NGO’s have been dissolved by the Russian courts, one applicant had his citizenship and that of family revoked and individual applicants and their lawyer have been designated ‘Foreign Agents’ under Russia’s Foreign Agent Law.

Further reading:
For a discussion of the case, see Joanna Evans, ‘The Russian Climate Case: A Crucial Test for the European Court of Human Rights’, Völkerrechtsblog, 15 December 2025, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-russian-climate-case/.

More information on the case is provided by the applicants here.

Suggested citation:
ECtHR, Danilov et al. v. Russia, app. no. 9296/24, filed in August 2023.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Right to a healthy environment

Ugandan Farmers v. EACOP Ltd.

Summary:
In May 2026, it was reported that a group of Ugandan farmers and environmental advocates were preparing a case that would challenge the construction of the nearly-completed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in UK courts. The pipeline, which is set to transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzanian, is operated by a corporate actor registered in the United Kingdom (EACOP Ltd.), with TotalEnergies as a majority stakeholder in the project. The claimants in this case argue that the project threatens their right to a healthy environment, as guaranteed by the Ugandan Constitution.

This case follows other legal efforts to halt the pipeline project by litigating, among others, before the East African Court of Justice in Arusha.

More information on this case will be shared as it becomes available.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Australia Disability and health-related inequality Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Fossil fuel extraction Human Rights Committee Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to culture Right to life

Poelina et al. v. Australia

Summary:
On 20 June 2026, a communication against Australia was filed with the UN Human Rights Committee. The authors of the communication, who live in five Australian states, argue that Australia’s continued licensing of fossil fuel projects violates their rights under several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), namely the right to life (Article 6 ICCPR), the right to privacy, family, and home life (Article 17), and the right to culture (Article 27). Drawing on the International Court of Justice’s 2025 climate advisory opinion, as well as the ECtHR’s 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen judgment and the IACtHR’s 2025 climate advisory opinion, they submit that they have experienced several rights-impacting events, all of which were “made substantially more likely and severe by anthropogenic climate change, to which Australia materially contributes through its production of fossil fuels for export.” This includes extreme heat, bushfires or wildfires, flooding, and toxic algal blooms. The authors build their claims on past extreme events that impacted several authors’ Aboriginal culture and lands, which have been flooded and face toxic algal blooms destroying traditional food sources and ways of life. Two authors also risked their lives fighting the 2019-2020 bushfires, with one losing his home to the flames and another volunteering as a firefighter. Other authors live with disabilities or health conditions that place them particularly at risk from heat waves or floods.

Relying on scientific reports and expert evidence (especially the Anderson and Calverley report), the authors submit that current levels of GHG emissions mean that “there are less than two years remaining to ensure warming is limited to 1.5°C”. They also argue against models that tolerate overshooting 1.5°C, arguing that States cannot rely on unproven carbon removal technologies to return below that level of warming and that technologies to remove or sequester carbon, notably carbon, capture, and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), remain unproven and ineffective.

The core of the communication is the argument that Australia has failed the “stringent due diligence” standard, which the ICJ has interpreted as requiring states to “use all means at their disposal” to prevent significant harm to the climate system by aligning their actions with a global pathway that limits warming to 1.5°C. In an illustrative list of internationally wrongful acts, the ICJ listed “fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies” (para 427). Based on this finding, the communication argues that Australia’s ongoing conduct relating to fossil fuel exploration, production and subsidies violates the authors’ ICCPR rights.

The authors note that Australia is “one of the world’s leading historical and current producers of fossil fuels for export” (as of 2024, the second largest global exporter of coal, and the third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, with ca. 80% of Australia’s total fossil fuel CO2 footprint coming from fossil fuel exports as of 2022). Despite its international obligations to act on climate change, the authors submit, the Australian government’s policy “remains to maximise fossil fuel exports, and Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel projects that will export fossil fuels for decades to come, in some cases into the 2070s.”

To make this argument, the authors submit that due diligence to prevent significant environmental harm must be informed by the precautionary principle; that due diligence requires Australia to regulate third parties within its jurisdiction and control; that due diligence requires assessment of the cumulative effects of activities within Australia’s jurisdiction or control; that due diligence requires adopting mitigation measures that reflect best available science; that due diligence requires adopting mitigation measures that reflect best available science; that a State’s failure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in ways consistent with due diligence is conduct attributable to that State that may violate human rights; that a State’s failure to regulate its export of fossil fuels, consistent with due diligence, is also attributable conduct that may violate human rights obligations; that there is a sufficient causal nexus between Australia’s non-compliance with human rights and the specific harms experienced by the authors; that legal standards of causation for individual harm in the context of climate harms are flexible, as demonstrated by various courts; that there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus to satisfy the ICJ’s approach to causation when assessing injury; that Australia’s fossil fuel exports are a material contribution to climate change and have caused, and will foreseeably cause, harm to the authors; that continued fossil fuel production means that Australia is not taking the necessary measures to prevent harm to the climate system; and that these acts and omissions are violating ICCPR rights.

Attribution science (the Thiery, Watkins, Cook and Crisp reports):
The Communication extensively details the concrete impacts faced by the applicants, and is accompanied by several expert reports that attribute the harms experienced to the impacts of climate change. The “Thiery report” concerns overall climate attribution, including heatwaves, bushfires, ocean warming, severe storms, drought, algal blooms, and sea-level rise; the “Watkins Report” concerns flooding; and the “Cook Report” concerns toxic algal blooms. The authors also submitted two reports by Dr George Crisp on climate-related health impacts for two of the authors.

Export emissions (the Anderson and Claverly report):
The Communication challenges Australia’s plans to produce fossil fuel for export on the basis a report by Anderson and Claverly. The report evaluates whether the estimated carbon budgets compatible with ‘achieving around a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C and around 83% chance of not exceeding 2°C’ of global warming can accommodate emissions from Australia’s projected coal and LNG exports. The authors of the report conclude that ‘under assumptions favourable to Australia,’ the evidence is unequivocal that Australia’s planned export pathways are not compatible with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals.

Admissibility (the Peel Report):
On the admissibility of the communication, concerning the absence of proceedings on the domestic level, the authors argue that they have satisfied the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule because Australian law does not offer redress for the harms at stake and the rights violations invoked.

To support this argument, they submit a report authored by Prof. Jacqueline Peel, who together with two co-author shows that there are no effective remedies available to the Authors to redress their alleged harms to the standards set out previously by the Committee, as there are no effective judicial or administrative avenues to compel Australia to align its production of fossil fuels for export with pathways for 1.5°C of warming. This is due to the fact, in particular, that Australian courts cannot compel the government to align fossil fuel exports with a 1.5°C pathway; that there is no constitutional or national-level statutory bill of rights in Australia; that existing statutory frameworks do not provide an effective remedy; and that there is no common law duty of care owed to the Authors in this context. In doing so, the report reflects the Committee’s own reasoning in Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia (2022), where the Committee found that the communication was admissible because no effective remedy was available to the Authors.

Relief sought:
The authors seek for their ICCPR rights to be upheld and note that the violation of these rights cannot be addressed only through mitigation of emissions released in Australia or through adaptation measures. Instead, they argue, exported (“Scope 3”) emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports materially contribute to climate harms. They seek for the Committee to:

  • Declare that the Australian government’s acts and omissions related to fossil fuel production for export, and its failure to adequately regulate the public and private operators involved, violate its human rights obligations to prevent a global average temperature increase of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
  • Establish violations of the authors’ rights to life; privacy, family, and home life; and culture under the Covenant.
  • Recommend the creation of a domestic process to review the compatibility of Australia’s fossil fuel exports with pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C.
  • Recommend an urgent phaseout of production of fossil fuels for export, including ceasing relevant public subsidies.
  • Recommend that Australia pause approvals for fossil fuel production projects for export.

Case documents:
The communication in this case can be downloaded below.

unhrc-poelina-et-al-v-australia-20-06-2026_redactedDownload

Suggested citation:
UN Human Rights Committee, Anne Poelina, Barry Traill, Brendon Donohue, Catherine, Jack Egan, Latishamarie Francis, Pamelarose Francis, Melissa Fisher, Sama Youhana and Rikki Dank v. Australia, Communication of 20 June 2026.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Class action Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2)

Summary:
On 21 April 2026, the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie delivered summons to oil and gas giant Shell Plc, in its second collective legal action against the company following the first Milieudefensie case (decided on appeal in 2024). This second case, under Section 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), is brought on behalf of current and future generations of Dutch citizens after the corporate actor moved its seat from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom. Milieudefensie summoned Shell to appear at a hearing to be held at the District Court of Amsterdam on 29 July 2026.

In its 273-page summons, Milieudefensie covers issues of jurisdiction, the requirements for a collective suit under Section 3:305a DCC, the scientific evidence underpinning its case, the risk of reaching climate tipping points for Europe and for the Netherlands, international climate policy and the global 1.5-degree temperature target, the important role played by non-state actors and their corporate responsibilities to respect human rights, the inhibiting influence of the oil and gas industry, including Shell, on infrastructural carbon lock-ins, including through its historical undermining of climate science and strategies to delay climate action, as well as its lobbying against the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D) of 13 June 2024.

Milieudefensie sets out the framework for assessing Shell’s responsibility under Sections 3:296 and 6:162 DCC, fleshing this out by invoking the societal duty of care under domestic law, as well as the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law (particularly Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, the rights to life and respect for private and family life), international customary law, international soft law, and legal principles including the precautionary principle, the climate law principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), and the principle of intergenerational justice. In particular, the summons argues that

“[s]ince the Urgenda judgment, it has been widely recognised in court judgments that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations. Not only the ECHR, but also the IACtHR and the ICJ have recently found this. Numerous (supreme) national courts have independently reached the same conclusion. Within Europe, for example, reference can be made to the case law of the [German] Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Court of Appeal in Brussels. Outside Europe, the situation is no different. For example, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Colombia, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, the District Court of Montana (United States) and the Supreme Court of India have all ruled that human rights can be relied on in order to be protected against the effects of climate change. In view of the above, there can be no misunderstanding that human rights (indirectly) have a horizontal effect when the unwritten duty-of-care standard is fleshed out. Nor can there be any debate about the fact that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations and that human rights can be relied on for protection against dangerous climate change. The only question that remains is what assessment framework needs to be applied here. “

Milieudefensie argues that Shell bears a share of the responsibility to prevent dangerous climate change, discussing its level of knowledge and the foreseeability of harm by arguing that Shell has long known about the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, with serious consequences for people and the environment, has known that it is making a substantial contribution to climate change and that it needs to take (precautionary) measures. It sets out Shell’s two-pillared obligations: first, a reduction obligation for Scope 1, 2 and 3 CO2 emissions, and second, an obligation not to develop new oil and gas fields.

Concerning the first pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that “Shell must make an equitable contribution (a “fair share”) to preventing dangerous climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5°C by reducing its emissions.” In doing so, it invokes UN reports to argue that:

  • companies must demonstrate maximum ambition to achieve (net) zero CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, but by 2050 at the latest;
  • companies must set ambitious and credible interim targets for the short and medium term on the road to the above-mentioned goal of net zero CO2 emissions that represent a fair share of the global reduction target; and
  • the (interim) targets should cover all Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and should aim for absolute CO2 emission reductions.  

It also submits that “Shell can be considered to be an influential Western company in several respects; it has both substantial emissions and large transition capabilities and a large historical responsibility. These are all relevant circumstances under the above-mentioned climate protocols (as evidenced by e.g. the reference to the CBDR principle and the need to take on a fair share of the global target) for asking Shell to take on an above-average responsibility and requiring it to reduce its emissions faster than the global average.”

As concerns the second pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that Shell’s obligation not to pursue new fossil fuel projects is “based on the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law, the legal principles discussed, soft law and other objective points of reference, is that Shell must cease the development and production of new oil and gas fields. After all, the carbon budget with a 50% probability of 1.5°C is already exceeded with the operation of the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure alone, and new oil and gas fields are therefore incompatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century. “

Milieudefensie concludes that Shell is breaching its societal duty of care under domestic law, and seeks the following provisionally enforceable remedies:

  • Emissions reductions, covering annual Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, as per the table below;
  • A prohibition of achieving these reductions through divestment, i.e. through transfer of shares or assets;
  • To prohibit Shell from making use of carbon credits for the purpose of achieving the emission reductions described;
  • To order Shell to achieve that the Shell Group ceases, continues to cease and does not start the production of new oil and gas from fields.

More information:
The full text of the summons (translated into English by Milieudefensie) is available below. For more information on the case, see here.

Summons Milieudefensie v. Shell (No. 2)Download

Suggested citation:
District Court of Amsterdam, Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2), summons issued 21 April 2026.

Categories
2026 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to life Separation of powers United States of America

Kaarina Dunn et al. v. Public Service Comission of Wisconsin, et al.

Summary:
On 23 April 2026, a court in the US state of Wisconsin ruled in a youth climate case against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin State legislature. The case was filed by fifteen young people ranging in age from 8-17. The youth plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of statues governing the approval of fossil fuel-fired power plants because those statutes limit the ability of the first respondent, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, to consider air quality impacts of when issuing permits for such plants. In doing so, they had invoked their rights, under the Wisconsin state constitution, to liberty and to life, as well as the rights to a stable climate system and to access, enjoy and use navigable waters (both of which they considered inherent within the constitution). They also alleged a violation of Wisconsin’s public trust doctrine.

According to the Plaintiffs, climate change has rendered them unable to enjoy Wisconsin’s natural resources, like its rivers and lakes, as well as prevented them from engaging in recreational activities, like swimming and skiing. Some are deprived of their Indigenous cultural traditions, while others have experienced asthma and contracted Lyme disease.

The judge tasked with resolving this case, Judge Julie Genovese, ruled that “[w]hile the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question”. The judge discussed Wisconsin’s political question doctrine, which “dictates that courts will not decide questions that require the court to determine what the best or wisest public policy would be”, and “also embodies a practical component, recognizing that matters of economic and social policy are not reasonably “susceptible to judicial management or resolution.””

The judge concluded that:

“by substituting this court’s judgment for the legislature, the court
would be showing a lack of respect for the legislative and executive branches. Plaintiffs do not like these policy decisions. (…) Because Plaintiffs think it is technologically and economically feasible for Wisconsin to be carbon free by 2050, they conclude that by invalidating the statutes and thus their limitations, the PSC will decide to stop approving fossil fuel-fired plants, and Plaintiffs’ carbon free goal will be achieved. While the court may agree with Plaintiffs’ policy preferences, it would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants to substitute my judgment for theirs, and strike the limitations imposed by the legislature and executed by the PSC. Accordingly, because the court concludes that the legislature’s policy decisions represent a nonjusticiable political question, this case must be dismissed.”

Full text of the judgment:
The full text of the judgment is available for download below.

Decision Wisconsin 2026Download

Submission on behalf of the state:
The submission made on behalf of the state government can be downloaded below.

Filing Legislature’s attorney Ryan WalshDownload
Categories
Belgium Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Farming Fossil fuel extraction Private and family life Right to life

Falys et al. v. TotalEnergies (‘The Farmer Case’)

Summary:

In March 2024, Hugues Falys, a farmer located in Belgium, filed a legal action at the Commercial Court of Tournai (Belgium) against TotalEnergies. He was joined by Ligue des Droits Humains, Greenpeace Belgium and FIAN Belgium.

The objective of the legal action is to claim compensation for damages suffered by Falys as a result of climate breakdown, and to force TotalEnergies to move away from fossil fuels. The plaintiffs argue that Falys’s farm in Lessines (BE) has suffered a number of extreme weather events, including heatwaves and droughts, resulting in major financial losses, extra workload, stress and worry.

The civil liability action is based on articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code. In their submissions to the court, the plaintiffs have put forward human rights arguments as one line of interpretation of the relevant provisions, inter alia referring the ECtHR’s judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen multiple times.

Relevant developments:

On March 18 2026, the Commercial Court of Tournai found the action to be admissible, thereby recognising that carbon majors can be held accountable in Belgium for causing climate change even if their headquarters is in another state. With regards to the merits of the case, the Court postponed its judgment to 9 September 2026 to await the decision in a similar case against TotalEnergies in France.

See also:

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total.

Links:

For the main conclusions of the plaintiffs (in French), see here.

For an unofficial translation of the main conclusions of the plaintiffs (in English), see here.

For the Court’s admissibility judgment of 18 March 2026 (in French), see here.

Last updated:

20 March 2026.

Categories
Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Norway Paris Agreement

Greenpeace Nordic and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation v. Finland

Summary:
On 18 February 2026, a climate case was filed against the government of Finland challenging its 2025 climate action plan in light of alleged failures to present an adequate emissions reductions pathway in line with its 2035 net neutrality target. The plaintiffs, NGOs Greenpeace Finland and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, sought judicial review by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court of the government’s plans for implementing climate targets under the 2022 Climate Act. These plans are detailed in the Government Report on the National Energy and Climate Strategy and Medium-Term Climate Plan, both of which were issued in December 2025. The plaintiffs argue that the measures envisaged by the government are insufficient to achieve the targets set out in the Climate Act, and alternative pathways towards the achievement of the targets have not been assessed, and thus the government is in breach of its statutory duty.    

Invoking the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen & Others v. Switzerland judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the climate advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the plaintiffs allege that the shortcomings of the plan are unlawful, do not take into account the best available science and rely excessively on technological methods of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, without adequately protecting carbon sinks. The current climate plan was published in December 2025, and is required under the Finnish Climate Act to present different options for how emissions and carbon sinks will develop over the next 30 years, as well as sector-specific measures.

The plaintiffs have approached the highest administrative court in Finland directly (rather than via the appellate route), arguing that the impugned government decisions implicate civil rights and obligations as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen & Others v. Switzerland judgment.

Further information:
A press release on the case is available here; the present summary will be updated once more information becomes available.

Suggested citation:
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, Greenpeace Nordic and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation v. Finland, case filed on 18 February 2026 (pending).

Last updated:
13 March 2026.

Categories
Access to a remedy Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Emissions reductions/mitigation Fair trial Fossil fuel extraction Human dignity Imminent risk Inter-American Human Rights System Non-discrimination Private and family life Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health Right to life Right to property United States of America

Our Children’s Trust with 15 Juliana Plaintiffs v. The United States of America

Summary:
On 23 September 2025, the NGO Our Children’s Trust announced that it had filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging climate-related violations of human rights by the government of the United States of America on behalf of a group of youth. This petition follows the advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change, which was issued on 29 May 2025, as well as drawing on the climate advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The petitioners were formerly plaintiffs in the Juliana proceedings brought before US domestic courts on the basis of the public trust doctrine, among others.

Before the Inter-American Commission, the petitioners allege that the United States has known for decades that CO2 emissions cause climate change and that a transition away from fossil fuels is needed to protect human rights. They argue that, as the world’s largest emitter, the United States has played a leading role in causing climate change, and that its greenhouse gas emissions — and the resulting climate change — violate the human rights of children and youth, who are disproportionately impacted by its effects.

They claim before the Commission that the United States has failed to comply with its international obligations to guarantee the petitioners’ human rights, that it has a duty to prevent harm to the global climate system to guarantee those rights, that it brached its obligation to act with due diligence ot guarantee their rights and prevent harm to the climate system, that if violated its obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,a form of pollution, and that the United States’s deliberate emissions of greenhouse gasses violate the substantive rights of the petitioners as per the American Declaration, including the rights to life and health, the particular protections for children, equality and non-discrimination, the rights to home, property and private and family life, the right to culture, the right to dignity, and the right to a healthy climate.

They also invoke their procedural rights, namely the rights to access to justice and an effective remedy, alleging that the United States Department of Justice has deployed “extraordinary tactics” to silence the petitioners, and that the domestic courts failed to consider the merits of their claims.

In their request for relief, the petitioners inter alia request the Commission to:

  • order precautionary measures to prevent further irreparable harm;
  • join the admissibility and merits of the petition, in accordance with Article 37(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, given the serious and urgent nature of the case and the ongoing violations of Petitioners’ fundamental rights;
  • conduct an on-site country visit, including a visit with the Petitioners, and hold fact-finding hearings;
  • establish violations of Articles I (life), II (equality), V (private and family life), VI (family), VII (special protections for children), IX (inviolability of the home), XI (health), XIII (cultural life), XVIII (access to justice and effective remedies), XXIII (property), and XXIV (prompt and effective remedy) of the American Declaration and the rights to dignity (Preamble) and to a healthy climate; and
  • issue a country report with recommendations to the United States to remedy confirmed violations of international law, taking into account the clarifications of existing law set forth by the IACtHR and the ICJ in their in Advisory Opinions on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights and the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.

Full text of the petition:

The full text of the petition can be found below.

_2025.09.23+Juliana-IACHR+PetitionDownload

Suggested citation:

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Our Children’s Trust with 15 Juliana Plaintiffs v. The United States of America, petition filed on 23 September 2025.

Categories
Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Renewable energy Right to life Separation of powers United States of America

Lighthiser v. Trump

Summary:  
On 29 May 2025, a case was filed on behalf of 22 youth plaintiffs from five US states (Montana, Oregon, Hawai‘i, California, and Florida) before the US District Court in the District of Montana with the support of the NGO Our Children’s Trust and others. The plaintiffs in this case contested a series of climate-related executive orders issued by the Trump administration, arguing that these measures threaten their constitutional rights to life, health, and safety. This includes executive orders aimed at “unleashing” fossil fuels, anti-clean energy measures and those removing climate science-related information from federal websites.

The case was brought against US President Donald Trump as well as various government agencies and offices including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United States of America itself.  

Measures challenged:
The lawsuit challenged three specific executive orders, as well as measures to delete climate science information from government websites. The contested executive orders are the following:

  • Executive Order 14154: “Unleashing American Energy” (which prioritizes oil, gas, and coal over renewable energy).  
  • Executive Order 14156: “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” (which directs federal agencies to invoke emergency powers to fast-track fossil fuel production).
  • Executive Order 14261: “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry” (designating coal as a “mineral” under federal policy, thereby granting it priority status for extraction and development on public lands). 

Claims made:
The youth plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration’s executive orders violate their constitutional right to life (under the fifth amendment to the US Constitution) by increasing climate pollution. They also argue that the measures are an act of executive overreach, or in other words an ultra vires act going beyond presidential powers, and that augmenting fossil fuel production, suppressing climate science, and blocking clean energy solutions is a violation of the ‘state-created danger doctrine’, which triggers a governmental duty to protect against government-induced harm.

Dismissal of the case:
On 15 October 2025, the United States District Court for the State of Montana dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing, denying them leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs appealed this decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on 2 June 2026, affirming the decision of the district court to dismiss the case. The Ninth Circuit Court held that:

by effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions. Such a sweeping injunction against hundreds of agency actions in one lawsuit is unprecedented.

Suggested citation:
US District Court of Montana, Lighthiser et al. v. Trump, CV 25–54–BU–DLC, 15 October 2025.

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Lighthiser et al. v. Trump, D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00054-DLC, 2 June 2026.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Estonia Fossil fuel extraction Gender / women-led Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Fridays for Future Estonia vs. Environmental Board

Summary:
On 25 June 2024, Fridays for Future Estonia, a youth environmental movement, announced that it had filed two cases against the continued operation of a state-owned fossil fuel (shale oil) plant. The Estonian Environmental Board had granted a state-owned company, Enefit Power, a permit to operate until 2035. Fridays for Future Estonia filed two complaints to challenge the permit: one was brought by MTÜ Loodusvõlu, an NGO established in 2019 by Fridays for Future Estonia with the goal of managing the financial side of the movement, and the other by a young activist within the movement named Elo-Lee Maran.

The case follows on a separate set of proceedings concerning a 2020 decision to award Enefit Power’s parent company 125 million Euros to construct a shale oil plant. MTÜ Loodusvõlu filed a lawsuit in the Tartu Administrative Court to revoke the construction permit, which was upheld in October 2023 by the Supreme Court, which annulled the construction permit. Two months later, the municipality of Narva-Jõesuu issued a new construction permit for the plant.

According to Fridays for Future, Elo-Lee Maran’s case represents the first climate case brought by an individual in Estonia. The case argues that exacerbating climate change is a threat to human rights, including the rights of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. No only does the plant’s operation hinder the achievement of the targets set out in the Paris Agreement and the National Energy and Climate Plan. It also, so it is alleged, violates Elo-Lee Maran’s right to a healthy environment under domestic and international law. Depleting Estonia’s share of the ever-smaller carbon budget will require Estonia to limit people’s basic freedoms intensely in the future, which is not in the best interests of a child.

The case will be heard by the Tallinn Administrative Court in December 2024.

More information:
For more information, see this overview from Fridays for Future.

Last updated:
29 November 2024