{"id":407770,"date":"2025-10-12T13:43:22","date_gmt":"2025-10-12T11:43:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407770"},"modified":"2025-10-12T13:43:33","modified_gmt":"2025-10-12T11:43:33","slug":"climate-lawfare-circus-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407770","title":{"rendered":"Climate Lawfare Circus\u00a0Update"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

What are the most notable climate activists litigation defeats in 2025?<\/strong> Response from perplexity.ai<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In 2025, climate activists experienced several major litigation defeats in the United States, especially in their attempts to challenge President Trump\u2019s climate and energy policies at the federal level and to anchor climate protection as a constitutional right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Litigation Defeats<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 Young climate activists and their legal team from Our Children\u2019s Trust faced a significant setback in federal court in Montana while seeking to block three of President Trump\u2019s executive orders promoting fossil fuels. Despite a previous win at the state level, legal experts indicated that the lack of explicit environmental protections in the U.S. Constitution made success in federal court extremely unlikely, with Judge Dana Christensen leaning toward dismissal of the lawsuit known as Lighthiser v. Trump.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 The Supreme Court declined to hear Juliana v. United States, a long-running youth-led climate lawsuit, ending the federal court battle after a decade. This rejection marked the conclusion of a pivotal effort to make climate protection a constitutional right in the United States, moving activists to seek remedies through international legal bodies instead.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 Multiple states and the federal attorneys argued in Montana that overturning Trump\u2019s orders would undermine the democratic process and risk national energy security. The lack of constitutional language guaranteeing a right to a \u201cclean and healthful environment\u201d at the federal level proved a decisive barrier to the activists\u2019 arguments.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 With federal options closed, activists petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging U.S. violations of international law for climate harm, but outcomes remain pending and U.S. jurisdiction over international tribunals is limited.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Landmark Litigation Losses and Developments<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Courts have started recognizing corporate responsibilities regarding emissions but continue to hesitate imposing mandatory emission reduction targets, reflecting ongoing legal and evidentiary hurdles for plaintiffs. Notable cases from 2025, such as Milieudefensie v. Shell and Lliuya v. RWE, ultimately resulted in losses for claimants but set significant legal precedents confirming that corporations can, in principle, be held liable for climate harm.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate-washing litigation targeting misleading corporate environmental claims saw a high success rate\u2014over 60% of such cases resulted in court victories for plaintiffs in 2024, according to recent reports summarized in 2025. However, the number of these cases dropped sharply compared to the previous year.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the governmental context, landmark litigation sought to enforce national and international climate commitments, referencing human rights and environmental standards. A recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion concluded that states ignoring fossil fuel regulation are committing internationally wrongful acts. While not binding, this opinion is expected to empower future climate litigation and enhance compensation claims for vulnerable nations.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Procedural and jurisdictional challenges remain. For example, in People v. JBS USA Food Co., a New York court dismissed a case on jurisdictional grounds, highlighting ongoing obstacles to holding companies accountable for generic net-zero marketing claims without robust, actionable plans.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In high-profile U.S. litigation, a court denied Tyson Foods\u2019 motion to dismiss a greenwashing case, stating that future-looking net-zero claims must be backed by solid evidence and current technology\u2014not just promises of technological advancement.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

What are the key legal reasons defeating climate lawsuits?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The primary legal reasons defeating climate lawsuits include statutory displacement, lack of standing, the political question doctrine, difficulty proving causation, preemption by federal law, and inadequate legal remedies. Courts often find that existing statutes like the Clean Air Act preempt common law claims, making it impossible for plaintiffs to address climate issues through federal court-made legal principles if a federal statute already covers the matter\u2014even if the statute does not offer a complete solution. Additionally, lawsuits face defeat when courts decide that climate policy decisions should be made legislatively rather than judicially, treating them as \u2018political questions\u2019 beyond the judiciary\u2019s purview.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statutory Displacement
<\/strong>Courts frequently rule that federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, preempt or displace claims brought under federal common law. This means plaintiffs cannot use nuisance or other tort claims to address climate harm when statutes exist, limiting the options for federal climate lawsuits.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Standing and Causation<\/strong>
Many lawsuits are dismissed due to lack of standing, meaning plaintiffs cannot sufficiently show a direct, personal injury caused by the defendant\u2019s actions. Additionally, climate change causation is global and diffuse, making it challenging for plaintiffs to link their harm to a specific company or government action and demonstrate that a court-ordered remedy would meaningfully address the injury.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political Question Doctrine<\/strong>
Some courts view wide-scale climate regulation, emission reductions, and related damages as issues that require policy choices reserved for legislative or executive branches, not judicial intervention. This doctrine precludes courts from adjudicating matters they see as inherently political in nature.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preemption by Federal Law and Removal to Federal Courts<\/strong>
Efforts by energy companies to move cases from state to federal courts\u2014where precedent is often less favorable to climate plaintiffs\u2014also contribute to the defeat of many lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the grounds for companies to fight climate lawsuits, making it easier for them to have cases dismissed at the federal level.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inadequate Legal Remedies<\/strong>
Courts can find that litigation is not the proper tool for addressing climate change, as tackling global warming requires international cooperation and extensive policy changes\u2014beyond what a court order can achieve. This challenge is reflected in rulings that climate harm is not redressable through the available legal frameworks.\u200b<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Litigation Updates from Sabin Center<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Federal Court Said Puerto Rican Municipalities\u2019 Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Industry Were Time-Barred<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court found that there was \u201coverwhelming evidence of public knowledge of articles, reports, and cases making the connection between Defendants and Plaintiffs\u2019 claims\u201d so that by September 2021, four years after the 2017 hurricanes, the plaintiffs knew or should have known both that they suffered injury and also whom to sue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maine Federal Court Remanded State\u2019s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Defendants to State Court and Granted State\u2019s Motion for Costs and Fees<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court found that the defendants failed to satisfy the requirement for federal officer removal that any action by the defendants under a federal officer\u2019s authority have a sufficient \u201cnexus\u201d to the conduct charged in Maine\u2019s complaint\u2014i.e., the defendants\u2019 acts of \u201cdeceiving consumers and the public about climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eighth Circuit Said Department of Energy Exceeded Authority with Rule Intended to Incentivize Electric Vehicle Production<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2024 final U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) rule that changed the methodology for determining the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values for electric vehicles (EVs). The rule preserved and then gradually phased out a \u201cfuel content factor\u201d that \u201cartificially inflates\u201d EVs\u2019 fuel economy to increase adoption of EVs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wisconsin Federal Court Said Environmental Review Considered Climate Consequences of Land Exchange for Completed Transmission Line<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court concluded that even though the transmission line project had been completed and placed in service in September 2024, on the merits the court rejected arguments that the exchange violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Massachusetts Federal Court Said Climate Working Group Did Not Qualify as Exception to Federal Advisory Committee Act but Found that Environmental Groups Did Not Establish Irreparable Harm Warranting Preliminary Injunction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court denied the environmental group plaintiffs\u2019 request for a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to provide them with the Climate Working Group records; the court found the plaintiffs\u2019 inability to draw on the records in comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s proposed rescission of the 2009 Clean Air Act endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions did not constitute an irreparable informational injury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charleston Elected Not to Appeal Dismissal of Climate Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

August 2025 dismissal of its lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for the harmful effects of climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Exception, a wrong and morally hazardous ruling in Montana<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Montana Trial Court Awarded Held v. State Youth Plaintiffs Attorney Fees and Costs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Montana District Court awarded the youth plaintiffs who prevailed on climate change-based Montana Constitution claims against the State of Montana and other State defendants more than $2.8 million in attorney fees and almost $100,000 in additional costs.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

See Also:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
No Right to Stable Climate in Our Holocene Epoch<\/a><\/blockquote>