Global climate action is at stake in the UN top court's biggest ever decision
After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in 2023 for an advisory opinion, a non-binding but important basis for international obligations.
A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions. First, what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment?
'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December.
In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press.
Any decision by The Hague-based court would be non-binding advice and unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits.
'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP.
Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said.
The United States and Russia, both of which are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions.
Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.
In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Rubio praises Pak's ‘partnership in countering terrorism' after meeting Ishaq Dar
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, in Washington on Friday. The two leaders held wide-ranging talks on strengthening bilateral ties, trade cooperation, and regional to X, Rubio said he thanked Dar for 'Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional stability.' The leaders also discussed ways to expand bilateral trade and deepen collaboration in the critical minerals and mining with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister @MIshaqDar50 today to discuss expanding bilateral trade and enhancing collaboration in the critical minerals sector. I also thanked him for Pakistan's partnership in countering terrorism and preserving regional Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) July 25, 2025advertisementAccording to US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, Secretary Rubio expressed appreciation for 'Pakistan's continued willingness to play a constructive role in mediating conversations with Iran and its commitment to preserving regional stability.' The two sides also discussed plans for the upcoming US-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue set to be held in Islamabad this August. The talks included enhancing cooperation against terror groups such as ISIS-K, as both nations seek to broaden counterterrorism efforts in the Rubio stressed the importance of 'expanding mutually beneficial bilateral trade' and exploring future opportunities for joint work in the minerals sector, an area gaining strategic significance amid growing global demand for critical to Arab News, Ishaq Dar is on an eight-day visit to the US, during which he chaired multiple United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meetings as part of Pakistan's rotating presidency this meeting comes just days after Rubio announced that the United States would designate The Resistance Front (TRF), a front for the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as both a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).TRF had claimed responsibility for the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 people.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Donald Trump vs U.S. Supreme Court - Full list of cases involving President before top court
Live Events Who is President of USA? President of USA is Donald Trump. When did Donald Trump take over as the US President? Donald Trump took over as the US President in January, 2025 (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The U.S. Supreme Court has acted in a series of cases involving challenges to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump and actions by his administration since he returned to office in January. These cases have involved his move to restrict automatic birthright citizenship, deportations, protected status for certain migrants, a transgender military ban, firings of federal workers and certain agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, payments to foreign aid organizations and access to Social Security is a look at these CITIZENSHIP The justices on June 27 curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies in a ruling in the legal fight over Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The ruling did not let Trump's birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the order's legality. The decision granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out."No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.'THIRD COUNTRY' DEPORTATIONS The court on June 23 cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. The court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18, finding that the administration's policy likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Immigrant rights groups had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants challenging the SUDAN DEPORTATIONS The court on July 3 lifted limits Murphy had imposed to protect eight men who the administration sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan as part of its policy of deportations to "third countries." The court granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision on the matter also extended to the judge's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South IMMIGRATION 'PAROLE' The court on May 30 let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays parole is a form of temporary permission under U.S. law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal."PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS The court on May 19 allowed the administration to end temporary protected status that was granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States by Biden. It granted a Justice Department request to lift U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's order that had halted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's decision to terminate deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the temporary protected status, or TPS, program while the administration pursues an appeal. The program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work had ruled that Noem violated a federal law that governs the actions of federal agencies. The judge also said the administration's portrayal of the whole Venezuelan TPS population as criminals was "baseless and smacks of racism."DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now. The action came after the court ordered on April 19 a temporary stop to the administration's deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention center in Texas. The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law's use for this purpose is being contested. The administration has described the Venezuelans as members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Family members and lawyers for the migrants have disputed this DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN The court on April 10 directed the administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the U.S. government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador. The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens. Abrego had challenged the legality of his deportation. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego has pleaded not was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and questioned about alleged affiliation with the criminal gang MS-13, which the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. His lawyers have denied the alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on March 15 on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador that also included Venezuelan MILITARY BAN The court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, letting the armed forces discharge thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. The court granted the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle's nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump's had found that Trump's order likely violates the Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Justice Department had said Settle usurped the authority of the government's branch of government - headed by Trump - to determine who may serve in the military. In the case before Settle, seven active-duty transgender troops, a transgender man seeking to enlist and a civil rights advocacy group sued over the FEDERAL LAYOFFS The justices on July 8 cleared the way for the administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies. At the administration's request, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONERS The court on July 23 let Trump remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. It lifted U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka the Supreme Court indicated that the administration was likely to show that the president is empowered by the Constitution to remove members of the commission. In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the decision "all but overturned" a 1935 Supreme Court precedent ensuring job protections for certain agency BOARD OFFICIALS The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds. The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire. Both were appointed to their posts by firings were part of Trump's efforts to bring under his sway federal agencies meant by Congress to be independent from presidential control. The May 22 decision also addressed fears voiced by critics that allowing the firings of Wilcox and Harris would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. "We disagree," the court stated, calling the Fed "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity."FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees. The court put on hold U.S. Judge William Alsup's March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues. Alsup's ruling had applied to probationary employees at the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury. Probationary workers typically have less than a year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees serving in new DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING The court on July 14 cleared the way for the administration to dismantle the Department of Education, part of Trump's bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states. The justices lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 department workers affected by mass layoffs and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out. The department was created by a law passed by Congress in RESEARCH GRANTS The administration asked the court on July 24 to allow the government to proceed with sweeping cuts to U.S. National Institutes of Health grants as part of Trump's crackdown on diversity initiatives. It asked the justices to lift U.S. District Judge William Young's June ruling that halted the plan as a violation of federal law and required the government to reinstate access to the grant funds. Young acted in a legal challenge by researchers and 16 U.S. states, led by Democratic-governed Massachusetts. The NIH is the world's largest funder of biomedical TRAINING GRANTS The justices on April 4 let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants - part of his crackdown on diversity initiatives. The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's March 10 order requiring the Department of Education to reinstate in eight Democratic-led states funding for grants under two teacher training programs while a legal challenge by the states states sued after the department announced that it had cut $600 million in teacher training funds that were promoting what it called "divisive ideologies" including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. The grant programs were established to help support institutions that recruit and train educators in a bid to address critical teacher shortages, especially in rural and underserved SECURITY DATA The court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems. At the Justice Department's request, the justices put on hold U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE had been spearheaded by Elon Musk before the billionaire left the government and had a falling out with Trump. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE members from accessing some of the Social Security Administration's most sensitive data TRANSPARENCY The justices on June 6 extended their block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog advocacy group that sought details on its operations. The court on May 23 had issued a temporary pause. The justices put on hold U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information. Cooper had concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The administration contends DOGE is an advisory entity not subject to TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS The court on March 5 declined to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world. The court upheld U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's order that had called on the administration to promptly release funding to contractors and recipients of grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for their past organizations accused Trump in lawsuits of exceeding his authority under federal law and the U.S. Constitution by effectively dismantling an independent federal agency in USAID and canceling spending authorized by WATCHDOG AGENCY HEAD The court on February 21 declined to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge's order had temporarily blocked the ouster. The court postponed action on the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 12 order that had temporarily blocked Trump's removal of Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger on March 6 ended his legal challenge to his firing after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed Trump's action to stand. The independent agency protects government whistleblowers.
