Swedish Supreme Court: Activists can't sue over climate action
Sweden's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Greta Thunberg and hundreds of other young activists cannot sue the state in a Swedish court over what they say is insufficient action against climate change.
Activists filed a class action lawsuit in 2022 with a district court claiming the state violates their rights as laid out in the European Convention on Human Rights by not doing enough to limit climate change, nor to mitigate its effects.
The district court in 2023 asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether a lawsuit of this kind can effectively be tried in a Swedish court, after the state requested the case be dismissed.
"A court cannot decide that the Riksdag or the government must take any specific action. The political bodies decide independently on which specific climate measures Sweden should take," the Supreme Court said in a statement on Wednesday.
The currently around 300 plaintiffs, which call themselves the Aurora group, wanted the district court to order Sweden to do more to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in bid to curb birthright citizenship
Donald Trump took the fight over his attempt to restrict automatic U.S. birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court on Thursday as the Republican president's administration asked the justices to narrow a judicial block imposed on this key element of his hardline approach toward immigration. The Justice Department made the request challenging the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against Trump's order by federal courts in Washington state, Massachusetts and Maryland. The administration said the injunctions should be scaled back from applying universally and limited to just the plaintiffs that brought the cases and are "actually within the courts' power." "Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration," the Justice Department said in the filing. "This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched." Trump's order, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, 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. The order was intended to apply starting Feb. 19 but has been blocked nationwide by multiple federal judges. Trump's action has drawn a series of lawsuits from plaintiffs, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates and expectant mothers. They argue among other things that Trump's order violates a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Its request to the justices marks its latest trip to the top U.S. judicial body to defend Trump's actions. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. Trump's push to restrict birthright citizenship is part of a broader immigration and border crackdown that includes tasking the U.S. military with aiding border security and issuing a broad ban on asylum. The judges who ruled against Trump's order faulted it as conflicting with the Constitution. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to noncitizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's Justice Department has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States."
Voice of America
12-03-2025
- Voice of America
US sanctions Sweden-based gang with links to Iran
The United States on Wednesday announced sanctions against the Foxtrot Network, a Sweden-based gang accused of carrying out attacks against Israeli interests in Europe on behalf of Iran. Describing Foxtrot as one of Sweden's "most notorious criminal gangs," the U.S. Treasury and State Departments also placed sanctions on its leader Rawa Majid, with both agencies saying in statements that he had "specifically cooperated with the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security." "Iran's brazen use of transnational criminal organizations and narcotics traffickers underscores the regime's attempts to achieve its aims through any means, with no regard for the cost to communities across Europe," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. The sanctions, which usually include asset freezes and U.S. entry bans, were issued in line with President Donald Trump's reinstated "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, the agencies said. Sweden's Sapo intelligence service announced last May that it believed Iran had recruited Swedish criminal gang members as proxies to commit "acts of violence" against Israeli and other interests in Sweden. That announcement came weeks after nighttime gunfire was reported outside Israel's embassy in Stockholm, and three months after police found a live grenade lying on the grounds of the Israeli compound. At the time, Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported that both Majid's Foxtrot and arch-rival gang Rumba had been recruited by the Iranian regime, citing documents from Israel's intelligence agency Mossad. DN said the Mossad documents showed Majid — a Swedish-Turkish dual national nicknamed the "Kurdish Fox" — had been arrested in Iran and ordered to cooperate with the Iranian regime or go to jail. Later, in October, the embassy was hit by gunfire, while the day after two explosions occurred near the Israeli embassy in Copenhagen. Swedish nationals have been arrested over the suspected grenade attack, according to Danish police. The attacks in Europe last year occurred as tensions soared between Iran and Israel over the devastating war in Gaza. But Sweden has struggled to contain surging gang violence in recent years, with shootings and bombings frequently occurring across the country.
Voice of America
10-03-2025
- Voice of America
Supreme Court will take up state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children, in Colorado case
The Supreme Court agreed Monday in a case from Colorado to decide whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children. The conservative-led court is taking up the case amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender people, including a ban on military service and an end to federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The justices also have heard arguments in a Tennessee case over whether state bans on treating transgender minors violate the Constitution. But they have yet to issue a decision. Colorado is among roughly half the states that prohibit the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The issue is whether the law violates the speech rights of counselors. Defenders of such laws argue that they regulate the conduct of professionals who are licensed by the state. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the state law. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down local bans in Florida. In 2023, the court had turned away a similar challenge, despite a split among federal appeals courts that had weighed state bans and come to differing decisions. At the time, three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, said they would have taken on the issue. It takes four justices to grant review. The nine-member court does not typically reveal how justices vote at this stage of a case so it's unclear who might have provided the fourth vote. The case will be argued in the court's new term, which begins in October. The appeal on behalf of Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years in cases involving high-profile social issues. One of those cases was a 5-4 decision in 2018 in which the justices ruled that California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles' lawyers leaned heavily on that decision in asking the court to take up her case. They wrote that Chiles doesn't "seek to 'cure' clients of same-sex attractions or to 'change' clients' sexual orientation." In arguing for the court to reject the appeal, lawyers for Colorado wrote that lawmakers acted to regulate professional conduct, "based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective."
