Latest news with #climate litigation
France 24
9 hours ago
- Politics
- France 24
US court to decide if climate collapse is 'unconstitutional'
The case, Lighthiser v. Trump, at a Montana federal court is among the most high-profile in a new wave of US climate litigation That's the question a federal judge in Montana will weigh this September, as a group of young Americans sues the Trump administration -- arguing its aggressive fossil fuel agenda is not only accelerating climate change but violating their constitutional rights. Courts worldwide are emerging as tools for driving climate action against political inertia, with the International Court of Justice set to deliver a landmark ruling Wednesday. "It's very intimidating to think about my future," lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser told AFP during a recent protest outside Congress, where she and other youth plaintiffs were joined by Democratic lawmakers. "The climate is very unreliable, it's destabilized, and it's going to get worse -- and that is a lot to reconcile with as somebody who's just entering adulthood," said the 19-year-old from Livingston, Montana. Eva Lighthiser, 19, of Montana, the lead plaintiff in Lighthiser v. Trump, said it was 'intimidating' thinking of her future due to the climate crisis © Alex WROBLEWSKI / AFP Their case, Lighthiser v. Trump, is among the most high-profile in a new wave of US climate litigation. It hinges on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government from depriving people of fundamental rights without due process of law. Twenty-two young plaintiffs -- including several minors -- are represented by the nonprofit Our Children's Trust. They are aiming to build on two recent state-level wins. In 2023, a Montana judge sided with youth plaintiffs who argued the state's failure to consider climate impacts when issuing oil and gas permits violated their right to a clean environment. A year later in Hawaii, young activists reached a settlement to accelerate decarbonization of the transport sector. Wildfires, floods, anxiety Now, they're targeting President Donald Trump's second-term executive orders, which declared a "National Energy Emergency." Trump directed agencies to "unleash" fossil fuel production while stalling clean energy projects. The suit also alleges the administration unlawfully suppressed public access to federal climate science. Mat Dos Santos, general counsel for Our Children's Trust, told AFP the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has shown willingness to hear "right to life" cases. "We're trying to make sure that the right to life really extends to living children," they said, "and that it means you have the right to enjoy your planetary existence." In an unusual move, 19 state attorneys general led by Montana have filed to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration -- a sign of how seriously the case is being taken, said Dos Santos. "Growing up in rural Montana, there's a lot of emphasis on our natural surroundings," said Lighthiser. Smoke-choked skies, relentless floods, and her family's climate-forced relocation have shaped her short life. In an unusual move, 19 state attorneys general led by Montana have filed to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration -- a sign of how seriously the case is being taken © Alex WROBLEWSKI / AFP She plans to study environmental science and says she struggles with anxiety and depression -- common among the plaintiffs AFP interviewed. Joseph Lee, a 19-year-old student at UC San Diego, said the threat of climate disaster has made him question whether he should start a family. Raised near an oil refinery in California, he suffered severe asthma as a child. His family briefly moved to North Carolina to escape the pollution, only to face worsening flash floods. Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus environmental law professor at Vermont Law School, said the case draws on the same constitutional logic as rulings on interracial marriage, desegregation, and -- until recently -- abortion rights. But while he supports it in principle, he doubts it will succeed. Long shot Judge Dana Christensen, who will hear the case September 16–17, has issued environmentally friendly rulings before. But even if he sides with the plaintiffs, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. "I think the plaintiffs understand that's an uphill battle, certainly with the Supreme Court we have," Parenteau said. "But the point is, they need to try." Other scholars are less sympathetic. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William & Mary, dismisses such efforts as more geared toward public opinion than legal victory. Lighthiser v. Trump is "based on a very expansive and unmoored theory of what the power of federal courts is," Adler told AFP, calling it ungrounded in legal doctrine. He said more viable strategies include suing agencies over specific regulations or filing tort claims against polluters -- not sweeping constitutional challenges. "Climate change is a serious problem, and we should be doing more about it," Adler said. "But the sorts of legal strategies in court that are most viable aren't the sorts of things that are tailored for attention." © 2025 AFP
France 24
2 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action. - How has climate litigation evolved? - Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts. "When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP. These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel. Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more. Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year. And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations. Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies. "This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said. - Why have recent cases been deemed historic? - Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities. Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans. The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations. Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions. Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature. But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said. In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction. All eyes are now on the ICJ. What could be the impact? Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions. But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages. "These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions. While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight. "They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said. © 2025 AFP
