Five landmark cases
-
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
US Supreme Court
A group of US states sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for refusing to regulate greenhouse gases from new cars. By five votes to four, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases count as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, so the EPA has the power to regulate them and must give proper reasons if it chooses not to.
Why it matters: It was the first major climate ruling by the US Supreme Court and is the legal basis for federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
-
Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands
Supreme Court of the Netherlands
The Urgenda Foundation and around 900 Dutch citizens argued that their government was not doing enough to cut emissions. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the human rights to life and to private and family life (Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) required the state to cut emissions by at least 25% below 1990 levels by the end of 2020.
Why it matters: It was the first time a court ordered a government to cut its emissions on human rights grounds, and it inspired similar cases around the world.
-
Neubauer and others v. Germany
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany
Young climate activists challenged Germany’s Climate Protection Act. The court ruled that it was partly unconstitutional because it set no clear path for cutting emissions after 2030, pushing too much of the burden onto future generations and threatening their freedoms. Parliament had to amend the law, and brought forward Germany’s net zero target to 2045.
Why it matters: It established that governments must protect the rights of future generations, not just people alive today, when planning climate action.
-
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)
An association of more than 2,000 older Swiss women, who are especially vulnerable to heatwaves, argued that Switzerland’s weak climate policies breached their human rights. The court agreed, finding that Switzerland had violated the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) by failing to put adequate climate measures in place.
Why it matters: It was the European Court of Human Rights’ first climate ruling, and it applies across all 46 Council of Europe member states, including the UK.
-
Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change
International Court of Justice (advisory opinion)
At the request of the UN General Assembly, following a campaign led by Pacific island nation Vanuatu, the UN’s highest court gave its view on countries’ legal duties on climate change. The judges unanimously found that states have binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system, and that failing to meet them can be an internationally wrongful act with legal consequences.
Why it matters: It is the most authoritative statement yet that climate action is a legal duty, not just a political choice, and is expected to shape climate cases worldwide.