While environmental policy has traditionally been implemented by lawmakers, climate change litigation is shifting the debate about sustainability to the courtroom, with courts ruling on climate lawsuits and establishing a legal foundation for environmental issues. These judicial decisions are setting strong precedents, enforcing existing laws, and forcing both governments and corporations to take significant climate action. For example, in the Urgenda Foundation case in the Netherlands, the court ordered the government to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and established a legal duty of care to protect citizens from climate change. In another example, a lawsuit challenged an agency’s failure to properly follow procedural laws, such as the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their actions.
The most recent lawsuit challenging agency actions under the National NEPA includes the case in late May 2025, whereby the US Supreme Court issued a major decision that significantly impacts the scope of lawsuits challenging agency actions under the NEPA. The lawsuit is Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County which is not only the most recent, but arguably one of the most important NEPA rulings in recent years, originating from a lawsuit challenging the US Surface Transportation Board‘s (STB) approval of a new railroad line in Utah. Environmental groups and a neighboring county argued that the STB’s environmental impact statement (EIS) was deficient because it failed to adequately analyze the upstream and downstream environmental impacts of the project, particularly the levels of increased oil drilling and refining that the railroad would enable.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 decision, sided with the agency and reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked the project, clarifying several key points that will shape future NEPA litigation:
- Substantial judicial deference: In the decision, the Court emphasized that reviewing courts must give substantial deference to an agency’s decisions regarding its NEPA review, stressing that NEPA is simply a procedural statute and courts should not micromanage an agency’s decisions about the scope and depth of its analysis.
- Limited scope of indirect effects: The ruling clarified that an agency is not required to analyze the environmental effects of separate, future projects, even if they are a predictable result of the action under review. The Court held that agencies are only obligated to consider impacts that are directly caused by the project itself and fall within the agency’s regulatory authority.
- No automatic annulment: The Court stated that even if a court finds an EIS to be deficient, that deficiency does not automatically require an annulment of the agency’s project approval, as an annulment is only warranted if there is reason to believe the NEPA violation was determinative of the agency’s final action.
This ruling is seen as a major win for developers and a limitation on the ability of project opponents to use NEPA challenges to delay or block large infrastructure projects, likely reducing the burden on agencies to conduct extensive and potentially speculative analyses of indirect impacts.
The Rise of Climate Change Lawsuits: Key Cases and Rulings
Recent judicial trends show an increasing recognition of a constitutional or human right to a healthy environment such as the US case of Held v. Montana where a state court ruled that a state law prohibiting the consideration of GHG emissions in the project permits was unconstitutional, affirming a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment for the youth plaintiffs.
In addition to these cases, other court cases include:
- Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell: A Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, including emissions from the use of its products (Scope 3 emissions). While an appeals court later overturned the specific reduction target, it affirmed that a company has a duty of care to mitigate its contribution to dangerous climate change, which has proven to be a groundbreaking finding.
- Juliana v. United States: While the case was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds, this lawsuit brought by youth plaintiffs against the US government brought attention to the legal arguments for an intergenerational public trust and a constitutional right to a stable climate system. While unsuccessful, it brought significant public attention to the issue and inspired other climate lawsuits worldwide.
- Massachusetts v. EPA: This 2007 US Supreme Court case ruled that GHG emissions are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate them. The decision was a crucial step in establishing a legal basis for federal climate regulation.
Challenges: How Courts Can Hinder Sustainability Efforts
On the other hand, courts can hinder sustainability efforts by limiting the scope of environmental laws or by ruling in favor of development projects over environmental protections. For instance, judicial review allows courts to interpret regulations narrowly or limit the authority of government agencies to enforce them. The US Supreme Court recently issued rulings that limit the EPA’s authority to regulate certain emissions and wetlands making it more difficult for agencies to implement broad, systemic environmental policies.
In addition, lawsuits can be used by opponents to delay or block sustainable development projects, such as solar or wind farms, by challenging their permits based on environmental regulations. While some of these challenges may be valid, others can be used strategically to create legal and financial hurdles, slowing the transition to clean energy.
Judicial action plays a vital role in advancing sustainability by holding governments and corporations accountable for environmental harm. Courts are increasingly becoming a forum for legal challenges that push for stricter environmental regulations, enforce existing laws, and establish new legal precedents for climate and environmental justice.
The Crucial Role of Courts in Driving Sustainability
Judicial action contributes to sustainability in several key ways:
- Enforcing environmental laws: Courts make sure through judicial review that environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, are properly implemented and enforced by government agencies. Courts can require agencies to act on their statutory duties and prevent them from undermining environmental protections, forcing compliance and preventing regulatory inaction.
- Establishing legal precedent: Landmark court cases create legal precedents that strengthen the legal basis for environmental protection. For example, some courts have recognized a constitutional or human right to a healthy environment, which can be used to hold states and companies legally accountable for actions that cause environmental harm.
- Holding governments and corporations accountable: Litigation is a powerful tool used by advocacy groups and affected communities to hold companies and governments accountable. Climate lawsuits challenge governments for failing to meet their emissions reduction targets and corporations for their contributions to climate change, which can influence policy decisions and business practices to align with sustainability goals.
- Influencing policy and public discourse: While a lawsuit may not result in a direct win, the process can generate significant public awareness and political pressure, bringing scientific evidence and ethical arguments into the public eye that highlight environmental issues and strengthen the need for climate action. This exposure can influence lawmakers and the broader public to support more ambitious sustainability initiatives.
Limitations and Legal Hurdles in Climate Litigation
Despite the growing importance, judicial action faces challenges as courts may dismiss climate cases as nonjusticiable political questions, arguing that these issues are best addressed by the legislative and executive branches. In addition, proving a direct link between a defendant’s specific actions and a plaintiff’s injury from climate change can be legally complex. However, as climate science, particularly attribution science, becomes more precise, it is strengthening the legal arguments for these cases.
Conclusion: Evolving the Role of Law in Sustainability
The legal landscape for sustainability is shifting, presenting both a powerful tool and a critical challenge for professionals in the field. As courts become increasingly pivotal in enforcing environmental law and establishing new rights, sustainability practitioners must recognize that legal risk and opportunity are now central to their work. Moving forward, effective climate strategy requires not only a deep understanding of scientific and policy goals but also a proactive engagement with legal frameworks, from anticipating litigation trends to leveraging judicial precedents. By integrating legal foresight into their strategic planning, sustainability professionals can better navigate this evolving environment and drive more impactful, legally defensible, and durable change. If your organization needs help navigating the increasingly complex legal and regulatory landscape for sustainability, please contact Canopy Edge for an initial consultation.
