As the days grow shorter and I prepare for the holiday season, it’s a fitting moment to reflect on the state of climate litigation—a field that continues to evolve as both a tool for accountability and an arena for climate action. In the past year, we’ve seen significant victories that inspire hope, like the Swiss KlimaSeniorinnen case, which called for an improved government climate action plan; Held v. Montana, where young plaintiffs won the first U.S. trial court ruling affirming a constitutional right to a safe climate; and in Hawaii, which settled a landmark transportation-related case that will fund critical efforts to decarbonize its transit system. These victories illustrate the power of courts to advance meaningful progress in climate governance and highlight the growing importance of science and scientists in providing the evidence needed to inform these legal decisions.
Yet, progress often feels frustratingly slow. In the U.S., cases challenging fossil fuel companies for decades of climate disinformation remain stalled, tied up by the defendants in procedural wrangling that prevents them from being heard on their merits, delaying justice for affected communities. It’s a familiar frustration: will 2025 finally be the year these cases move forward?
While I’ve learned not to make bold predictions on this front, I remain cautiously optimistic. In fact, last week the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in on this with two key Supreme Court briefs supporting state-level climate lawsuits. In both cases, the DOJ sided with local governments, arguing that their claims against fossil fuel companies for misleading the public about climate harms should proceed under state law. These briefs underscore a clear federal stance on the importance of preserving state-level legal avenues to address deceptive practices.
Although US Courts in the U.S. have made progress in hearing other types of climate-related cases, the lack of substantive rulings in disinformation lawsuits is a glaring gap.
Similarly, even cases that appear to be securing meaningful outcomes often face uncertainties. In the Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell case, for instance, the Dutch courts upheld the ruling that Shell must act to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. However, the appeal process revealed uncertainties about the precise scale and timing of these reductions, exposing challenges of translating scientific evidence into clear legal mandates.
This tension—between exciting breakthroughs and persistent delays—underscores the complexity of litigation’s role in climate governance. Courts are emerging as critical players in climate action, especially as a lack of political will and obstruction by fossil fuel interests continue to impede bold outcomes and accountability in international processes like the COP negotiations. I previously wrote about expectations for the incoming Trump presidency, positioning courts as an essential backstop for accountability in the U.S. in the absence of federal leadership.
The ability of courts to enforce obligations, act on science, and elevate human testimony has never been more crucial. With this in mind, here are three key developments that I believe will shape climate litigation in 2025.
International Courts Grapple with Climate Change Action
2025 will undoubtedly be defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its advisory opinion on states’ obligations to combat climate change. The ICJ hearings, which wrapped last Friday, drew unprecedented global engagement, with a historic number of countries and organizations submitting arguments. These comments repeated an often-shared plea for justice, sustainability, and progress, emphasizing the need for international cooperation rooted in sound science and human rights.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion has the potential to set a new benchmark for climate accountability. While not legally binding, such opinions hold significant moral and legal influence. They can guide future litigation, encourage governments to align their policies with scientific imperatives, and clarify the responsibilities of states under international law to protect vulnerable populations from climate harms.
This moment at the ICJ builds on a growing trend of international courts stepping into the climate governance arena. In 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a landmark advisory opinion affirming that greenhouse gas emissions constitute marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ITLOS went further, clarifying the obligations of states to prevent, reduce, and control emissions, protect marine ecosystems, and collaborate internationally to address climate-related ocean impacts. While the ruling didn’t impose specific measures, it established UNCLOS as a legal framework for climate accountability that complements other treaties like the Paris Agreement and provides a pathway for legal action.
Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) held hearings on climate change and human rights earlier this year, with a focus on the Americas. Submissions from states, NGOs, and individuals emphasized the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable populations, the need for regional cooperation, and corporate accountability. The IACHR’s forthcoming ruling could further solidify the link between climate action and human rights, providing another layer of legal precedent for addressing the climate crisis.
Together, these international judicial interventions highlight a growing recognition of the courts as key arbiters in the fight against climate change. When diplomatic negotiations falter, judicial action serves as a complementary pathway, providing a critical counterbalance, grounded in evidence and accountability.
A Surge in Greenwashing Litigation
Another defining feature of 2025 will be the continued rise of greenwashing lawsuits. These cases, which challenge companies for making deceptive claims about their climate commitments or sustainability efforts, are becoming a cornerstone of climate litigation. Over 140 such cases have been filed globally since 2016, with 47 new filings in 2023 alone.
Climate-washing lawsuits are particularly potent because they expose and disrupt the narratives corporations use to greenwash and bolster their reputations while continuing to contribute to the climate crisis. Recent cases have targeted sectors ranging from finance to consumer goods, and the scope is expanding. Courts have ruled against companies for overstating their “net zero” pledges, misleading consumers about the environmental impact of products, and greenwashing their financial products.
As governments introduce stricter regulations on corporate sustainability claims and public awareness of greenwashing grows, this area of litigation is poised for significant expansion. Beyond penalizing false claims, these lawsuits send a clear message: corporations must back their promises with real, measurable action.
Post-Disaster and Failure-to-Adapt Cases Gain Ground
The growing prevalence of climate-related disasters—wildfires, hurricanes, floods—continues to drive litigation targeting both public and private entities. In 2024, lawsuits were increasingly filed in response to catastrophic events, including the Maui wildfires, which devastated communities and underscored systemic vulnerabilities.
Similarly, earlier this month, the town of Carrboro, North Carolina, file a complaint against Duke Energy, alleging that the utility’s failure to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy has contributed to intensified weather events, such as flooding and storms, causing significant harm to local infrastructure and residents. These cases focus on holding governments and corporations accountable for failing to adapt to foreseeable climate risks or mitigate their impacts.
As courts wrestle with these issues, they are shaping a new era of accountability. Post-disaster cases bring the abstract reality of climate change into sharp relief, translating emissions data into the lived experiences of communities harmed. In 2025, we can expect to see more cases that address the human cost of climate inaction while pushing for systemic change.
The Critical Role of Courts
Courts have the ability to enforce accountability in ways that are direct, timely, and rooted in evidence. However, the power of courts to affect change depends on the conditions we create for them to act. This includes fostering robust scientific research, empowering communities to bring cases, and ensuring that legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of climate litigation. Efforts to integrate science more effectively into legal arguments, help judges accurately interpret technical evidence, and improve access to justice for climate-vulnerable populations are all critical to building a resilient legal framework. Reach out to get involved in our expert working groups and engage in this work with us.
The ICJ’s deliberations, the rise of climate-washing cases, and the focus on disaster liability all point to the transformative potential of litigation to address the climate crisis. But these legal battles are just one piece of the puzzle. They must be complemented by bold policy action, international cooperation, and a collective commitment to protecting future generations.
2025 holds immense promise, but it also demands care, creativity, and persistence. While we are facing great challenges in the U.S. and around the world, courts have shown they can play a transformative role in shaping our collective response to climate change. As we look to the year ahead, let us renew our resolve to leverage every available tool—legal, scientific, and political—to combat the greatest challenge of our time. Together, we can create the conditions for a more just, sustainable future.