News & Announcements

We're Hiring a Negative Emissions Fellow

Featured Publications

New on the Climate Law Blog

• KlimaSeniorinnen and Gender, by Dina Lupin, Maria Antonia Tigre, and Natalie Urzola, May 9, 2024
• KlimaSeniorinnen and the Question(s) of Causation, by Vladislava Stoyanova, May 7, 2024
• Separation of Powers and KlimaSeniorinnen, by Charlotte E. Blattner, April 30, 2024
• The European Court of Human Rights’ April 9 Climate Rulings and the Future (Thereof), by Antoine De Spiegeleir and Anais Brucher, April 29, 2024
• The Paris Effect: Human Rights in Light of International Climate Goals and Commitments, by Jannika Jahn, April 26, 2024
• The European Court of Human Rights’ Kick into Touch: Some Comments under Carême v. France, by Marta Torre-Schaub, April 19, 2024
• KlimaSeniorinnen and the Choice Between Imperfect Options, by Johannes Reich, April 18, 2024
• Mixed Signals for Domestic Climate Law: The Climate Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, by Patrick Abel, April 17, 2024
• On the Duarte Agostinho Decision, by Corina Heri, April 16, 2024
• The ECtHR’s Klimaseniorinnen Judgment: The Meaning of Carbon Budget within a Wide Margin of Appreciation, by Chris Hilson, April 11, 2024
• Historic and Unprecedented: The ECtHR Upholds Positive Human Rights Obligations to Mitigate Climate Change, by Sandra Arntz and Jasper Krommendijk, April 10, 2024
• The Transformation of European Climate Change Litigation: Introduction to the Blog Symposium, by Maria Antonia Tigre and Maxim Bönnemann, April 9, 2024

• The European Commission’s industrial carbon management strategy: ambitious and risky plans to achieve net-zero, by Lena Kannenberg, May 8, 2024
• The Critical Role of Lawyers and Bar Associations in Achieving Net Zero, by John C. Dernbach, May 8, 2024
• To Protect New Fossil Fuel Waste Rule, BLM Cuts 95% of its Climate Benefits, by Martin Lockman, April 25, 2024
• Vincent Nolette joins the Sabin Center as Equitable Cities Climate Law Fellow, by Tiffany Challe, April 23, 2024
• The End of the Beginning for US Green Banks, by Ilmi Granoff, April 12, 2024

Updates to the Climate Case Charts

D.C. Circuit Upheld EPA’s Reinstatement of Federal Preemption Waiver for California Vehicle Standards
 
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2022 reinstatement of the 2013 waiver under the Clean Air Act of federal preemption for California’s Advanced Clean Car Program regulations. The California regulations included greenhouse gas emissions requirements for automobiles for Model Years 2017 to 2025 and a requirement that around 15% of manufacturers’ fleets be zero-emissions vehicles by Model Year 2025. The D.C. Circuit found that neither state petitioners nor fuel petitioners (entities and trade associations involved in the production or sale of liquid fuels) had standing for statutory claims because they failed to allege that a favorable decision would redress their alleged economic injuries. The court said there was no basis to conclude that third-party automobile manufacturers “would, in fact, change course with respect to the relevant model years” if the court vacated the waiver. The D.C. Circuit therefore did not consider the merits of the fuel petitioners’ argument that California’s regulations did not meet the Clean Air Act’s criteria for a waiver of preemption or the merits of the state petitioners’ argument that the waiver was contrary to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s preemption of state fuel economy standards. The D.C. Circuit found that the state petitioners did have standing for their constitutional claim that the waiver provision of the Clean Air Act violated the “equal sovereignty principle.” The court, however, rejected this claim on the merits, concluding that the principle did not extend to laws enacted under Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Ohio v. EPA, No. 22-1081 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 9, 2024)

Delaware Supreme Court Denied State’s Request for Interlocutory Review of Decision Limiting Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Industry Defendants
 
The Delaware Supreme Court denied the State of Delaware’s application for interlocutory review of a trial court decision that narrowed the scope of claims the State could bring against fossil fuel industry defendants to hold them liable for damages resulting from climate change. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that interlocutory review was not warranted. The Supreme Court concluded that no “[e]xceptional circumstances” existed; that the potential benefits of interlocutory review did not outweigh the “inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs” of interlocutory appeal; and that interlocutory review “would further complicate and delay an already complex litigation.” State v. BP America Inc., No. 54, 2024 (Del. May 8, 2024)

India: Supreme Court Declared Constitutional Right Against Adverse Effects of Climate Change
 
The present case is a writ Petition filed to the Supreme Court of India, invoking its jurisdiction and issuing the necessary order to protect two endangered birds, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican. This petition was in reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated April 19, 2021 wherein the Supreme Court had ordered that a large part of the territory not be used for overhead transmission lines, gave instructions to convert to underground power lines within a year and appointed a committee to determine whether laying high voltage underground power lines would be feasible. The Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (‘MNRE’) requested a modification of the judgment on the grounds that its implementation would cause adverse implications for the power sector and India’s international commitment for energy transition and fulfillment of promise under the Paris Agreement. In the present case, the Apex Court had to decide two major issues, i.e., modification of the directions issued under the judgment from April 19, 2019 and balance the preservation of Great Indian Bustard and India’s commitment to control climate change through promoting a just transition [shifting from energy from fossil fuels to renewable energy]. The Apex Court reviewed the factors causing threats to the Great Indian Bustards, the actions taken by the Government of India, specifically the programme “Habitat Improvement and Conservation breeding of Great Indian Bustard” launched in 2016 and other measures. The Court also discussed the impacts of the changing climate and India’s commitments and efforts to control it. It was observed that the promotion of renewable energy sources is crucial for promoting social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy for all segments of society and thus fostering inclusive growth and development across the nation. The Court emphasized the State’s duty under Article 48 A and the fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51 A of the constitution of India as constitutional commitments to ensure the protection of the natural world and compassion for living creatures. Relating these duties to Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution, the Court declared that the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change has its source in Article 21, which recognizes the right to life and personal liberty and Article 14, which indicates equality before law and equal protection of law. Thus, justifying the actions of the State, the court dealt with intersections between climate change and human rights as well as a novel issue of intricate interface between the conservation of an endangered species, such as the Great Indian Bustard, and the imperative of protecting against climate change. (Mk Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors., Supreme Court, India)