What to know about 5 key climate cases that could be decided in 2025

This year has been a momentous one for climate litigation, marked by some major wins. For example, in April, the European court of human rights ruled that Switzerland’s weak climate policies threaten its citizens’ human rights, paving the way for similar lawsuits across nearly 50 other countries. More recently, Montana’s Supreme Court backed 16 young climate activists in their lawsuit against the state for violating their right to a clean environment. 

But there were also some big losses, like Shell’s successful effort to wriggle out of a rule requiring it to significantly cut its carbon emissions. What will 2025 bring? Here are a handful of important cases that could be on the docket:

The one that could shape international climate rules  

The climate case with perhaps the largest potential impact is being weighed by the United Nations’ International Court of Justice, sometimes called the World Court. At the heart of the landmark case are two key questions: What duties do nations have to combat climate change? And what legal consequences should there be if nations betray those duties in such a way that harms the climate? The court’s opinion on those issues will not be legally binding but could shape international law and pave the way for big emitters to be sued for their role in worsening the climate crisis. 

This case was brought by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, and is the court’s largest case ever. Over a period of two weeks at the end of 2024, the 15-member panel listened to testimony from nearly 100 countries and many experts and advocacy groups arguing both for and against new international rules to hold big greenhouse gas–emitters to greater account. Many poorer countries and small islands argued that wealthy nations are responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is developing countries, which produce relatively low emissions, that are subject to the most extreme and even existential consequences. They say that the current climate change framework—namely the Paris Agreement—relies on voluntary commitments that are difficult to enforce, and that sharper, legally binding international rules are needed to address the growing threat of rising temperatures. 

Rich countries, including major polluters like the U.S., China, and Australia, argued to the contrary, insisting that existing rules suffice. The court’s advisory opinion is expected in 2025. It “has the potential to reshape international climate governance by providing clear, authoritative guidance on nations’ obligations under existing law,” said Dr. Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists.  

The one that could hurt ESG investing 

In Texas v. Blackrock, Inc., some of the largest money managers in the world are being sued by 11 Republican-led states for allegedly conspiring to cut global coal production and promote a “politicized environmental agenda.” The lawsuit, filed in November, targets investment firms BlackRock, State Street Corporation, and Vanguard Group, and is spearheaded by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who said the companies “formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices,” all in an effort to further carbon emission goals. 

Really, the case is aimed at so-called ESG investment strategies. All three groups have participated in initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hit net zero by 2050. Conservatives have labeled such efforts “woke capitalism” and waged war, using antitrust laws as their weapon of choice. The case is being overseen by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is full of judges appointed by Donald Trump and seen as an “ultra-conservative powerhouse.” The outcome could shape how money is managed and the future of climate-conscious investing. 

The one that could cost a leading energy provider a lot of money

The small North Carolina town of Carrboro is taking on Duke Energy, suing the utility for allegedly hiding the climate dangers associated with burning fossil fuels from policymakers and the public. “Duke’s deception campaign has delayed the critical transition away from fossil fuels and thereby materially worsened the climate crisis,” the suit says. Town of Carrboro v. Duke Energy Corp is interesting because it targets a utility instead of an oil company, as the pressure mounts for utility companies to lead in the energy transition. 

Carrboro isn’t aiming to limit Duke’s emissions (though that would be nice, too: According to the Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index, Duke ranks third on the list of biggest-emitting companies in America), but to “hold the company responsible.” It wants compensation to help pay for damages caused by climate change, such as infrastructure repairs and improvements to make the city more habitable and resilient in the face of extreme weather. Just how much Duke would owe isn’t clear, but “we know that the town could incur up to $60 million in damages in the coming years,” said Carrboro Mayor Barbara Foushee. Lawsuits resting on similar claims have been growing since 2017, but none of them have yet gone to trial.  

The one that could make it easier for environmentally disastrous infrastructure to get approval

The Supreme Court has been hearing arguments about whether a proposed 88-mile railroad line in Utah can go ahead despite its potential environmental impacts. This particular train line would transport large amounts of oil to the Gulf Coast, but its construction has been on hold since a court of appeals basically said regulators hadn’t taken into consideration the project’s upstream or downstream climate and environmental impacts from increased rail traffic—things like potential oil spills, derailments, and wildfires.

Under the long-standing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies must carry out environmental assessments for infrastructure projects such as these, but SCOTUS may decide that only the direct environmental impacts of the project itself—in this case, things like land use and water quality— should be taken into consideration for a project’s approval. Such a ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado would “rein in the reach of environmental impact statements, an outcome that would be welcomed by developers but condemned by environmentalists,” as David G. Savage reported for the Los Angeles Times.  

The one that could put California’s clean air standards in the crosshairs

The Supreme Court will examine whether business groups (ahem, fossil fuel companies) can challenge a waiver program that allows California to set its own rules on vehicle emissions. The waiver, granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, has allowed the state to set tailpipe rules that are more stringent than those imposed by the federal government, resulting in better air quality. About a dozen other states also adhere to California’s standards, as do a handful of large auto manufacturers, making the waiver a powerful tool in reining in harmful pollution and nudging car companies to shift toward EVs. Fossil fuel industry groups argue the rules have caused them injury, and the waiver should be revoked. But in this particular case, SCOTUS will only decide whether these groups even have the legal standing to challenge the waiver. Either way, President-elect Trump has vowed to get rid of it.