Climate litigation cases rose sharply after the Paris Agreement was signed, but they are now on a downward trend

The political backlash against environmental, social and governance initiatives is spurring a rise in lawsuits that aim to delay or prevent climate action, particularly in the US.

The annual overview of climate litigation trends by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment found that 60 of the 226 climate lawsuits filed globally in 2024 challenged efforts to reduce emissions. This is a 6 per cent rise compared with 2023.

These “non-climate-aligned” lawsuits often include challenging a government’s authority to impose a climate policy, targeting private companies’ climate pledges under antitrust or fiduciary duty laws, or suing climate protesters under criminal law.

These types of cases are filed by a variety of parties, including industry associations, subnational governments and groups linked to fossil fuel interests.

Non-climate-aligned lawsuits can also encompass just transition cases and “green vs green” lawsuits.

Just transition cases are usually filed by communities who believe their rights are negatively impacted by a climate or clean energy project, such as a wind farm, while “green vs green” lawsuits involve cases in which different environmental objectives, such as climate mitigation and biodiversity protection, are considered to be in opposition.

“Just transition cases demonstrate that bypassing social safeguards to fast-track transition infrastructure can backfire,” the authors say.

They expect green vs green litigation to accelerate in parallel with the rollout of renewable energy and climate adaptation infrastructure, such as flood defences.

Non-climate-aligned lawsuits are set to test how climate goals can be balanced with competing interests, and which safeguards are needed to ensure their legitimacy, says the report. This dynamic will give the courts a crucial say on whether governments and companies can act on climate and how they intend to do so, the authors add.

Trump’s comeback

The report only counts cases from 2024, but states that since the second Trump administration took office in January 2025, a wave of climate-related litigation has engulfed the US.

This includes the Trump administration filing non-climate-aligned cases against state-led climate initiatives and legal challenges by non-profits and investors challenging the president’s executive orders rescinding previously established US climate policy.

The researchers say this dynamic is expanding the variety of climate lawsuits in the US, which also includes cases targeting the federal government’s refusal to issue permits for renewable energy infrastructure and its obstruction of climate-related investments.

Indeed, the US retains its spot as the country with the highest number of climate litigation cases filed each year. Elsewhere, the growth rate of cases filed slowed in 2024. Climate litigation cases globally rose from around 120 in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, to more than 300 in 2021. But this trend appears to be reversing.

In 2024, the US recorded 164 cases of climate litigation, while only 62 lawsuits were filed in the rest of the world. According to the report, Australia, the UK and Brazil are the jurisdictions outside the US that continue to record a high number of cases.

Meanwhile, China ‘s position in terms of climate litigation is difficult to assess.

The report’s researchers estimate that, over the years, the country’s courts have handled more than 500 cases dealing with carbon market regulation, contracts related to the energy transition, and the protection of carbon sinks. However, these numbers are not included in international climate litigation databases because of a lack of available translations and resource capacity.

Given the Chinese judiciary does not operate independently from the state, its main objective is to enforce government rules and objectives, including on decarbonisation, the report points out.

“Scholars note that Chinese judges are unlikely to entertain strategic claims against state agencies compelling more ambitious climate goals or compensation claims against major emitters, but they are expected to interpret statutes and contracts in line with national targets, thereby supporting emissions reductions more indirectly,” it states.

Corporate cases

Around 20 per cent of climate cases filed in 2024 targeted companies or their directors and officers, with several sectors becoming more exposed to litigation risk. Cases include lawsuits against professional services companies for their facilitated or advised emissions, or against food and retail companies for their emissions associated with animal agriculture.

Climate litigation is increasingly becoming a recognised financial risk for companies and financial institutions due to its potential to impact strategic decision-making, such as approval processes for certain energy projects, the report says. This risk is becoming more material with the use of new databases and scientific tools that help litigants and courts navigate complex attribution and liability questions, it adds.

This has also resulted in legislative proposals to create “climate superfunds” in some US states, such as New York and Vermont. These proposals aim to make fossil fuel companies financially responsible for the harm their emissions cause on nearby communities, with any raised revenues used to recover adaptation and loss and damage costs.

“While climate liability laws are not in force and payouts are likely to be gradual, the financial risks are increasingly viewed as material for investors and financial institutions,” the report says.

Implementation awaits

Regardless of the rise of litigation opposing climate action, campaigners and regulators have also scored significant climate wins in 2024, including a first of its kind court settlement in Hawaii, regulatory agencies winning greenwashing lawsuits and a landmark ruling in front of the European Court of Human Rights.

As climate litigation continues to mature as a field, with pro and anti-climate actors taking a more prominent stance, the effectiveness of landmark wins in court will, however, depend on their final implementation, the researchers say.

(Credit By Claudia De Meulemeester