People pursuing legal action over climate change are increasingly finding their cases reach the world’s highest courts, the largest analysis to date finds.
Between 2015 and 2024, 276 climate-related cases ended up in apex courts – such as supreme and constitutional courts – according to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, based at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). In a longer stretch from 1995 to the end of 2024, just over 360 cases went the distance.
In total, the institute's databases date back to 1986, during which time around 3,000 climate lawsuits have been filed. This provides the analysts with a detailed history from which to track the evolution of climate litigation and its real-world impact.
“Governments and companies are increasingly having to consider the legal ramifications of pushing ahead with oil or gas projects, as they risk being dragged through the courts,” says Catherine Higham, senior policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
“The broader impacts of climate litigation are becoming increasingly visible and well-documented. It is no longer a niche concern; it is increasingly seen as a financial risk.”
What are the key trends for climate litigation in Europe?
2024 saw new fossil fuel exploration in Europe come under increasing scrutiny by high courts, the report reveals.
There were influential supreme court rulings in the UK and Norway - Europe’s two largest oil and gas producers - with the latter suspending three North Sea oil field approvals. These cases were partly concerned with the question of whether downstream or ‘Scope 3’ emissions from fossil fuel projects should be considered by decision makers, an increasing focus worldwide.
Of the 2,967 climate cases filed worldwide by the end of 2024, 133 have been filed in the UK - the third highest after the US (well ahead with 1,899) and Australia (164).
Interestingly, the authors note, although Europe and North America are the regions with the most apex court cases, they also have comparatively lower success rates.
Germany, in particular, has seen a substantial number of unsuccessful cases. These are mostly subnational framework cases filed with the Federal Constitutional Court following the successful decision in Neubauer, et al. v. Germany, in which young climate activists argued that Germany's greenhouse gas reduction goals violated their human rights.
Subsequent complaints, brought by young climate activists against individual German states, were all dismissed in early 2022. The Court held that federal states are not independently responsible for ensuring compliance with national climate targets under the Federal Climate Change Act, and therefore, the claims did not meet the constitutional threshold for admissibility.
What are the most successful approaches?
Of the 276 climate cases reaching apex courts in the last nine years, more than 80 per cent of cases have challenged governments, reflecting a dominant trend of challenging shortcomings in national or subnational climate policies, regulatory failures or inaction.
Challenges regarding the ‘integration of climate considerations’ like Scope 3 emissions into specific projects tend to fare better, with a 44 per cent success rate, than ‘government framework’ cases about constitutional responsibilities.
Cases against corporate defendants appear to have a higher overall success rate.
The authors also found that around 20 per cent of climate cases filed in 2024 targeted companies or their directors and officers.
“Climate washing cases have remained as one of the most widely used strategies in corporate litigation in 2024”, they say, noting a growing number targeting the use of carbon credits to offset emissions.
What important principles have climate cases established?
Rights-based climate litigation has been on the rise since 2015, the report says, with a growing number of litigants invoking their fundamental rights to compel governments to act on climate change.
The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) landmark 2024 ruling in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland represents a “milestone” in this respect. It affirmed state obligations under international human rights and climate law, connected distinct legal regimes, and confirmed that NGOs can have standing in climate litigation.
One year on, national courts have begun to engage with the judgment, with mixed results.
Some cases, although unsuccessful overall, have nonetheless established important principles that can be carried forward.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamm in Germany dismissed a lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE in May 2025. But its ruling confirmed a powerful legal principle: companies can be held legally liable for the harm caused by their contribution to climate change.
Another potent ruling came from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, which in May 2024 issued an advisory opinion that states have obligations to prevent, reduce and control greenhouse gas emissions from marine sources.
‘A two-way street’: Cases against climate action are also on the rise
Though the number of cases continues to grow, the overall rate of growth in climate litigation slowed down during 2024.
And while climate litigation is getting more sophisticated, the long arm of the law is being used against activists and progressive states, too, as “political headwinds” exert their influence.
“We have seen over the past year not only a further maturing of climate-aligned strategic litigation to promote climate action but we have also recorded a rise in cases pushing back against climate action, which presents new challenges for politicians, businesses and climate activists,” says Joana Setzer, associate professorial research fellow at the LSE institute.
“The situation in the United States shows that litigation is a two-way street and can be used to help climate action and also to slow it down.”
Since President Trump took office in the US in January 2025, a wave of litigation aimed at contesting executive actions to roll back climate policy has arisen. However, the researchers note, the federal government is also taking an increasingly aggressive stance against state-led climate action and has begun filing what could be termed ‘anti-climate action' cases.
