The first lawsuit challenges an executive order that revokes former president Joe Biden's withdrawal of vulnerable ocean areas from future oil and gas leasing.
The second lawsuit seeks to reinstate a federal court ruling that previously invalidated efforts by Donald Trump's first government to overturn offshore protections established by former president Barack Obama.
Trump has moved to open much of the Arctic Ocean to drilling by reviving his first-term order.
Late in his term, Biden protected areas off the Eastern Gulf, as well as the Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska coasts, invoking the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
But environmental groups argue that the law does not grant the president authority to revoke withdrawals made by previous presidents. They cite a federal court ruling from Trump's first term when he attempted to undo Obama-era protections.
"We defeated Trump the first time he tried to roll back protections and sacrifice more of our waters to the oil industry. We're bringing this abuse of the law to the courts again," said Earthjustice managing attorney for oceans Steve Mashuda.
"Trump is illegally trying to take away protections vital to coastal communities that rely on clean, healthy oceans for safe living conditions, thriving economies, and stable ecosystems."
Oceana campaign director Joseph Gordon added: "President Trump's executive order would roll back millions of acres of ocean protection, jeopardizing our coastal economies and the people who rely on healthy, thriving oceans."
On his first day back in office, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the Paris climate accord for a second time, declared a "national energy emergency" to expand drilling, and signed executive orders to slow the transition to electric vehicles and halt offshore wind farm projects.
Sweden's Supreme Court throws out Thunberg climate lawsuit
Stockholm (AFP) Feb 19, 2025 -
Sweden's Supreme Court threw out a class action lawsuit Wednesday brought against the state by 300 young people, including climate activist Greta Thunberg, accusing it of climate inaction.
The first of its kind in the Scandinavian country, the case demanded that Sweden take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to within the limits of what is "technically and economically feasible".
"The Supreme Court has now concluded that the case cannot be taken up for review," it said in a statement.
"This is because a court cannot decide that the Riksdag (parliament) or the government has to take any particular action.
"The political bodies decide independently which specific climate measures Sweden should take," it added.
However, the Supreme Court said it did not rule out that a climate case could be tried by the courts if it were "designed differently" -- highlighting that it was filed by a group of individuals rather than an association.
"The European Court of Human Rights has recently ruled in a judgment that an association that meets certain requirements may have the right to bring a climate lawsuit."
While a group named Aurora is behind the Swedish lawsuit, it was filed in the name of one individual, with some 300 other people joining it, according to the Supreme Court.
The court noted there are "very high requirements for individuals to have the right to bring such a claim" against a state.
"It is a fundamental principle to not allow a lawsuit by individuals with the aim of protecting public interests, and climate change affects everyone."
However, if the lawsuit were instead filed by an association, "which meets certain requirements regarding, among other things, representativeness and suitability, these high requirements are not applied."
- 'Continue fighting' -
The Supreme Court said it had not addressed how the issue would be assessed if the lawsuit had been brought by an association and if it were limited to the question of whether the state violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, Jonas Malmberg, one of the judges in the case, said in a statement.
An Aurora spokeswoman, Ida Edling, said the group would now consider its options.
"Aurora will definitely continue fighting to prevent planetary collapses and to hold the Swedish state accountable for their illegal fueling of the climate crisis," Edling told AFP.
However, "the exact legal route that that will take is not decided yet".
In a landmark April 2024 decision, Europe's top rights court, the European Court of Human Rights, ruled that Switzerland was not doing enough to tackle climate change, the first country ever to be condemned by an international tribunal for not taking sufficient action to curb global warming.
In December 2019, the Dutch supreme court ordered the government to slash greenhouse gases by at least 25 percent by 2020 in another landmark case brought by an environmental group.
Related Links
Our Polluted World and Cleaning It Up
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
