The CEO of Rio Tinto, Jean-Sebastien Jacques, will step down following criticism of the mining giant's destruction of sacred Aboriginal sites. In May, the world's biggest iron ore miner destroyed two ancient caves in Pilbara, Western Australia. The company went ahead with blowing up the Juukan Gorge rock shelters over the protests of Aboriginal traditional owners. It has sparked widespread condemnation from shareholders and the public.

Artefacts found at the caves include a 28,000-year-old animal bone tool and a 4,000-year-old belt made of plaited human hair. DNA testing had directly linked it to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people—the traditional owners of the land. After the caves were destroyed, a PKKP representative, John Ashburton, said losing the site was a "devastating blow." (BBC News)

The District Court of The Hague began hearings against Royal Dutch Shell in a case brought by 17,379 co-plaintiffs and seven Dutch climate activist groups.

The co-plaintiffs, led by Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie), are demanding that Shell reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels, and to net-zero by 2050. They claim that Shell knowingly contributes to climate change by continuing to expand its fossil fuel operations with little to no investment in renewable energy. Invoking article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, the plaintiffs allege that Shell has breached its duty of care and unlawfully endangered the Dutch people. In addition, they allege that Shell has violated articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), namely the rights to life and respect for family life.

The case relies in part on a 2019 decision of the Netherlands Supreme Court, in which the government was ordered to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. While the court was able to enforce ECHR obligations against the State, it unclear whether the same can be done against a company. (Jurist)

The European Court of Human Rights dismissed an attempt by 33 defendant governments to challenge the accelerated status of a climate change case brought against them by six Portuguese youth activists. The activists claim that the countries signed the 2015 Paris Agreement but have failed to "comply with their commitments in order to limit climate change" after Portugal experienced its highest July temperatures in 90 years. Due to the "urgency" of the matter, the court granted the case a rare priority status in November. (Jurist)

Germany's Federal Constitutional Court held April 29 that several provisions in the country’s Federal Climate Change Act of 2019 are insufficient and violate freedoms in the Basic Law. The court described the idea of climate change having severe impacts that affect virtually all aspects of human life.

The case started in 2019 when farming families from the North Sea Island sued the government after a series of unexpected hot summers followed by rising sea levels plagued the Northern parts of Germany. The family alleged that the country’s government was failing to act on climate change. The proceedings were backed by Greenpeace and activist Greta Thunberg.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs and stated that the obligations the Federal Climate Change Act creates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030 is insufficient. The provisions also neglect to create emissions reduction responsibilities after 2030. According to the court, "one generation must not be allowed to consume large portions of the CO2 budget while bearing a relatively minor share of the reduction effort if this would involve leaving subsequent generations with a drastic reduction burden and expose their lives to comprehensive losses of freedom."

The inaction violates Article 20a of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) which provides for environmental protection for all German citizens. The court stated that legislators must enact stricter provisions to achieve climate neutrality by December 31, 2022. (Jurist)

Climate change activists have won a big legal victory against oil giant Royal Dutch Shell. A Dutch court ruled May 26 that the company must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030, based on 2019 levels. The 2030 goal affirmed by the court is more ambitious than Shell's target of becoming "a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050." Shell argues the 2050 goal is in line with the Paris climate accord. But the Hague District Court determined Shell's plans were not adequate. (NPR)

US oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron on May 26 suffered shareholder backlash from activists and institutional investors over their failure to set viable emissions reduction strategies. The New York Times writes that "analysts could not recall another time that Exxon management had lost a vote against company-picked directors."

Hedge fund activists Engine No. 1 successfully replaced two Exxon board members with its own candidates, and a vote on a third, Alexander Karsner, a senior strategist at X, is "not yet determined."

Over at Chevron, a majority of shareholders voted 61% in favor of a proposal from Dutch campaign group Follow This to force the oil giant to cut its scope 3 emissions – the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. (Electrek)

The federal court of Australia found the environment minister, Sussan Ley, has a duty of care to protect young people from the climate crisis in a judgment hailed by lawyers and teenagers who brought the case as a world first.

Eight teenagers and an octogenarian nun had sought an injunction to prevent Ley approving a proposal by Whitehaven Coal to expand the Vickery coalmine in New South Wales, arguing the minister had a common-law duty of care to protect younger people against future harm from climate change. (The Guardian)

A Montana state judge ruled Aug. 14 that a provision of state law is unconstitutional because it violates "the right to a clean and healthful environment," a fundamental right enshrined in Montana’s Constitution. The ruling is in favor of a group of youth plaintiffs who alleged that the state of Montana failed to protect them and future generations from the harmful effects of climate change. The case, Held v. Montana, is the first constitutional climate suit in US history to make it to trial.

The Montana First Judicial District Court in Helena held that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) prohibiting the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions when reviewing energy and mining projects violates the state constitution because it "categorically limits" what government actors can examine when working to protect Montana's environment. (Jurist)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled April 9 that Switzerland violated its human rights obligations by failing to adequately address the impacts of climate change, following a complaint brought by a group of elderly women activists. The case was brought by KlimaSeniorinnen (Swiss Elders for Climate Protection) , an advocacy group comprising upwards of 2,000 senior citizens, all of them women.

Two other climate cases—brought by a former French mayor, and six Portuguese youth—were found to be inadmissible, however.

The case by Portuguese youth was found to have illegitimately sought "extraterritorial jurisdiction" by naming not only Portugal but every EU member state, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and Russia.

The third case was brought by the former mayor of the French town of Grande-Synthe, Damien Careme. It charged the French government is putting his town at risk from rising sea levels through its inaction. Judges rejected the "victim status" of Careme, since he doesn't currently live in France—having moved to Brussels to take a post as a member of the European Parliament. (Jurist, EuroNews)

A Netherlands appeals court on Nov. 12 overturned a landmark 2021 ruling requiring Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 . This was a setback for the environmental advocacy group Milieudefensie, which sought legal avenues to enforce corporate climate action. (Jurist)

The Montana Supreme Court on Dec. 18 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a state law violated the youth plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment under the state constitution.

The court found that an exemption in the Montana Environmental Policy Act violated the right by "preclud[ing] an analysis of [greenhouse gas] emissions in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements." (Jurist)