In 2015, a Dutch court became the first in the world to order a government to take stronger action on climate. Since then, climate litigation has evolved into a global accountability system used by private actors, civil society and individuals locally, regionally, nationally and internationally to hold governments and corporate polluters accountable.

In this episode of Climate Court Voices, Lucy Maxwell, Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, helps us understand how a surge in climate lawsuits in the past decade has forced governments to set clear rules for national climate action, influenced public opinion, and reshaped how investors and regulators perceive climate risk. She discusses key court battles and the legal building blocks they have established, how corporate climate litigation is beginning to catch up, and what cases we should look out for in 2026.

Timestamps:

(00:00) Intro

(01:38) The world's top court rules on climate

(03:21) Introducing Lucy

(04:20) The meaning of the Urgenda case

(07:15) New legal building blocks

(11:53) The rise of corporate climate litigation

(15:12) Pushback and progress in corporate litigation

(19:27) What happens when rulings are ignored?

(23:42) Where is climate litigation heading?

(25:43) Cases to look out for in 2026

In 2016, the KlimaSeniorinnen – an association of over 2,000 senior Swiss women – launched a legal challenge against their government, alleging that inadequate climate policies violated their fundamental human rights. After years of dismissals in domestic courts, the group secured a landmark victory at the European Court of Human Rights in April 2024. The ruling was unprecedented, marking the first time an international court has recognized that state climate inaction constitutes a human rights violation.

In this episode of Climate Court Voices, we sit down with Elisabeth Stern, a cultural anthropologist and board member of KlimaSeniorinnen. Elisabeth shares the group's journey from grassroots organization to legal pioneers, detailing the dismissals they faced at home and the ongoing uphill battle to ensure the Swiss government turns this historic judgment into tangible climate action.

Timestamps:

(00:00) Intro

(01:37) Who is Elisabeth Stern?

(04:27) KlimaSeniorinnen v Swiss government

(06:35) Bringing their case to Europe's top human rights court

(10:16) Court finds human rights violations

(13:15) Breaking down the verdict

(14:23) Overwhelming support abroad

(16:16) Dismissal at home

(18:15) Struggle for accountability

(21:10) Outreach efforts

(23:25) A blueprint for future climate court cases

In April 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $20 billion in grants to eight organizations tasked with financing thousands of clean energy and other climate projects across the country, especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

But that work was abruptly halted when the new Trump-appointed EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, froze the funds in February, claiming the program was riddled with waste and fraud.

In this episode of Climate Court Voices, we speak with Brooke Durham, Director of Communications for Climate United, one of the eight companies to be awarded the grant. She talks about the projects her organization had begun funding with the EPA grant and the ongoing uphill battle to unfreeze it.

Timestamps:

(00:00) Intro

(01:29) What is Climate United?

(02:47) Receiving the EPA grant

(03:48) The projects the grant would have helped finance

(05:05) The new Trump administration takes office

(06:10) EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces freeze with a video on X

(09:00) Climate United reacts to the video

(09:23) Understanding Zeldin's accusations

(11:19) Climate United sues the EPA, Zeldin and Citibank

(12:32) What the freeze meant for Climate United

(15:52) Dozens of projects in limbo

(17:28) An ongoing legal battle

(21:35) What happens when the US government wants its money back?