Sweden’s Supreme Court rejects Greta Thunberg’s climate lawsuit, raising questions about legal avenues for activism

In a decision that could reshape climate activism in Sweden, the country’s Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit led by Greta Thunberg and hundreds of fellow activists demanding stronger state action on climate change. The ruling, issued Wednesday, marks a significant moment in the global push to use legal systems as tools for environmental advocacy.

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2022, was a class-action case arguing that Sweden was violating rights established under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to take sufficient measures to curb climate change. The activists, known as the Aurora group, sought a court mandate requiring Sweden to intensify its efforts to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.

However, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled that such a case could not proceed in its current form, siding with the state’s argument that courts do not have the authority to dictate specific climate policies. “A court cannot decide that the parliament or the government must take any specific action. The political bodies decide independently on which specific climate measures Sweden should take,” the court stated.

While dismissing this lawsuit, the Supreme Court left a narrow path open for future legal challenges. It acknowledged that a case focusing solely on whether Sweden had violated individuals’ rights under the convention—without demanding specific policy actions—could potentially be heard. This nuanced decision suggests that activists may need to refine their legal approach to find success in Swedish courts.

The ruling comes in the wake of a landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2023, which found the Swiss government in violation of its citizens’ rights due to insufficient climate action. That case, brought by a group of older Swiss women, demonstrated that legal avenues for climate accountability do exist within Europe.

However, the ECHR has also rejected climate lawsuits, such as the case filed by six Portuguese youths against 32 European countries. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not first exhausted legal options in their home country. These mixed outcomes highlight the complexities of using legal systems to push for climate action on a broad scale.

The 300 activists behind the lawsuit, including Thunberg, have vowed to continue their fight. While disappointed by the ruling, they see it as a learning opportunity. “This is not the end. We will explore new legal strategies and continue to hold Sweden accountable for its climate commitments,” the Aurora group stated in a press release following the decision.

Activists may now consider refiling their case with a more focused legal argument, emphasizing human rights violations rather than demanding specific government actions. Additionally, they could pursue other avenues, such as lobbying for legislative changes or appealing to international human rights bodies.

Globally, climate lawsuits are becoming an increasingly popular tool for activists seeking to pressure governments and corporations into taking action. Cases in Germany, the Netherlands, and France have seen courts rule in favor of stronger climate policies. The Swedish ruling adds to the ongoing debate over how far courts can—and should—go in enforcing climate commitments.

As legal battles over climate responsibility continue to unfold, Sweden’s Supreme Court decision underscores the challenges activists face in compelling governments to act through judicial means. Whether through revised lawsuits, political pressure, or international advocacy, Thunberg and her peers are unlikely to retreat from their mission.

The legal fight for climate justice is far from over, and this ruling may serve as both a setback and a stepping stone for future legal and political strategies in the fight against global warming.