American Youth Climate Litigants Take the International Stage as U.S. Litigation Continues
On March 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Juliana v. United States (Case No. 24-645), essentially ending this youth climate case—at least in federal court in the United States. But on September 23, 2025, 15 of the very same individuals filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ("IACHR").
The IACHR is a principal and autonomous organ of the Organization of American States ("OAS"), an international organization that was founded in 1948 to facilitate cooperation and political discussion among States in the Western Hemisphere and whose membership includes every state in the Americas except for Cuba and Nicaragua. The IACHR is a permanent body formed in 1959 that holds regular and special sessions throughout the year in order to review complaints regarding violations of human rights. While the IACHR's seven elected members sit just down the National Mall from the U.S. Supreme Court, they focus on a very different set of laws: namely, (i) the Charter of the Organization of American States ("the Charter"), (ii) the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man ("the American Declaration"), and (iii) the American Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention").
In their petition, the Juliana plaintiffs and nonprofit organization Our Children's Trust alleged that "the U.S. government's energy policies and practices violate rights and duties established by the American Declaration." They laid out three substantive arguments. First, they asserted that the United States had "failed to comply with its international obligations to guarantee Petitioners' rights," neglecting duties to prevent harm to the global climate system and to mitigate greenhouse gas pollution (capitalization omitted throughout paragraph). Second, they argued that the government's "deliberate emission of greenhouse gas pollution violate[d] Petitioners' substantive rights protected by the American Declaration," including, among others, their rights to life, health, and dignity. Third, they claimed that "the DOJ's extraordinary tactics aimed at silencing Petitioners and the U.S. courts' failure to consider the merits of their claims violate[d] Petitioners' rights to access to justice and effective remedies."
While Petitioners still await a response from the IACHR, their submission to the international body raises a number of questions for those following the development of youth climate litigation. Chief among these: What power does the Commission hold and what might it offer young climate activists beyond what they have been able to achieve through the U.S. court system?
In considering this, it is important to recognize that the IACHR is not a court. The Commission works closely with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("IACtHR"), which is a seven-judge international court that is based in Costa Rica and whose jurisdiction has been recognized by many members of the OAS—but notably, not by the United States. The IACHR is an investigatory body that accepts petitions against OAS Member States and makes recommendations to those States, such as that they suspend harmful activities, make reparations for damage caused, or make changes to legislation. Although the IACHR may refer cases to IACtHR, this requires the Member State in question to recognize the court's jurisdiction, so it is not an option for claims against the United States.
However, the Juliana plaintiffs were able to file a petition against the United States in the IACHR. Such a petition may be brought by an individual, group, or organization against any OAS Member State, as long as the matter is not pending before another international body, it is within six months of the final judgement from the domestic decisionmaker, the petitioner has exhausted all domestic remedies, and IACHR has jurisdiction. Here, the first three requirements are easily met. While the United States has not ratified the Convention or American Declaration, it also falls under IACHR jurisdiction because it is an OAS Member State and has ratified the Charter.
Petitioners have requested two forms of relief. First, they seek precautionary measures—related to reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—to avoid alleged irreparable harm while Petitioners await response from the IACHR. Second, Petitioners seek several affirmative steps from the IACHR, including that the Commission "[c]onduct an on-site country visit" to gather facts, find the U.S. in violation of several articles of the American Declaration, "[i]ssue a country report with recommendations … to remedy confirmed violations of international law," and "[m]onitor any recommended compliance measures." While this process seems quite comprehensive, and while the IACHR strives to monitor compliance with its recommendations, at the end of the day, the IACHR only has the ability to make recommendations, not enforce them. The Commission faces a challenge that is common to many entities making and enforcing international law: They have no teeth.
Because the U.S. legal system has posed roadblocks for youth climate litigants, they instead cite two advisory opinions from international bodies. Petitioners specifically reference two such opinions: (i) IACtHR Advisory Opinion 32/25, "Climate Emergency and Human Rights" (May 29, 2025) (regarding State's duties with respect to human rights impacts related to climate change), and (ii) International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion 77/276, "Obligation of States in Respect of Climate Change" (July 23, 2025) (regarding States' obligations to protect the climate system from greenhouse gasses).
Currently, Petitioners are awaiting a response from the IACHR. Since they have filed, youth climate litigation has continued on the U.S. domestic stage. On October 15, 2025, the District of Montana dismissed the case of Lighthiser v. Trump (Case No. 2:25-CV-00054), in which 22 plaintiffs attempted to follow the success of Montana Supreme Court case Held v. Montana by challenging several executive orders related to energy policies in Montana District Court. Because the Lighthiser plaintiffs have expressed the intention to appeal, and the IACHR aims to respond to petitions in around a year, there is a real possibility that Lighthiser and cases like it end up being litigated on a parallel track with an IACHR recommendation on the United States' climate responsibilities.
