Swedish Youth Sue Government Over Climate Inaction

It is the second time Aurora, a youth-led climate justice association, sues the state after the Swedish Supreme Court ruled its previous lawsuit inadmissible in February 2025. But the group argues that recent rulings “have clarified both Sweden’s obligations and how Swedish climate cases against the state should be designed.”

—

A group of young activists has launched a high-stakes legal challenge against the Swedish government, alleging that the nation’s current climate targets are not only inadequate but a violation of international law.

The lawsuit, filed Friday by youth-led organization Aurora, builds on the argument that Sweden is not doing its “fair share” to limit global warming to 1.5C. The fair share principle establishes that wealthy, historically high-emitting nations must decarbonize faster than the global average to ensure a just transition.

At the heart of the case is the disparity between Sweden’s domestic goals and what climate science deems necessary. While Sweden has pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2045, Aurora argues this timeline is at least 15 years too late.

The lawsuit also argues that current national plans exclude high-polluting sectors, meaning the government is only accounting for less than half of the emissions under its actual control.

“Those who pollute the most have a duty to pull their weight in the global effort to fight climate change,” said Ida Edling, Aurora’s spokesperson. “We still have a chance to get out of planetary crises and build a safe and just world, but only if rich and high-emitting states like Sweden stop breaking the law and start immediately transforming their societies. We cannot let the state burn our chance.”

Global Momentum

This is Aurora’s second attempt to sue the state after the Swedish Supreme Court ruled its previous lawsuit, brought by over over 600 young Swedes, inadmissible in February 2025. The court cited that individual plaintiffs lacked specific standing and that forcing particular government climate measures would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

But the legal landscape has shifted dramatically since their first filing, and Aurora argues that recent rulings “have clarified both Sweden’s obligations and how Swedish climate cases against the state should
be designed.”

The new case leans heavily on rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice that have redefined state climate responsibility, clarifying that states have legal obligations to make adequate contributions to limiting global warming to 1.5C.

More on the topic: ICJ Advisory Opinion: The World’s Top Court Has Spoken Unequivocally on States’ Climate Change Obligations

Last month, a group of Bonaire residents won their battle against the Netherlands, with Hague District Court ruling that Dutch government has failed to take sufficient timely and appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the inhabitants of the tiny Caribbean island.

The judges found that the unequal treatment of inhabitants of Bonaire compared with the European part of the Netherlands is unlawful and that insufficient mitigation and adaptation constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Elsa Ingrand of the French non-profit Notre Affaire à Tous, which supports the case, noted that the momentum is now global. “Across the globe, civil society, scientists, and now international courts are all reaching the same conclusion: climate action must reflect a fair share of responsibility,” she said.

The activists maintain that their chances of victory are higher than ever, given the newfound clarity from international courts on how climate litigation should be structured. However, they emphasize that a legal win is only the beginning.

“What is required is … greater systemic change than ever before,” the group said in a press release.

Featured image: Garry Knight.