Summary of holding
The Supreme Court ruled that the Paris Agreement should be given the same legal weight as a human rights treaty and ordered the Brazilian government to fully reactivate its national Climate Fund. The majority ruling (endorsed by ten out of 11 presiding justices) held that: “Treaties on environmental law are a type of human rights treaty and, for that reason, enjoy supranational status. There is therefore no legally valid option to simply omit to combat climate change.”
The Court also rejected the government’s arguments and ruled that the executive branch cannot ignore mandates of the legislative branch. Instead, the executive branch has a constitutional duty to execute and allocate the funds of the Climate Fund to mitigate climate change and ensure Brazilians’ constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- If Brazil’s Congress passes a law that conflicts with the Paris Agreement, it may be invalidated. This is an unprecedented recognition of the authority of the Paris Agreement by a domestic court. Comparing the Paris Agreement to a human rights treaty may influence other courts around the world to likewise legitimize its binding authority on national governments.
- Holding that the Brazilian State is constitutionally obligated to combat climate change may also set a legal standard by which its failure to do so is evaluated in the context of further climate cases, including climate migration litigation.