Amazonas

Brazil

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio de Janeiro

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Roraima

Acre

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

In April 2026, the Climate Observatory (Observatório do Clima) filed a Public Civil Action against the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT), due to the attempted execution of reconstruction and paving works on the so-called "middle section" of the BR-319/AM highway without the completion of the regular environmental licensing process conducted by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). 

The controversy arose after DNIT unilaterally classified the interventions as mere "maintenance and improvement services" of a previously existing highway, based on Article 8, item VII, of Framework Law on Environmental Licensing (Law No. 15.190/2025), a provision that exempts certain infrastructure works from environmental licensing. Based on this understanding, Electronic Bidding Processes No. 90127, 90128, 90129 and 90130/2026 were published for contracting the works. 

The Observatório do Clima argues that the framework established by DNIT (National Department of Transport Infrastructure) is incompatible with the size and environmental impacts of the project, since the BR-319 highway crosses an area of high ecological sensitivity in the Amazon and has a history of requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) itself. The action highlights that the paving of the highway tends to intensify deforestation, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land grabbing, irregular occupation, and loss of biodiversity, which is why the exemption from environmental licensing would constitute a violation of Article 225 of the Federal Constitution and the principles of prevention and environmental precaution. Therefore, it requests, primarily as an urgent measure and subsequently on the merits: (i) the annulment of Electronic Bidding Processes No. 90127, 90128, 90129 and 90130/2026, as well as related administrative acts; (ii) the determination that DNIT refrain from carrying out any reconstruction and paving works on BR-319 until the full completion of the environmental licensing process with IBAMA; and (iii) the immediate suspension of the bidding processes and all acts resulting from them.

In an interlocutory decision from April 2026, the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas recognized the relevance of the controversy and the urgency of the situation. The court emphasized that the BR-319 highway is a project historically considered to have a significant environmental impact and that environmental licensing is an essential instrument for transparency and control of the project's socio-environmental impacts. Furthermore, it was considered that the requirements for granting partial urgent relief were present, especially given the proximity of the bidding sessions and the possibility of consolidating administrative contracts involving approximately R$ 678 million. It was considered that the documents presented demonstrated relevant evidence of incompatibility between the magnitude of the works and their classification as simple road maintenance. Therefore, the injunction was partially granted to suspend the effects of Electronic Bidding Processes No. 90127, 90128, 90129 and 90130/2026 and related administrative acts until further analysis of the controversy after a statement from DNIT and the competent environmental agencies.

A decision was issued by the Presidency of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region in response to a request for Suspension of Preliminary Injunction and Judgment filed by DNIT (National Department of Transport Infrastructure) and the Union, in an action related to the maintenance works on the BR highway. The Presidency of the TRF1 understood that the requirements for suspending the first-instance decision that ordered the halting of electronic auctions for highway maintenance were present, recognizing potential harm to administrative public order, the public economy, public safety, and public health. The decision also admitted the Union as a co-litigant assistant to DNIT and reinstated the regular processing of the bidding processes, maintaining the suspension of the effects of the preliminary injunction until the final judgment of the original public civil action.


On November 2025 the Association of the Tenharim Morogitá Indigenous People (Apitem) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Government, IBAMA, FUNAI, and the State of Amazonas with the aim of compelling the defendants to adopt structural and permanent measures to remove intruders from the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land (TI Tenharim Marmelos), located between Humaitá and Manicoré, in Amazonas, where the Tenharim people, who call themselves Kagwahiva, live. It is alleged that the TI Tenharim Marmelos is the target of invasion, deforestation, logging, and real estate speculation caused by the advance of the agricultural and livestock frontier, being one of the most deforested territories in the country. The dispute affirm itself to be structural in nature, as it seeks to demand that the State formulate and implement a comprehensive territorial protection and monitoring plan and immediate repressive measures to protect the environment and ensure climate justice. It is alleged that the Tenharim territory has suffered violations since the opening of the Trans-Amazonian Highway (BR-230), already recognized by the 1st Region Federal Court (TRF1), which ordered the Federal Government and FUNAI to repair the damage caused, but there is a continuous omission by the State regarding the situation of the Indigenous Land. It is claimed that the invasions that have occurred in the Tenharim territory are supported by the issuance of forestry or agricultural exploitation licenses by state agencies without regard for indigenous rights. The territory also suffers from illegal mining that contaminates waterways, degrades forests, generates CO2 emissions and aggravates the climate crisis, threatening endemic species, the Tenharim's way of life and rights. It emphasizes that Brazil has made commitments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in its NDC, and the Paris Agreement establishes duties to conserve and strengthen carbon sinks and combat forest degradation. The association also stresses that deforestation in indigenous territories has climatic dimensions that must be taken into account in the judgment of the lawsuit and points out that the Brazilian judiciary already has guidelines for recognizing climate damage in cases of deforestation and forest fires. Data from the CarbonCal Platform of the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) is presented to analyze the amount of carbon emitted by deforestation in the Indigenous Land and demonstrate the need for compensation for collective and climate-related moral damages, which should include, among other things, climate mitigation and adaptation measures. It points out that global warming is particularly intense in the Amazon and more specifically in the arc of deforestation, which could lead the forest to a “point of no return.” It highlights the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Advisory Opinion 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on the duties of states in the context of climate change. Regarding AO-32/2025, it highlights that it defined climate damage as an autonomous form of human rights violation. In the context of urgent relief, the plaintiff requests a determination that (i) the defendants present an emergency plan for the removal of intruders from the Tenharim Marmelos Indigenous Land within 45 days; (ii) the Amazonas State Environmental Protection Agency (IPAAM) report on licenses, authorizations, or administrative registrations granted in the last five years; (iii) the Federal Government adopt immediate measures for the physical protection of community leaders in the Indigenous Land. On the merits, it requests (i) the defendants be ordered to adopt structural measures for local climate governance; (ii) the annulment of all administrative requirements and titles for use, exploitation, or research issued by the State of Amazonas or federal agencies regarding the Indigenous Land; (iii) the defendants be ordered, jointly and severally, to pay compensation for environmental damage and diffuse climate damage, in an amount estimated based on emissions caused by illegal deforestation and the social cost of carbon (SCC), to be reverted to the Tenharim community; (iv) a plan for the reoccupation of the Indigenous Land be carried out with the participation of federal entities.

On November 24th a preliminary injunction was issued that partially granted the urgent requests and determined for (i) the Federal Government, FUNAI, and IBAMA to present, within 90 days, an Emergency Plan for the Removal of Intruders from the Indigenous Land and (ii) IPAAM to report, within 30 days, under penalty of a daily fine, the existence of licenses, authorizations, or administrative records granted in the last five years for economic activities, forestry, mining, agriculture, or any other information on economic activities that overlap with the territory of the Indigenous Land. The court recognized the occurrence of illegal activities in the TI Tenharim Marmelos, such as forest degradation, invasions, and illegal logging, which place the territory under serious threat and are a mark of climate injustice. It understood that the lawsuit is a structural demand. It also recognized the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. It recognized the role of indigenous peoples in defending the environment and addressing the climate crisis, highlighting the STF's understanding of the constitutional protection afforded to indigenous lands, which imposes on public authorities the duty to take swift action. It concluded that the evidence presented demonstrates risks of irreversible damage to the health and food security of indigenous peoples and the ecosystem, which justifies the need for urgent action. In deciding to compel the defendants to produce and make accessible data and information of relevant interest to the case, it highlighted the Escazú Agreement. It recognized the need to create an emergency plan for the removal of intruders from the indigenous territory, which should include measures for fire prevention.

IBAMA filed a defense asserting the absence of administrative negligence, highlighting the numerous enforcement actions carried out in the area. It stated that the removal of non-indigenous people from indigenous lands is not within the agency's institutional competencies, but rather a responsibility of the Federal Government, coordinated by the Civil House and involving indigenous affairs and public security agencies. It requested a review of the preliminary injunction and, on the merits, the dismissal of the claims.

The State of Amazonas filed a defense arguing, preliminarily, its lack of standing as a defendant. It alleged the inadequacy of the initial petition in relation to the state entity, requesting the dismissal of the case against the State or, alternatively, the dismissal of the claims.

This case is part of a set that consists of 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) filed by the Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) under the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, which aims, among other objectives, to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon. The lawsuits were filed against several defendants, including individuals and legal entities, held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. The actions are based on satellite monitoring of deforestation and seek to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas. To identify those responsible for the environmental damage, the MPF used public databases, including data from the Land Management System (SIGEF), the National Rural Property Certification System (SNCI), and the Terra Legal Program, all maintained by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), as well as information from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and, where available, Infraction Notices and Embargo Reports for the areas involved.

The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. They explicitly refer to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) resulting from illegal deforestation.

Among the final requests, the MPF seeks:
 i) An order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation;
 ii) An order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂;
 iii) An order requiring payment for collective moral damages;
 iv) Restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD);
 v) Allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.

This case is part of a set of 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) filed by the Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) under the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, which aims, among other objectives, to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon. The lawsuits were filed against several defendants, including individuals and legal entities, held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. The actions are based on satellite monitoring of deforestation and seek to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas. To identify those responsible for the environmental damage, the MPF used public databases, including data from the Land Management System (SIGEF), the National Rural Property Certification System (SNCI), and the Terra Legal Program, all maintained by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), as well as information from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and, where available, Infraction Notices and Embargo Reports for the areas involved.

The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. They explicitly refer to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) resulting from illegal deforestation.

Among the final requests, the MPF seeks:
 i) An order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation;
 ii) An order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂;
 iii) An order requiring payment for collective moral damages;
 iv) Restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD);
 v) Allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.

Geography

Amazonas

Recent cases