Valparaíso

Magallanes

Biobío

Aisén del General Carlos Ibañez del Campo

Maule

Coquimbo

Antofagasta

Ñuble

Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins

Arica y Parinacota

Región Metropolitana de Santiago

Los Lagos

La Araucanía

Tarapacá

Los Ríos

Atacama

Chile

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

On July 4, 2025, a group of Chilean deputies, led by Congressman Daniel Melo Contreras, filed a constitutional complaint (requerimiento de inaplicabilidad por inconstitucionalidad) before the Constitutional Court, challenging several provisions of the Draft Framework Law on Sectorial Authorizations (Ley Marco de Autorizaciones Sectoriales – LMAS), commonly referred to as the “Permitting Law.” The complaint was filed under Article 93(1)(3) of the Chilean Constitution and Articles 61 et seq. of Law No. 17.997 (Organic Law of the Constitutional Court).

The challenged provisions, Articles 7(a), 9, 10, 76, and 104, aim to simplify over 380 sectoral permits and streamline administrative processes by establishing minimum standards for permit issuance. Although the law claims to maintain environmental safeguards, the plaintiffs argue it effectively weakens environmental and social protections, and that the process of indigenous consultation was omitted, in violation of ILO Convention 169.

The plaintiffs argue that the LMAS constitutes a regression in environmental protections, violates constitutional guarantees under Article 19(8) (right to live in a pollution-free environment), and undermines Chile’s commitments under the Escazú Agreement and other international instruments.
The Constitutional Court, on July 24, 2025, dismissed the complaint on formal grounds, by a 5–4 majority, citing a lack of specificity in the alleged constitutional violations.
However, the dissenting minority (4 judges) strongly criticized the decision, emphasizing that:
• The Court had developed prior environmental jurisprudence (STC Rols 13.053 and 14.844) recognizing international standards.
• The dissenting opinion argued that, in this context, it was particularly contradictory for the Chilean Constitutional Court, an institution tasked with upholding constitutional supremacy, to refuse to review the merits of a claim alleging a regression in environmental protection standards. The dissenting judges emphasized that the Court’s decision was based on procedural requirements not expressly established in either the Constitution or its Organic Law, and that such a position clearly contradicts Chile’s active role at the international level in promoting access to environmental justice, particularly in light of the Escazú Agreement and Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, which affirms the pro actione principle. This principle holds that procedural rules must not be interpreted or applied in a manner that unjustifiably hinders access to the courts, especially in environmental matters. Citing paragraph 543 of OC-32/25, the dissent invoked the pro actione principle, which requires courts to adopt the interpretation most favorable to access to justice in environmental matters. 

On December 2, 2025, a group of local ecotourism operators providing guided glacier trekking services on the Exploradores Glacier, located within Laguna San Rafael National Park (Aysén Region), filed an economic amparo action (recurso de amparo económico) before the Coyhaique Court of Appeals against the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF). The action challenged CONAF’s decision not to renew the ecotourism permits authorizing guided passenger transit on the glacier, a measure that effectively halted the applicants’ sole economic activity.

The applicants argued that the decision was arbitrary and unlawful, as it relied on a technical report issued by the General Water Directorate (DGA) that, in their view, merely described general glaciological phenomena associated with climate change, including glacier retreat, thinning, and the formation of supraglacial lagoons, without assessing the safety or feasibility of the specific routes used for ecotourism activities, nor recommending a total closure of the glacier. They alleged that CONAF improperly relied on a general climate diagnosis to impose a blanket prohibition on a lawful economic activity, in violation of the constitutional freedom to conduct economic activities under Article 19(21) of the Chilean Constitution.

CONAF requested dismissal of the action, arguing that the economic amparo is an exceptional mechanism aimed at controlling unlawful state entrepreneurial activity, which was not at issue in the case. On the merits, CONAF maintained that its decision constituted the legitimate exercise of regulatory and public safety powers within a protected area and was duly grounded in technical evidence demonstrating an active phase of glacier disintegration linked to accelerated melting driven by climate change. Invoking the preventive and precautionary principles, CONAF asserted that the protection of life and physical integrity prevailed over economic interests and that the permits were temporary and conditional, not vested rights.

On February 6, 2026, the Coyhaique Court of Appeals rejected the economic amparo, holding that the challenged decision fell within CONAF’s lawful administrative powers and was supported by objective technical evidence. The Court emphasized that the economic amparo is not an appropriate vehicle to review the technical merits or substantive reasonableness of administrative decisions, and therefore did not engage with the applicants’ substantive arguments on the merits. The applicants appealed the decision, and the case is currently pending before the Chilean Supreme Court.

In March 2024, residents of Tocopilla, along with environmental organizations Chile Sustentable, Greenpeace Chile, and Asociación Interamericana para la defensa del ambiente (AIDA), filed a writ of protection before the Court of Appeals of Santiago against AES Andes. 

In February, AES Andes burned through 94,000 tons of surplus coal from their Norgener 1 and 2 units due to a request from the National Electricity Coordinator. Plaintiffs argued that the authorization should be revoked due to the right to life, health, and a pollution-free environment under the Chilean constitution. 

In late March 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected the issuance of a preliminary injunction, allowing AES Andes to burn through the rest of the coal supply under request by the Electricity coordinator.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On January 17, 2024, the petitioners, in accordance with Article 53 of Law No. 19,880, have filed an administrative invalidation claim against Resolution Exempt No. 202399101873, dated November 8, 2023 (R.E. 202399101873/2023), issued by the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Service (SEA), in her capacity as Secretary of the Committee of Ministers, for having deemed the Environmental Impact Study of the "Los Bronces Integrado" mining project environmentally favorable. The project, intended for the extraction of copper and molybdenum and located in the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, 65 kilometers from the city of Santiago, is challenged due to alleged illegalities in the resolution.

The contested resolution seeks to continue the exploitation of the "Los Bronces Integrados" mining project, owned by Anglo American S.A., which was approved in different resolutions in 2007 and 2015. Afterward, the company requested new permission to optimize and adapt the original exploitation plan. On April 22, 2022, the SEA resolved that the project holder did not provide sufficient information to rule out the generation of health risks for the population, deciding to unfavorably qualify the project because it did not adequately determine the area of influence of the air quality component of the project, nor did it provide enough information to rule out health risks to the population, according to Articles 11(a) and 16(4) of Law No. 19,300, and Articles 2(a), 5, 18(d), and 62 of the SEIA Regulations. 

Against the negative resolution, nine administrative appeal claims were filed, and the project proponent submitted additional background information. On April 14, 2023, the claimants opposing the project also provided further background information, which, according to them, was not considered by the administrative authority and was violating their rights. It is explained that on November 8, 2023, the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Service, acting as the secretary of the Committee of Ministers, decided to reject the appeal claims filed by the non-proponents of the project and instead to accept the appeal claim filed on behalf of the project's proponent, thereby qualifying the "LOS BRONCES INTEGRADO" project environmentally favorable.

The claimants allege that Resolution Exempt No. 202399101873, dated November 8, 2023 (R.E. 202399101873/2023), which favorably qualified the project, fails to fulfill Chile's climate obligations and human rights commitments, including the lack of consideration of the climate factor in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

They add that the resolution that qualifies the project as environmentally favorable is illegal because the project poses a serious threat to the nearby glaciers in its area of influence, will increase the water scarcity already affecting the Metropolitan and Valparaiso Regions, will increase atmospheric pollution and harm the health of the population, generating an atmospheric catastrophe and severe damage to ecosystems. They argue that the project threatens serious human rights violations, such as the right to health, the right to live in a healthy environment, the right to life, the right to food, and the right to water, and that the contested act violates the precautionary principle.

The claimants request that the SEA invalidate the resolution that environmentally qualified the project as favorable, arguing that it contradicts the law. Concurrently, while the invalidation request is being processed, they seek an interim provisional measure to immediately suspend the effects of the contested act or any other appropriate measure.

Geography

Chile

Recent cases