Is Germany headed for a climate constitutional crisis?
Climate protection is written into Germany's constitution. But as the current government weakens laws designed to reduce emissions, a confrontation with courts could be on the horizon.
Dear Reader,
Only five years ago, Germany became one of the few countries in the world to elevate climate protection to a constitutional right.
A group of youth activists had argued that the government’s goal of becoming “carbon-neutral by 2050” was little more than a slogan—one that offloaded the burden onto younger generations while politicians stalled.
In part to the activists’ own surprise, the Constitutional Court pounded down its gavel in their favour. In 2021, it ruled that young people have a “fundamental right” to a healthy climate, and that the government needed to set out credible, legally binding pathways to cut CO2 emissions now.
If it failed to do so, the judges warned, the courts could intervene when policies were too weak, too murky, or too slow (in other words: typically German). The then–traffic-light coalition scrambled to respond, committing to a 65 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. That ruling was seen as a global landmark: few countries had a constitutional framework requiring forward-looking climate policy, and Germany’s judges had signalled they were willing to protect future liberties if politics fell short.
Fast forward to April 2026. Germany is now governed by Friedrich Merz, often derided as the “Anti-Climate Chancellor” for prioritising industry concerns over emissions cuts. He is joined by Energy and Economic Affairs Minister Katherina Reiche, also of the centre-right CDU, in rolling back heating regulations, slowing renewable-energy expansion, and watering down sectoral targets.
Some environmental groups, opposition parties, and legal scholars now accuse the government of acting verfassungswidrig—in violation of the constitution—an accusation Germans do not make lightly.
The growing tension could signify that a government-court showdown over climate policy is in the works: this is the Land of Litigation, after all, with the highest per capita rate of lawsuits in the world (123.2 per 1,000 people puts even the US to shame). But even if the Constitutional Court steps in again, what happens if a government simply refuses to adjust course? And are Germany’s climate obligations and its political priorities becoming so irreconcilable that conflict is now inevitable?
A rollback with possible legal consequences
It’s already been an uphill battle for Germany to meet its emissions targets, especially when they’re seen to infringe on personal freedoms. The latest measure to hit the chopping block has been the controversial Heizungsgesetz (heating law), a landmark piece of legislation championed by former Environment Minister Robert Habeck of the Greens.
The law would eventually have required homeowners to install systems using at least 65 percent renewable energy — a major emissions lever, since heating accounts for around 90 percent of energy use in German households. The legislation, which took effect in 2024, quickly became a symbol of government overreach and spiraling costs, despite the reality that Wärmepumpen (heat pumps) save money over time and that installation costs were often exaggerated in public debate.
Under political pressure — including from the hard-right AfD, which gleefully weaponised the Wärmepumpe in their campaigning — the new Merz government repealed the law in February.
“In the future, all homeowners will have the freedom to choose their heating system — from single-family homes in the countryside to apartments in the city,” announced Reiche, unveiling a replacement: the Building Modernisation Law. Under it, new fossil-fuel boilers can keep running as long as they burn 10 percent renewable energy by 2029 — a measure climate experts have called symbolic at best.
In doing so, Germany has not only made its environmental goals harder to meet, but it could have also gotten itself into iffy legal territory.
After years of decline, emissions fell by only a “marginal” 0.1 percent last year, reaching 648.9 million metric tons of CO2. Weakening one of the country’s biggest reduction levers, lawyer Felix Ekardt argued in Focus Online, is “legally indefensible.” The move, he said, undermines the Basic Law, the federal Climate Protection Act, and Germany’s EU and international commitments. Ekardt—who helped drive the original 2021 lawsuit—has already filed new cases targeting the Merz government’s retreat.
He is not alone. The Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) has launched fresh litigation against the weakened building standards, accusing the government of violating national climate law. Greenpeace Germany is preparing challenges based on the legal principle of a “prohibition on regression”: after the 2021 ruling, policymakers cannot adopt reforms that leave future generations worse off than before.
A February analysis by law firm Günther was unequivocal: weakening the 65-percent rule “is a constitutional regression and extremely unlikely to withstand judicial review.”
In theory, the government could compensate for weakened measures in one sector by accelerating decarbonisation elsewhere. That hope fell largely on the SPD, the CDU’s centre-left partner, which runs the Environment Ministry, the department responsible for delivering a revised Climate Programme which the Constitutional Court had ordered for March 31st at the latest.
The programme arrived just short of the deadline, and landed with a whimper. Rather than presenting binding measures to cut emissions in the transport and building sectors — the two areas widely identified as most off-track — the plan relied on vague aspirations, voluntary incentives, and EU-level accounting mechanisms. Disappointing climate activists, it offered no speed limits, no car-use reduction strategy, no concrete heating-sector measures to replace the scrapped law.
“This plan is an audacious deception,” said Greens parliamentary leader Katharina Dröge. “While the environment minister announces a few climate measures, the economy minister is dismantling them one by one.”
That brings Germany to a new and uncomfortable frontier. The gap between constitutional obligation and government action is now wider than at any point since the 2021 ruling — and lawsuits are in turn piling up.
But are the courts willing, or even able, to intervene again? So far, Germany’s top judges have shown caution. In March, when activists asked the Federal Court of Justice to force BMW and Mercedes to end combustion-engine sales by 2030, the judges pushed back hard: setting the end of petrol engines, they said, is the job of lawmakers, not courts.
That ruling crystallised the tension: the constitution demands a credible path to climate neutrality, the government is weakening the policies that make such a path possible, and the courts are deeply reluctant to become the country’s climate ministry by default. In short, each party expects another to be the one to take action.
“If everyone continues to point the finger at others, climate protection is doomed to fail,” wrote Spiegel on the ruling.
Yet judicial reluctance may soon be tested. If the government keeps diluting climate measures — even in the face of rising oil and gas prices — while the emissions gap widens, the highest courts will again have to interpret what the 2021 ruling requires in practice. This could in turn lead to a level of intervention many Germans are uncomfortable with, as seen with government hesitancy to dictate how they heat their homes or drive their cars.
But at some point, a judge will need to decide whether the constitution simply encourages ambitious climate action, or whether it obliges the government to reverse course when its decisions undermine climate protection.
Germany has never faced a constitutional clash over climate policy before. Yet with a federal government slowing the transition and a constitutional framework that, at least on paper, forbids doing so, the country may be heading toward a confrontation that neither side can avoid forever.
Something, sooner or later, will have to give.
News in Brief
Friedrich Merz appears to have set a target of around 700,000 Syrian refugees returning to their homeland over the next three years. The chancellor welcomed Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, to the Chancellery in Berlin on Tuesday and claimed at a subsequent press conference that the Syrian leader wanted to see 80 percent of Syrian nationals currently in Germany return home. There is some confusion over whether Sharaa actually said this — he later denied doing so during a podium discussion in London. Read more on what the CDU is planning for Syrian refugees here.
The government’s first attempt to bring fuel prices under control came into force on Wednesday morning. Petrol stations are now only allowed to raise their prices once a day, though they can lower them as often as they wish. As a result of the Iran war, both petrol and diesel now cost over €2 a litre. Until now, petrol stations have been changing their prices more than a dozen times a day. Critics say that fuel stations will simply adapt by raising prices sharply once a day rather than incrementally multiple times. The government points to a similar law that has been in force in Austria for years, which has reportedly kept prices lower there.
A research team tasked with accompanying the legalisation of cannabis has found that the liberalisation of possession laws two years ago has not led to increased consumption. The researchers also found that the law has had an effect in reducing the black market — the stated aim of the reform — with many users now preferring to buy cannabis from online pharmacies. The Merz government is currently planning to make it harder to obtain an online cannabis prescription. Read more on cannabis legalisation here.