Wintress Morris and Joy Marcus v Environmental Protection Agency
Morris & Marcus v Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Claim:
In December 2024, two Guyanese citizens, Wintress Morris and Joy Marcus, brought judicial review proceedings against the EPA for failing to require the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for ExxonMobil’s Hammerhead oil project. Scope 3 emissions are the indirect greenhouse gases from burning the extracted oil overseas.
Date filed: December 2024
Status: Completed
Judgment:
On 18th March 2025, Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall ruled that Scope 3 emissions are part of the indirect effects of the Hammerhead project and therefore must be identified, described, and evaluated in EIAs under the Environmental Protection Act. However, the judge dismissed the application because after the case was filed, the EPA amended the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Hammerhead project to include Scope 3 emissions. As such, the legal challenge no longer required further intervention.
In summary:
1) Legal recognition of Scope 3 emissions: The court confirmed that EIAs in Guyana must include assessment of indirect emissions from the end-use of fossil fuels. This aligns national environmental law with international climate science annd with comparative jurisprudence such as Finch.
2) EPA’s statutory duty clarified: The ruling confirmed that the EPA has a legal obligation under the Environmental Protection Act to ensure EIAs are comprehensive and include all significant impacts, including ocean acidification and impacts on the climate atmosphere.
3) Strengthened climate accountability: By recognising Scope 3 emissions, the court expanded the scope of environmental scrutiny for oil projects like Exxon’s Hammerhead, ensuring they address full life-cycle emissions.
4) Judicial oversight reinforced: The decision demonstrates the courts’ role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring regulatory bodies like the EPA fulfill their statutory obligations.
5) Binding precedent for future projects: Even though the case was dismissed, Justice Morris-Ramlall’s ruling ensures that all future EIAs in Guyana must address Scope 3 emissions. This raises the standard for environmental governance and exposes the grave consequences of oil production for Guyana and the planet.
6) Public interest litigation validated: The case shows that even if the immediate claim is dismissed citizen challenges are driving significant changes through upholding the rule of law, reinforcing environmental governance; and compelling regulators to act lawfully.
7) Constitutional and international relevance: Although not as wide-ranging as the CCJ’s Gaskin decision, the ruling indirectly helps citizens to realise their constitutional right to a healthy environment and reflects international best practices on greenhouse gas accounting.
8) Regional and global significance: As the first rulings in the Caribbean explicitly requiring Scope 3 emissions in EIAs, the case has implications for environmental law across the region and contributes to the global climate accountability movement.
The Legal Claims:
- The EPA acted unlawfully by approving the Hammerhead EIA TORs without requiring assessment of Scope 3 emissions.
- The EPA failed to carry out its statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act to ensure a full assessment of the project’s environmental impacts.
The story of the case: In December 2024, Morris and Marcus filed judicial review proceedings against the EPA’s approval of the Hammerhead EIA TORs. They argued that Scope 3 emissions (from burning oil overseas) contribute significantly to climate change and ocean acidification, and must therefore be included under the Environmental Protection Act.
They claimed that by excluding Scope 3 emissions, the EPA failed in its duty to require a comprehensive EIA, rendering the TORs unlawful.
While the case was pending, the EPA amended the TORs to include Scope 3 emissions explicitly.
On 18th March 2025, Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall ruled that Scope 3 emissions must be assessed under the law but dismissed the application as the EPA had already corrected the TORs.
As a result, the case was dismissed but left behind a binding judicial precedent of national and regional significance.
Outcome:
Although Morris and Marcus did not succeed in overturning the EPA’s approval, their case secured a landmark ruling that established the legal duty to include Scope 3 emissions in EIAs, strengthened climate accountability in Guyana, and set a precedent with global relevance.