<p>Through the prism of republican theory, the paper discusses the nature of environmental protests and the judiciary’s responses to the related cases. The text argues that climate protesters act not solely to realise their freedom of assembly but also to understand their obligations to the environment and the community of citizens. An argumentation grounded in their belief that they were obliged to protest against climate change and even commit certain unlawful acts due to the state of necessity could give their defence more strength, on the one hand, and inspire the courts to be more active in forcing governments to act on the climate cause, on the other hand. The paper consists of two sections, with the first discussing theoretical approaches to environmental citizenship, the alleged duty to protest against climate change, and their relationships with republicanism. The second section scrutinises case law from selected domestic and international courts dealing with climate protests. Specifically, it analyses the justifications for the right to protest against climate change presented in the submissions of applicants or defendants before the courts and the reasoning employed by the courts.</p>