Citizen juries are suggested as an effective tool for promoting just transition to low-carbon societies. However, citizen juries are influenced by participation rules, accepted discourses, and participants' perceptions about the need for climate policies. Therefore, it is crucial to better understand how citizens comprehend and deliberate justice in sustainability transition contexts. We analyzed two citizen juries conducted in Finland. One jury focused on the low-carbon transition in the transport sector, and the other on forest governance. We identified citizens' justice claims regarding the key aspects of justice (distributive, procedural, recognition, and restorative justice), supplemented by global, intergenerational, and ecological justice considerations. We analyzed how these claims developed during the deliberation. The transport jury emphasized distributive and recognition justice and increased awareness of diverse capacities and vulnerabilities related to the mobility transition. This jury also reinforced the participants' expectations regarding the legitimacy of certain nonsustainable lifestyles, such as private motoring. The forest jury emphasized procedural justice and forests as an intergenerational common good, but they also recognized forest owners' rights and legitimate claims for forest income. The juries demonstrate that citizen deliberation helps address justice concerns by revealing jurors' expectations regarding lifestyles and livelihood sources and proposing practical solutions. Our results suggest that citizen juries can enhance the formation of more informed and consistent, and thus legitimate, expectations.