According to a report released in June by the Climate in the Courts organization, titled “Climate Litigation Expands In Complexity And Influence, Analysis Finds,” cities and state governments across the United States have filed over 30 lawsuits against energy companies, accusing them of causing climate-related issues that have led to extreme weather conditions.
At the same time, the Trump-led administration is taking action to counter the increasing number of climate lawsuits. On April 8, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting American Energy From State Overreach,” directing the Office of the Attorney General to take all appropriate actions to block state-level climate lawsuits that could be deemed unconstitutional or falling under federal law jurisdiction. The order states that state climate lawsuits may increase energy costs for all Americans, reduce energy supply, and disrupt federalism.
Based on this executive order, on April 30, the Department of Justice (DOJ) preemptively sued Hawaii and Michigan, trying to prevent these states from pursuing their own climate lawsuits.
“In this time, states in America were supposed to make their contribution to ensuring a reliable energy supply domestically, but Hawaii chose to obstruct,” the DOJ stated in the lawsuit against Hawaii. “The United States Constitution and laws do not tolerate such interference.”
Similar language was used by the DOJ in the lawsuit against Michigan.
The Alliance for Consumers executive director, O.H. Skinner, stated that federal officials are now “trying to prevent something that has not started yet, which is not the same issue as handling ongoing cases.”
“Clearly, the Trump administration believes that this climate litigation is actually an attempt to control our national energy industry through some small-scale court actions,” Skinner told The Epoch Times.
Despite the action taken by the DOJ, Hawaii proceeded to file a climate lawsuit the following day. Multnomah County in Oregon also filed a lawsuit, accusing energy companies of causing a “heat dome” over their residential area and seeking compensation for damages.
The defendants in the lawsuit include various energy companies such as the American Petroleum Institute, Anadarko Petroleum, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum, McKinsey & Co., Motiva, Occidental Petroleum, Peabody Energy, Shell, Space Age Fuel, Total Specialties USA, Valero Energy, and the Western States Petroleum Association. Multnomah County accuses these companies of misleading the public.
Multnomah County Commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson stated in a statement titled “Multnomah County sues oil companies over 2021 Heat Dome disaster” that “these corporations knowingly lied about the safety and dangers of their products.”
The DOJ supports energy companies in transferring municipal lawsuits from local jurisdictions to federal courts, citing federal authority over emissions regulation.
In September, Deputy Attorney General Sarah Harris submitted a brief to the Supreme Court involving Suncor Energy and other energy companies regarding a petition from Boulder County, Colorado. The brief argues that the Constitution limits the authority of local authorities to act only within their jurisdiction, preventing their laws from applying to actions of these companies outside the state.
The comparison of climate litigation to tobacco lawsuits has been drawn by legal analysts. In the tobacco lawsuits of 1998, 45 tobacco companies reached a settlement with states, agreeing to pay over $200 billion in compensation over 25 years.
The strategy of climate lawsuits seems to aim at winning some local cases to force energy companies to settle other lawsuits rather than face additional punitive damages in court. Skinner, however, believes that there is almost no comparison between the energy needed for driving vehicles, heating homes, and generating electricity and cigarettes.
“For someone in Oregon to claim $500 billion in damages from this nuisance behavior, in reality, it seems that someone is trying to bankrupt America’s energy companies under the guise of ‘we just want you to fix this nuisance,'” Skinner explained.
Overall, the battle between state-level climate litigation and the Trump administration’s response continues, with the outcomes and implications evolving as these legal battles progress.