As Trump’s attacks on science escalate, Big Oil moves to avoid legal accountability

The United States Supreme Court has begun deliberations on a high-stakes legal challenge that could determine the future of climate change litigation in America. At the heart of the matter is a jurisdictional battle that has spanned nearly a decade, pitting major fossil fuel corporations against municipal and state governments seeking damages for the environmental and economic impacts of global warming. The industry’s primary objective in this case is to move these lawsuits out of state courts—where they face the risk of massive jury awards and extensive discovery—and into the federal court system, where such cases have historically been more likely to face dismissal.

The current proceedings represent a critical juncture for the fossil fuel industry, which has been besieged by dozens of lawsuits filed by cities, counties, and states across the country. These plaintiffs allege that companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP engaged in a decades-long campaign of deception, downplaying the risks of carbon emissions while reaping record profits. By elevating this jurisdictional dispute to the nation’s highest court, the industry seeks a definitive ruling that would effectively shield it from the "nuisance" and "failure to warn" claims that are currently gaining momentum at the local level.

The Jurisdictional Battleground: State vs. Federal Courts

The legal strategy employed by the fossil fuel industry focuses on the concept of "removal." When a city like Honolulu or a state like Rhode Island files a lawsuit in its own state court alleging violations of local consumer protection laws or public nuisance statutes, the defending oil companies immediately move to "remove" the case to federal court. The industry argues that climate change is an inherently global phenomenon that transcends state borders and is governed by federal law, specifically the Clean Air Act, rather than the disparate laws of 50 individual states.

However, the plaintiffs argue that their cases are not about regulating global emissions, but rather about corporate accountability for deceptive marketing and the suppression of internal scientific research. They contend that because the harm occurred within state borders and involved violations of state-specific statutes, the state courts are the proper venue for adjudication. To date, every federal appellate court that has considered the issue has sided with the local governments, ruling that these cases belong in state courts. This consistent string of losses for the industry is what ultimately prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Background and Context: A Decade of Litigation

The current wave of climate litigation began in earnest around 2017, when several California coastal cities, including San Francisco and Oakland, filed suits against the world’s largest investor-owned oil and gas companies. These early cases were modeled after the successful litigation against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. The core allegation was that fossil fuel companies knew as early as the 1960s and 70s that their products would cause catastrophic warming, yet they spent millions of dollars on public relations campaigns to sow doubt about climate science.

The stakes for the industry are unprecedented. Since the first filings in 2017, more than 40 similar lawsuits have been launched by jurisdictions including New York City, Baltimore, Honolulu, and the states of Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. These plaintiffs are seeking billions of dollars to cover the costs of climate adaptation, such as building sea walls, repairing infrastructure damaged by extreme weather, and managing the public health impacts of rising temperatures.

For the fossil fuel companies, the danger of state court trials lies in the "discovery" phase of litigation. In state court, plaintiffs’ attorneys would have the power to demand internal corporate documents, emails, and memos dating back decades. Legal experts suggest that this process could reveal "smoking gun" evidence of what the companies knew and when they knew it, potentially mirroring the internal disclosures that led to the $206 billion Master Settlement Agreement with tobacco companies in 1998.

Chronology of Key Legal Milestones

To understand the gravity of the current Supreme Court case, it is necessary to trace the timeline of the industry’s efforts to suppress these lawsuits:

• 2011: American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut: The Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This forced plaintiffs to pivot from federal nuisance claims to state-level consumer fraud and tort claims.
• 2017–2018: The First Wave: Cities in California and New York filed suits in state courts. The industry successfully moved some of these to federal court, where they were initially dismissed. However, subsequent appeals began to challenge the validity of these removals.
• 2021: BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: The Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling that allowed federal appeals courts to conduct a more thorough review of whether climate cases should stay in federal court. This was seen as a temporary win for the industry, but it ultimately backfired when appellate courts used that review to send cases back to state courts.
• 2023: The Solicitor General’s Intervention: The Biden administration’s Solicitor General filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not to interfere with the appellate court decisions that sent the cases to state courts, marking a significant shift from the Trump administration’s pro-industry stance.
• 2024–2025: State Court Momentum: Courts in Hawaii and California cleared the way for trials to proceed, prompting the industry to make a final, urgent push for Supreme Court intervention to block the state-level proceedings.
• March 2026: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the pivotal case that could create a national precedent for climate litigation jurisdiction.

Supporting Data: The Economic and Environmental Toll

The push for judicial accountability is driven by the escalating costs of climate change. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States experienced 28 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2023 alone, with a total price tag exceeding $92 billion. Municipalities argue that these costs should be borne by the companies that profited from the sale of fossil fuels while misleading the public about the consequences.

Furthermore, a 2022 study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters quantified the "climate debt" of the top 90 carbon producers. The research suggested that the top investor-owned firms are responsible for approximately 30% of global sea-level rise and a significant portion of the increase in global mean surface temperature since the industrial revolution. For a city like Honolulu—a lead plaintiff in the current Supreme Court battle—sea-level rise represents an existential threat to its tourism-based economy and coastal infrastructure, with projected damages reaching into the billions by mid-century.

Industry Defense and Official Responses

The fossil fuel industry maintains that the lawsuits are a misguided attempt to use the courts to dictate national energy policy. In statements released by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and legal representatives for firms like Chevron, the industry argues that the judiciary is not the appropriate venue for addressing a global challenge like climate change.

"Climate change is a global issue that requires a coordinated international and federal response, not a patchwork of inconsistent rulings from state courts," said a spokesperson for the industry’s legal defense team. "These lawsuits are a distraction from the real work of developing lower-carbon energy solutions and are based on a flawed interpretation of state law."

Conversely, proponents of the lawsuits, such as the Center for Climate Integrity, argue that the industry is simply trying to escape the same accountability that every other corporation faces. "If a company sells a product they know is dangerous and lies to the public about those dangers, they are liable under state law," said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The oil industry isn’t asking for fairness; they are asking for a special exemption from the rules that apply to everyone else."

Broader Impact and Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by the end of the current term, will have profound implications for the legal landscape of the United States. There are three primary scenarios that legal analysts are monitoring:

1. A Broad Ruling for the Industry: If the Court rules that federal law preempts all state-level climate claims, it would effectively kill dozens of pending lawsuits. This would be a massive victory for fossil fuel firms, shielding them from billions in potential damages and preventing the public disclosure of internal documents.
2. A Narrow Ruling or Refusal to Intervene: If the Court allows the cases to proceed in state courts, it will signal the beginning of a new era of corporate accountability. The industry would likely be forced into settlements or face high-stakes trials in jurisdictions that are often sympathetic to environmental concerns.
3. The Discovery Precedent: Even if the companies eventually win at trial, the mere act of entering the discovery phase could change the public perception of the industry forever. Much like the "Big Tobacco" documents transformed the public’s understanding of smoking risks, "Big Oil" documents could provide a roadmap for future regulation and international litigation.

Beyond the United States, the world is watching. Similar legal challenges are being mounted in the Netherlands, Germany, and before the European Court of Human Rights. A Supreme Court ruling that favors state-level accountability could embolden international plaintiffs, while a ruling for the industry could provide a legal blueprint for fossil fuel firms to defend themselves globally.

As the justices deliberate, the physical reality of the climate crisis continues to intensify. For the cities and states currently in the legal fray, the Supreme Court case is not just about legal technicalities—it is about who will pay for the survival of their communities in a warming world. The outcome will determine whether the fossil fuel industry can be held to the same standards as any other manufacturer, or if its role in the global economy grants it a unique immunity from the consequences of its past actions.