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

This legal confrontation, which has been brewing for nearly a decade, represents a pivotal moment in the intersection of corporate accountability, environmental science, and constitutional law. As the highest court in the United States prepares to address whether climate-related lawsuits should be adjudicated in state or federal venues, the implications extend far beyond simple jurisdictional disputes. At its core, the battle is over whether multinational energy corporations can be held liable under state consumer protection and nuisance laws for their alleged roles in deceiving the public about the risks of global warming.

The current trajectory of climate litigation in the U.S. has seen dozens of municipalities and states—ranging from California and Hawaii to Rhode Island and Massachusetts—file suits against companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP. These plaintiffs argue that fossil fuel companies knew for decades that their products would cause catastrophic climate change but engaged in sophisticated disinformation campaigns to protect their profits. By moving to block these cases from reaching state courtrooms, the industry seeks to avoid the "discovery" phase of litigation, where internal documents and scientific records could be brought to light before a jury.

The Jurisdictional Tug-of-War: State vs. Federal

The primary legal strategy employed by the fossil fuel industry has been "removal"—the process of moving a case from state court to federal court. This is not merely a change of scenery; it is a fundamental shift in the legal framework applied to the dispute. Historically, federal courts have been more inclined to dismiss climate-related cases, often ruling that climate change is a global policy issue that should be addressed by Congress and the executive branch rather than the judiciary. This precedent was largely set by the 2011 Supreme Court case American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, which found that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

State courts, however, offer a different legal landscape. Plaintiffs are increasingly framing their arguments around state-level torts, such as failure to warn, trespass, and consumer fraud. They contend that the issue is not the regulation of emissions—which is a federal matter—but rather the deceptive marketing practices used by corporations within specific state borders. If these cases remain in state courts, they are more likely to proceed to trial, allowing plaintiffs to present scientific evidence and internal corporate communications to a jury of local citizens.

The industry’s push to the Supreme Court follows a series of setbacks in appellate courts, which have repeatedly ruled that these cases belong in state courts. The fossil fuel giants are now asking the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the global nature of climate change necessitates a uniform federal response, rather than a "patchwork" of state-level rulings that could disrupt national energy policy.

A Chronology of Climate Litigation and Industry Strategy

The evolution of these legal battles can be traced through a series of significant milestones over the past two decades:

• 2005-2011: The Era of Federal Common Law. Early attempts to sue oil and utility companies, such as Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp, focused on "public nuisance" under federal law. These cases were largely unsuccessful, as courts ruled that the Clean Air Act superseded these claims.
• 2017-2018: The Shift to State Courts. Recognizing the limitations of federal law, cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and New York City filed new suits in state courts, focusing on consumer deception and state-specific damages. The industry immediately sought to remove these cases to federal court.
• 2020-2022: Appellate Victories for Plaintiffs. Several U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals (including the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits) ruled that climate change lawsuits based on state law claims should be heard in state courts.
• 2023-2024: The Supreme Court’s Growing Involvement. After declining to hear similar appeals in the past, the Supreme Court began showing increased interest in the jurisdictional question. In 2024, the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in on a case involving the City of Honolulu, signaling that a definitive ruling might be on the horizon.
• 2025-2026: The Current Crisis. As global temperatures continue to break records and extreme weather events become more frequent, the urgency of these cases has intensified. The Supreme Court’s decision to weigh the industry’s role comes at a time when the economic costs of climate change are reaching unprecedented levels.

Supporting Data: The Economic and Environmental Stakes

The financial motivations behind both the litigation and the industry’s defense are staggering. 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 taxpayers should not bear the full burden of these costs—such as building sea walls, repairing infrastructure after floods, and managing wildfires—when fossil fuel companies have reaped trillions in profits while allegedly obscuring the risks.

For context, the "Big Five" oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies) reported combined profits of nearly $200 billion in 2022. Plaintiffs point to this disparity, arguing that a fraction of these profits should be redirected toward climate adaptation and mitigation. Furthermore, scientific data from the Climate Accountability Institute indicates that just 90 "carbon major" entities are responsible for two-thirds of all historic greenhouse gas emissions. This concentration of responsibility forms the basis for the plaintiffs’ argument that these specific companies should be held accountable for the resulting damages.

Official Responses and Industry Defense

The fossil fuel industry has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that climate change is a complex global challenge that cannot be solved through litigation. In statements provided by trade groups such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry argues that these lawsuits are "baseless" and represent an attempt by activist politicians to bypass the legislative process.

"Climate policy is a matter for the halls of Congress and international negotiations, not the courtrooms of individual states," a spokesperson for a major energy firm stated during a recent legal briefing. "Singling out a handful of companies for a global phenomenon that is the result of centuries of industrial activity is neither fair nor legally sound."

Conversely, legal experts and environmental advocates argue that the industry is simply trying to hide the truth. "The industry’s desperate attempt to move these cases to federal court is a clear admission that they cannot win on the merits of the science in a state court," said a senior attorney for the Center for Climate Integrity. "They are terrified of discovery because they know their own internal records will show they lied to the public for decades."

Global Context: Energy Security and the UN Stance

The Supreme Court’s deliberations are occurring against a backdrop of global energy instability. Recent disruptions in the Persian Gulf and the ongoing crisis in Iran have sent oil and gas prices soaring, leading some political leaders to call for increased domestic fossil fuel production. However, United Nations Climate Chief Simon Stiell has warned that using short-term energy crises to double down on fossil fuels is "completely delusional."

Speaking at a recent summit, Stiell emphasized that the transition to renewables is the only path to long-term energy security and climate stability. The outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case will likely influence international efforts to hold corporations accountable. If the U.S. judiciary allows these cases to proceed, it could embolden similar litigation in Europe, South America, and Asia, where "climate justice" movements are gaining traction.

Broader Impact and Implications

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will have profound implications for the future of the energy industry and the legal system. A ruling in favor of the fossil fuel companies would likely end most state-level climate litigation in the U.S., providing the industry with a significant legal shield against liability. This could slow the momentum of the energy transition, as companies would face less financial pressure to pivot away from carbon-intensive business models.

On the other hand, if the Court allows these cases to proceed in state courts, it could trigger a "litigation wave" similar to the Big Tobacco settlements of the 1990s. The discovery process could reveal a trove of internal documents that reshape the public’s understanding of the climate crisis. Furthermore, the threat of multi-billion-dollar judgments or settlements could force energy giants to accelerate their investments in clean energy technologies, such as carbon capture, green hydrogen, and large-scale solar and wind projects.

Beyond the financial impact, the case raises fundamental questions about the role of the judiciary in addressing existential threats. It tests the limits of corporate free speech—specifically, whether deceptive marketing can be protected as "commercial speech"—and determines the extent to which state governments can use their own laws to protect their citizens from global environmental harms.

As the legal proceedings continue, the world is watching closely. The intersection of corporate liability and climate science in the U.S. Supreme Court represents more than just a legal technicality; it is a referendum on how modern society assigns responsibility for the transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere and who should pay for the consequences of that change. Whether the "science is heard" in state courts or silenced by federal preemption remains one of the most consequential questions of the 21st century.