SCOTUS Denies Request To Consider Climate Lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to hear challenges against state and local lawsuits that aim to hold oil companies financially responsible for alleged damages related to climate change.
Oil industry representatives, energy-producing states, and affiliated groups had submitted two petitions in response to the growing number of climate-related lawsuits. Critics argue that these legal actions are being used by states to enforce anti-fossil fuel agendas. If successful, these lawsuits could force oil companies to pay out billions — costs that would likely be transferred to consumers.
“Consumers are not helped by these cases, which seek to wipe products from store shelves and funnel money to left-wing causes,” said O.H. Skinner, who leads the Alliance for Consumers, a nonprofit advocating for consumer rights.
“Here is hoping the targets of these lawsuits continue to fight these cases, as they have consistently prevailed in the final stages of review, and that is the only way for consumers not to be sacrificed before the left-wing onslaught here,” Skinner added.
Last year, the Alliance for Consumers published a report revealing what it described as a large-scale “dark money” operation funding these climate lawsuits, primarily led by liberal advocacy organizations. Their findings mirrored those of other independent analyses.
In a December interview with Just the News, Skinner noted that if these lawsuits — many of which utilize state nuisance laws — succeed, energy firms may be forced to either curtail production or adopt costly emission reduction methods.
He also warned that these legal strategies could result in the implementation of policies similar to the Green New Deal — not through elected representatives, but through judicial decisions.
Beyond oil companies, Skinner suggested that the lawsuits could soon extend to other major industries. Automakers, utility providers, and the U.S. steel sector may be next in line.
The American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning policy think tank, expressed concern that the Supreme Court's decision to pass on the Honolulu case might embolden activist-led litigation, effectively allowing them to act as “the nation’s energy regulators.”
“I hope that the Court will hear the issue someday, for the sake of constitutional accountability and the public interest,” said Adam White, a senior fellow at the institute.
Back in May, a group of 19 attorneys general — led by Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall — challenged similar lawsuits filed in states like California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, arguing that they raise constitutional concerns.
Skinner also criticized the stance taken by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, saying her arguments deviated from typical federal positions. He pointed out that when state or local legal actions threaten to override national regulatory authority — such as the EPA’s role in emission regulation — it has historically been the solicitor general’s duty to defend that federal jurisdiction.
In contrast, Skinner claimed the Biden-Harris administration has chosen not to press for a Supreme Court hearing on these cases. “It looks like they’re motivated by allegiance to the dark money backers behind these cases,” he said.
Environmental activists, including those aligned with San Francisco-based law firm Sher Edling, have come under scrutiny for allegedly pushing legal action funded by undisclosed donors. Critics say the firm is attempting to achieve through the courts what failed in legislatures.
In response, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability launched an inquiry into Sher Edling to determine who the “wealthy liberals” financing the litigation efforts are.
For their part, Sher Edling maintains that bankrupting oil companies would defeat the purpose of the lawsuits, as there would be no funds to recover. They assert that their legal claims are narrowly focused on damage allegedly caused by the companies’ own deceptive conduct, not on broader climate change impacts.
With former President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress potentially returning to power, a sharp departure from the Biden-Harris administration's approach to environmental and energy policy is expected.