The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to a wave of lawsuits filed by liberal state and local governments against oil companies, clearing the path for left-wing activists to weaponize the courts and force energy producers to pay billions for so-called “climate damages.”

The move is being hailed by climate extremists but condemned by legal experts, constitutional scholars, and consumer advocates who say it’s a backdoor effort to implement the failed Green New Deal — not by passing legislation, but by judicial activism.

The lawsuits, backed by progressive attorneys general in states like California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, seek to punish oil and gas companies for contributing to climate change — despite their lawful operation under federal environmental regulations. The goal: massive payouts, regulatory restrictions, and ultimately a chilling effect on U.S. energy production.

O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, blasted the decision:

“Consumers are not helped by these cases, which seek to wipe products from store shelves and funnel money to left-wing causes,” Skinner said.

“Here is hoping the targets of these lawsuits continue to fight these cases… that is the only way for consumers not to be sacrificed before the left-wing onslaught here.”

The Alliance for Consumers released a damning report last year that exposed the dark money network bankrolling these lawsuits. The funding sources, tied to wealthy left-wing donors and activist foundations, aim to use local courts to force radical environmental policy onto the entire nation.

In December, Skinner warned that if these lawsuits succeed, oil companies will be forced to halt production or adopt costly emission controls — burdens they will pass on to American families in the form of skyrocketing energy prices.

“This is the Green New Deal by judicial decree,” he said. “If it can’t pass through Congress, they’ll get it through courtroom activism.”

Critics say these cases — built on state-level nuisance laws — are already being used as a blueprint to sue other industries. Auto manufacturers, steelmakers, utilities, and virtually any high-emissions business could be next in line.

Adam White, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said the Court’s refusal to hear the Honolulu case only encourages more activist litigation.

“I hope that the Court will hear the issue someday, for the sake of constitutional accountability and the public interest,” he said.

In May, 19 Republican attorneys general, led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall, filed a constitutional challenge to similar lawsuits brought by blue states, calling the actions an unconstitutional power grab.

Even more concerning, the Biden-Harris administration has refused to push back, breaking with historical precedent where the federal government would typically defend national authority when state lawsuits threaten to overstep federal agencies like the EPA.

“It looks like they’re motivated by allegiance to the dark money backers behind these cases,” Skinner told Just the News.

The law firm Sher Edling, based in San Francisco, is at the center of the legal offensive. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability launched an investigation last year into the secretive funding propping up the firm’s lawsuits — pointing to “wealthy liberals” trying to bankrupt America’s energy industry through lawfare.

Sher Edling has claimed the suits are narrowly focused on alleged corporate “deceit,” not climate change itself — a narrative critics reject as disingenuous.

With President Donald J. Trump poised for a historic return to the White House and a strong Republican majority expected in Congress, legal experts say a dramatic shift in environmental and energy policy is on the horizon — and the days of leftist climate litigation may be numbered.