In a move that greenlights judicial activism against America’s energy sector, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear legal challenges from oil companies and energy-producing states attempting to halt state and local lawsuits that aim to extract billions from fossil fuel producers over alleged climate-related damages.

These lawsuits—championed by progressive states and leftist municipalities—seek to sidestep Congress and impose climate regulations through court rulings. Industry groups and Republican-led states had petitioned the high court to intervene, warning that allowing these cases to proceed would effectively allow climate radicals to use the judiciary to enforce anti-fossil fuel policies rejected by voters.

“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, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, a consumer advocacy nonprofit.

Skinner warned that unless these lawsuits are defeated, Americans will be left footing the bill for radical climate agendas. “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,” he added.

The Alliance for Consumers has previously exposed how leftist groups are bankrolling these legal campaigns using shadowy dark money networks. A report released last year confirmed that liberal activists are using backdoor funding to push lawsuits that would never survive democratic scrutiny or legislative debate.

In an interview with Just the News, Skinner explained the broader implications: “If these lawsuits succeed, oil companies may be forced to either halt production altogether or drastically increase costs to reduce emissions—costs that would be dumped on the backs of consumers.”

Ultimately, Skinner said, these cases are a vehicle to enact the Green New Deal via judicial fiat, not through public consent or congressional vote. “It’s environmental extremism masquerading as public interest litigation.”

The lawsuits don’t stop with oil companies. Climate crusaders have begun targeting other essential American industries, including auto manufacturers, utilities, and the steel sector—any large emitter that stands in the way of their carbon-zero fantasy.

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, also sounded the alarm on the Supreme Court’s inaction, warning it could embolden more activist lawsuits designed to turn liberal courts into unelected 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.

In May, a coalition of 19 Republican attorneys general, led by Alabama’s Steve Marshall, filed a constitutional challenge against several of these suits. States like California, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Rhode Island have become legal laboratories for green special interests eager to bypass Congress and install climate policy by court order.

Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration has refused to support the industry’s legal defense—despite longstanding precedent that the federal government should assert jurisdiction when local lawsuits encroach on national regulatory authority, like that of the EPA.

“It looks like they’re motivated by allegiance to the dark money backers behind these cases,” Skinner said, referring to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s refusal to bring the issue to the high court.

A key player in these lawsuits is San Francisco-based firm Sher Edling, which has drawn scrutiny for its financial ties to leftist billionaires. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability launched an investigation into the firm last year, seeking transparency about the liberal mega-donors funding litigation aimed at kneecapping U.S. energy producers.

Though Sher Edling claims it is not trying to bankrupt oil and gas companies, it admits its clients are pursuing damages for alleged climate change harms linked to corporate “deceit”—a vague and conveniently unprovable legal theory.

President Donald J. Trump and the Republican-led Congress are expected to take a much tougher stance on environmental law, energy sovereignty, and the weaponization of the judiciary. Under President Trump’s leadership, the days of dark-money-driven climate litigation may soon be numbered.