Climate change represents one of the most significant challenges facing our planet today, and State Attorneys General have emerged as powerful legal advocates in the fight to address its impacts. These chief legal officers of their respective states wield substantial authority to initiate lawsuits, enforce environmental regulations, and hold both government entities and private corporations accountable for actions that contribute to environmental degradation. Through strategic litigation and collaborative efforts, State Attorneys General are shaping the legal landscape of climate policy and environmental justice across the United States.
Understanding the Authority of State Attorneys General in Environmental Matters
State Attorneys General have evolved into important policy players over the past 20 years on issues including climate change, serving as the chief lawyer for their states with authority to propose legislation and initiate suits on behalf of the state. This unique position grants them the legal standing to pursue environmental cases that can have far-reaching implications for climate policy at both state and national levels.
The role of State Attorneys General extends beyond simple law enforcement. They can pursue actions that support federal activity, and they also fill gaps left by federal regulations, including protecting the environment on behalf of their citizens when the federal government won't. This gap-filling function has become particularly important during periods when federal environmental protections are weakened or rolled back.
State Attorneys General working to hold oil and gas companies accountable for the harms associated with fossil fuels is one such gap-filling activity. Their authority encompasses multiple legal avenues, including enforcement of state consumer protection laws, environmental statutes, public nuisance claims, and products liability theories. This multifaceted approach allows them to address climate change from various legal angles, increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes.
Major Climate Litigation Strategies and Legal Theories
State Attorneys General employ a diverse array of legal strategies in their climate change litigation efforts. These approaches have evolved over time as courts have ruled on various aspects of climate-related cases and as new evidence has emerged regarding corporate knowledge of climate impacts.
Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices
One of the most prominent legal theories employed by State Attorneys General involves consumer protection laws. Courts have found that states adequately state statutory consumer fraud claims under laws such as the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act. These claims typically allege that fossil fuel companies engaged in decades-long campaigns of deception about the climate impacts of their products.
The consumer protection approach focuses on allegations that companies misled the public through advertising and public statements. Complaints assert that although companies have known since at least the 1960s that the burning of fossil fuels would warm the planet and change the climate, they denied or downplayed climate change in public statements and marketing. This legal theory has proven particularly effective because it relies on well-established consumer protection statutes that exist in virtually every state.
Public Nuisance and Products Liability Claims
Beyond consumer protection, State Attorneys General have pursued public nuisance claims and products liability theories. Complaints allege that, as a result of defendants' failure to warn about climate-related harms related to the use of their products, states have sustained injuries and damages, including to state property, state infrastructure, and natural resources. These claims seek to establish that fossil fuel companies had a duty to warn consumers and the public about the known dangers of their products.
The public nuisance theory argues that the cumulative effect of greenhouse gas emissions constitutes an unreasonable interference with public rights, including the right to a stable climate and healthy environment. Products liability claims, meanwhile, focus on the failure of companies to provide adequate warnings about the foreseeable harms associated with fossil fuel combustion.
Challenging Federal Policy Rollbacks
State Attorneys General have also been active in challenging federal actions that weaken environmental protections. States have joined lawsuits challenging federal agencies' attempts to lower energy efficiency standards for certain appliances under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. These defensive actions aim to preserve existing environmental protections and prevent backsliding on climate progress.
Multi-state coalitions have formed specifically to challenge federal regulatory rollbacks. Multi-state challenges to federal agency rules have resulted in decisions requiring agencies to either make findings that actions would have no significant environmental impact or issue environmental impact statements. These procedural victories ensure that environmental considerations remain part of federal decision-making processes.
Landmark Cases: California's Climate Litigation Leadership
California has emerged as a leader in state-level climate litigation, leveraging its position as the largest state economy to pursue aggressive legal action against major fossil fuel companies. The state's approach has become a model for other jurisdictions considering similar litigation.
The California v. Big Oil Lawsuit
In September 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the filing of a lawsuit against five of the largest oil and gas companies in the world—Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP—and the American Petroleum Institute for allegedly engaging in a decades-long campaign of deception and creating statewide climate change-related harms. This lawsuit represents the most significant state-level climate litigation effort to date.
With the lawsuit, California became the largest geographic area and the largest economy to take giant oil companies to court. The scale of California's action sent a powerful signal to other states and to the fossil fuel industry that climate accountability litigation had reached a new level of seriousness and sophistication.
As detailed in the complaint, California has spent tens of billions of dollars to adapt to climate change and address the damages climate change has caused so far, and the state will need to spend multiples of that in the years to come. The lawsuit seeks to recover these costs and establish mechanisms for ongoing compensation as climate impacts continue to mount.
Greenwashing and Ongoing Deception Claims
California's litigation has evolved to address not just historical deception but ongoing misleading practices. The amended complaint filed in San Francisco County Superior Court includes additional examples of recent false advertising and greenwashing conduct by oil companies, alleging that companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of deception regarding the reality of climate change. This focus on current practices strengthens the legal case by demonstrating that the alleged misconduct is not merely historical but continues to the present day.
By engaging in "greenwashing"—falsely or misleadingly portraying their fossil fuel products and themselves as environmentally friendly or climate-friendly—these companies portray themselves as being part of the climate solution rather than a primary cause of the climate crisis, with repeated claims that certain products are "clean" likely to mislead Californians. This greenwashing allegation adds a contemporary dimension to the litigation that resonates with current consumer concerns about corporate environmental claims.
Seeking Disgorgement of Profits
California's amended complaint includes a request under AB 1366, which allows the Attorney General to seek disgorgement of profits obtained in violation of the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Laws, requiring defendants to give up profits gained through illegal conduct. This remedy goes beyond traditional damages and aims to strip companies of the financial benefits they allegedly obtained through deceptive practices.
The disgorgement approach represents an innovative legal strategy that could significantly increase the financial stakes for defendant companies. If successful, it would establish a precedent that companies cannot profit from conduct that violates consumer protection and environmental laws, even if those profits were earned over many decades.
Multi-State Coalitions and Collaborative Litigation Efforts
Recognizing that climate change transcends state boundaries, many State Attorneys General have formed coalitions to amplify their impact and share resources. These collaborative efforts have become a hallmark of climate litigation strategy.
The Power of Coalition Building
Coalitions made up of the U.S. Department of Justice, 26 state attorneys general, more than 100 members of Congress, and academic experts showcase that concerns about climate litigation are of national importance. These broad coalitions bring together diverse perspectives and resources, making it more difficult for defendants to dismiss the litigation as politically motivated or lacking in legal merit.
More than at any time in U.S. history, attorneys general on both sides are working in concert to advance or thwart administration objectives, with environmental policies—especially those related to climate change—serving as a prime example. This coordination extends beyond simple joint filings to include shared legal strategies, coordinated discovery efforts, and unified messaging to the public and courts.
Multi-state coalitions provide several strategic advantages. They pool financial and legal resources, allowing states with smaller budgets to participate in complex litigation. They also create political cover for individual Attorneys General who might face local opposition to climate litigation. Additionally, coordinated multi-state actions send a stronger signal to courts about the seriousness and widespread nature of the legal issues at stake.
Amicus Brief Support and Legal Solidarity
Attorney General Bonta has supported states and municipalities that have filed their own complaints to hold major fossil fuel-producing companies accountable, filing amicus briefs supporting efforts by the City of Honolulu, the County of Maui, the City of Baltimore, the state of Rhode Island, and the State of Minnesota. These amicus briefs provide legal arguments and support that strengthen other jurisdictions' cases while building a network of mutual assistance among climate litigants.
The amicus brief strategy serves multiple purposes. It demonstrates to courts that the legal theories being advanced have broad support among legal experts and government officials. It also helps develop and refine legal arguments across multiple cases, as courts in different jurisdictions consider similar issues. Finally, it creates a sense of momentum and inevitability around climate accountability litigation.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and State Cooperation
Beyond litigation, State Attorneys General have supported regional climate initiatives through legal action. Returning Virginia to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative had been a priority for Governor Abigail Spanberger and Attorney General Jay Jones, both of whom took office in January 2026, with recently enacted budget legislation requiring reentry to the program. This example illustrates how Attorneys General can use their legal authority to support broader climate policy goals through strategic litigation and regulatory advocacy.
Expanding Scope: New Legal Theories and Novel Claims
As climate litigation has evolved, State Attorneys General and other plaintiffs have begun exploring new legal theories that extend beyond traditional environmental and consumer protection claims.
Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Claims
The scope of climate litigation expanded in 2025, with an Oregon woman accusing the oil and gas industry of contributing to her mother's death during a heat wave, and Washington state homeowners filing a landmark lawsuit against oil majors arguing that climate change has caused more frequent and intense natural disasters, leading insurance premiums to rise. These personal injury and wrongful death claims represent a significant expansion of climate litigation beyond institutional plaintiffs.
Lawsuits name oil companies including ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron, alleging they have known for decades that burning fossil fuels alters the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in more extreme weather and foreseeable loss of human life, but rather than warn the public, the companies deceived consumers about the risks. These cases attempt to establish direct causal links between corporate conduct and individual harms, potentially opening new avenues for climate accountability.
Climate Superfund Legislation
"Climate superfund" bills are designed to impose punitive fees on energy producers to fund climate projects, enacted so far only in Vermont and New York. These legislative initiatives, often supported by State Attorneys General, create new mechanisms for holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate damages.
In February 2025, 22 Republican attorneys general sued New York over its recently enacted state law that requires fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-related damages caused by hurricanes, heatwaves, and coastal flooding, arguing that the legislation is unconstitutional because federal law preempts any state law that addresses the harms from interstate greenhouse gas emissions. This legal challenge highlights the contentious nature of climate superfund approaches and the partisan divisions that sometimes characterize climate litigation.
If courts agree state laws are barred by federal law, DOJ's lawsuits could lead to a "de facto nationwide federal shield against state climate torts and 'climate Superfund' recovery schemes," while if New York and Vermont prevail, "traditional energy producers could face retroactive exposure untethered to federal permitting," with either outcome affecting litigation risk and strategy across the energy value chain. The resolution of these cases will have profound implications for the future of state-level climate policy.
Antitrust and Conspiracy Claims
Recent complaints have asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and under state antitrust laws, seeking compensatory and trebled damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys' fees and costs. These antitrust theories allege that fossil fuel companies conspired to deceive the public about climate change, potentially violating competition laws in the process.
The antitrust approach represents a creative expansion of climate litigation theory. By framing climate deception as a conspiracy among competitors, plaintiffs can potentially access enhanced damages and remedies available under antitrust statutes. This theory also emphasizes the coordinated nature of the alleged deception, suggesting that individual companies acted in concert through trade associations and other industry groups.
Jurisdictional Battles: Federal vs. State Court
One of the most significant ongoing battles in climate litigation involves the question of whether cases should proceed in state or federal court. This jurisdictional issue has profound implications for the success of climate lawsuits.
The Fight to Keep Cases in State Court
The nation's highest bench will soon reveal whether it will take up the oil and gas industry's latest effort to quash lawsuits seeking to hold companies financially accountable for the costs of climate change, with Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy asking the justices to find that federal law bars local governments from seeking relief for climate change in state courts. This Supreme Court consideration represents a critical juncture for climate litigation.
Oil industry lawyers have argued there is a "clear and acknowledged conflict" as to whether federal law precludes local governments from suing fossil fuel producers for alleged effects of global greenhouse gas emissions, while Boulder, which sued oil companies, has argued that states have always had the authority to police in-state injuries, pointing to similar lawsuits against manufacturers of opioids and asbestos. This debate centers on fundamental questions of federalism and state sovereignty.
The petition challenging the Colorado State Supreme Court's decision in the City of Boulder and Boulder County's climate lawsuit has brought together a large coalition including the U.S. Department of Justice, 26 state attorneys general, more than 100 members of Congress, and academic experts, showcasing that concerns are of national importance. The breadth of this coalition underscores the high stakes involved in the jurisdictional question.
Strategic Advantages of State Court
State Attorneys General and other climate plaintiffs generally prefer state court for several strategic reasons. State courts allow plaintiffs to pursue claims under state consumer protection, nuisance, and products liability laws that may not be available in federal court. State court juries may also be more sympathetic to climate claims, particularly in states that have experienced severe climate impacts. Additionally, state court judges may be more familiar with state law claims and less inclined to dismiss cases on federal preemption grounds.
The fossil fuel industry, conversely, prefers federal court, where they believe they have better chances of dismissal on grounds that climate change is a political question requiring federal solutions rather than state court remedies. Federal courts have historically been more receptive to arguments about federal preemption and the need for uniform national policy on issues with interstate implications.
Recent Jurisdictional Developments
One day after the Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit alleging that energy industry defendants engaged in a conspiracy to delay the transition to low-carbon transportation and energy, the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the United States' lawsuit seeking to block the State of Michigan from filing a lawsuit seeking damages from fossil fuel companies. This dismissal represents a significant victory for state-level climate litigation and suggests that federal courts may be increasingly reluctant to interfere with state enforcement actions.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court rejected an effort by oil and gas companies to block a climate lawsuit filed by Honolulu, and in March the justices turned down a request by Republican attorneys general to try to stop climate lawsuits filed by states including California, Connecticut, Minnesota and Rhode Island. These Supreme Court decisions, while procedural in nature, have allowed state court litigation to proceed and have been viewed as favorable developments for climate plaintiffs.
Challenges Facing State Attorneys General in Climate Litigation
Despite their successes and growing momentum, State Attorneys General face significant challenges in pursuing climate litigation. Understanding these obstacles is essential to appreciating the complexity of climate accountability efforts.
Political Opposition and Partisan Divisions
Climate litigation has become increasingly partisan, with Republican and Democratic Attorneys General often taking opposing positions. Republican attorneys general are pushing their agendas, with 22 Republican attorneys general suing New York over its recently enacted state law that requires fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-related damages. This partisan divide complicates efforts to build broad coalitions and can lead to counter-litigation that consumes resources and delays progress.
Increased scrutiny of Bloomberg's Special Assistant to the Attorney General program has emerged, with the Wisconsin State Senate launching an investigation into the Department of Justice's use of SAAGs, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer announcing a formal investigation into the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU School of Law. These investigations aim to undermine climate litigation by questioning the funding sources and motivations of attorneys working on these cases.
Legal and Procedural Hurdles
Climate litigation faces numerous legal challenges beyond the jurisdictional battles. Courts have found that plaintiffs' alleged climate change-related injuries did not satisfy standing requirements for causation and redressability. Establishing the causal link between specific corporate actions and particular climate harms remains a significant evidentiary challenge.
Courts have concluded that anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) laws do not apply to enforcement actions brought by Attorneys General. While this represents a victory for state enforcement actions, defendants continue to raise procedural defenses that can delay cases and increase litigation costs.
For climate lawfare, 2025 marked another year riddled with legal losses and widespread criticism, with the court record showing the climate litigation campaign is losing ground. While this characterization comes from industry-aligned sources, it reflects the reality that climate litigation faces significant headwinds in many jurisdictions and that success is far from guaranteed.
Resource Constraints and Litigation Costs
Climate litigation is extraordinarily expensive and resource-intensive. State Attorneys General offices must balance climate cases against numerous other enforcement priorities, including consumer protection, antitrust, criminal appeals, and defending state agencies in litigation. The fossil fuel industry, with its vast financial resources, can afford to hire large teams of attorneys and experts to defend against climate claims, potentially overwhelming smaller state AG offices.
To address resource constraints, some State Attorneys General have partnered with private law firms on a contingency fee basis or accepted assistance from nonprofit organizations and academic centers. However, these arrangements have themselves become targets of criticism and investigation, as noted above, creating additional challenges for climate litigants.
Complexity of Attribution and Damages Calculation
One of the most significant challenges in climate litigation involves calculating damages and attributing specific harms to particular defendants. Estimates suggest damages are in the range of tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars in ongoing damage going forward, requiring experts and scientists to look at attribution of different damage to different defendants and causation to determine specifics, which will take time and require more evidence and information through the course of lawsuits. This complexity creates opportunities for defendants to challenge the scientific basis of damage claims and to argue that the harms are too speculative or uncertain to support legal liability.
The Role of Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony
Scientific evidence forms the foundation of climate litigation, and State Attorneys General must marshal sophisticated scientific expertise to support their claims. The quality and presentation of scientific evidence can make or break climate cases.
Attribution Science and Climate Modeling
Attribution science—the field that links specific weather events or climate impacts to human-caused climate change—has advanced significantly in recent years. A rapid attribution study released days after a 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave found that the event would have been "virtually impossible without human-caused climate change." These attribution studies provide crucial evidence linking climate change to specific harms that states have suffered.
Climate modeling also plays a central role in litigation. Scientists at Exxon were modeling troubling increases in carbon dioxide emissions without big reductions in fossil fuel consumption. Internal company documents showing that fossil fuel companies' own scientists predicted current climate impacts provide powerful evidence of corporate knowledge and foreseeability.
Historical Corporate Knowledge
Oil and gas executives have known for decades about the dangers of the fossil fuels they produce, with industry-funded reports directly linking fossil fuel consumption to rising global temperatures and damage to air, land, and water, yet oil companies intentionally suppressed that information from the public and policymakers to protect their profits, spending billions of dollars to spread disinformation on climate change. This historical knowledge forms the basis for deception claims and distinguishes climate cases from ordinary products liability litigation.
Companies knew 50, 60, 70 years ago that their fossil fuels that they were selling created climate change, predicting with terrifying certainty where we would be today, with extreme weather events. The long history of corporate knowledge undermines industry arguments that climate impacts were unforeseeable or that companies acted in good faith based on the scientific understanding of their time.
Economic Impact Studies
A Center for Climate Integrity study calculated that Los Angeles County alone faces $12.5 billion in costs by 2041 to protect residents and infrastructure from 14 climate change impacts, including nearly $1 billion for wildfires. These economic studies provide concrete figures that help courts and juries understand the magnitude of climate damages and the financial stakes involved in litigation.
Economic experts must also address complex questions about the appropriate discount rate for future damages, the allocation of responsibility among multiple defendants, and the separation of climate-related damages from other factors that contribute to environmental and economic harms. These technical economic questions can significantly impact the ultimate damages awarded in successful cases.
Industry Responses and Counter-Strategies
The fossil fuel industry has developed sophisticated strategies to defend against climate litigation and to shift the narrative around corporate responsibility for climate change.
Defamation Counterclaims
In January 2025, Exxon Mobil sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta in federal court, alleging Bonta and environmental groups engaged in a "deliberate smear campaign" against the company, with the defamation suit in response to Bonta's lawsuit against Exxon Mobil for false claims about plastic recycling. These counterclaims aim to intimidate State Attorneys General and create additional litigation burdens that might discourage future climate cases.
The defamation strategy represents an aggressive response to climate litigation that attempts to reframe the debate from corporate accountability to free speech and reputation protection. By filing counterclaims, fossil fuel companies force State Attorneys General to defend their own conduct and statements, potentially diverting resources from the underlying climate cases.
Public Relations and Messaging
Industry representatives have characterized climate litigation as "an ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless, politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers" and "an enormous waste of California taxpayer resources." This messaging aims to shift public opinion against climate litigation by emphasizing economic concerns and portraying the cases as politically motivated attacks on American industry.
Shell representatives have said that the company agrees climate change needs to be addressed, but it should be done collaboratively not by legal action, stating "We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change, but that smart policy from government and action from all sectors is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress." This response attempts to position the industry as reasonable and solution-oriented while characterizing litigation as counterproductive.
Procedural Defense Strategies
Beyond substantive defenses, the fossil fuel industry employs numerous procedural strategies to delay and complicate climate litigation. These include motions to dismiss based on federal preemption, challenges to personal jurisdiction, arguments about the political question doctrine, and efforts to remove cases to federal court. Each of these procedural battles can take years to resolve and consume significant resources.
Defendants have argued that continuing stays are warranted due to pending motions and related cases, arguing that resolution of certain motions could dispose of cases and that courts should wait until related federal lawsuits are resolved. These delay tactics aim to postpone trials and discovery for as long as possible, hoping that political changes or legal developments might ultimately favor defendants.
The Intersection of Climate Litigation and Environmental Justice
Climate litigation increasingly incorporates environmental justice concerns, recognizing that climate impacts disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.
Disproportionate Impacts on Vulnerable Communities
California AG intervened in and helped to settle litigation surrounding an industrial project that was expected to increase diesel truck traffic in a predominantly Latino residential area. This intervention illustrates how State Attorneys General can use their authority to address environmental justice concerns that intersect with climate issues.
Washington voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging termination of funding that the State alleged it was "relying on to help communities disproportionately exposed to the adverse effects of climate change become more resilient." This case highlights the importance of climate resilience funding for vulnerable communities and the role of State Attorneys General in fighting to preserve such programs.
Tribal Nations and Indigenous Rights
A pair of tribal nations in Washington state filed lawsuits late in 2023, citing the costs of moving to higher ground as rising sea levels threaten their communities, with environmental advocates saying the entry of tribes—many of which are facing the worst effects of climate change—is a welcome development in the legal fight. Tribal participation in climate litigation brings unique legal theories based on treaty rights and trust responsibilities, as well as compelling narratives about communities facing existential threats from climate change.
Washington State intervened and multiple states submitted Amicus Briefs in a lawsuit filed by a Native American tribe against a Canadian smelting company for polluting the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt. This support demonstrates how State Attorneys General can assist tribal nations in environmental enforcement actions that address both pollution and climate concerns.
Youth Climate Litigation
The Montana District Court awarded youth plaintiffs who prevailed on climate change-based Montana Constitution claims against the State of Montana more than $2.8 million in attorney fees and almost $100,000 in additional costs. Youth climate cases, while typically brought by private plaintiffs rather than State Attorneys General, have influenced the broader climate litigation landscape by establishing constitutional rights to a stable climate in some jurisdictions.
These youth cases often frame climate change as a matter of intergenerational justice, arguing that current policies and corporate practices impose unconscionable burdens on future generations. While State Attorneys General have generally not been lead plaintiffs in youth climate cases, they have sometimes filed supporting briefs or intervened to defend state climate policies challenged in such litigation.
Looking Ahead: The Future of State-Led Climate Litigation
As climate litigation continues to evolve, several trends and developments are likely to shape its future trajectory.
Potential Supreme Court Intervention
Looking ahead to 2026, which will mark the eleventh year in the drawn-out campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court has a crucial opportunity to end the litigation campaign. A Supreme Court decision on the jurisdictional question or other fundamental issues could dramatically reshape the climate litigation landscape, either by allowing state court cases to proceed or by establishing federal preemption that would effectively end most current litigation.
The court rebuffed similar efforts twice in 2025 but did hand energy companies a narrow procedural win in the litigation in 2021, with the Trump administration backing the oil companies' petition, boosting its chance of being heard by the justices. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision on whether to hear these cases and how it rules will have profound implications for state sovereignty, environmental federalism, and climate accountability.
Expansion to New Defendants and Theories
As traditional climate claims continue to falter, activists have attempted to broaden their attack on energy companies by experimenting with new legal theories, with plastics litigation pushed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and aligned NGOs repurposing climate lawfare arguments for a new target. This expansion suggests that climate litigation will continue to evolve and adapt, potentially targeting new industries and using new legal theories as courts rule on existing cases.
After years of legal appeals and delays, some oil companies are set to stand trial in lawsuits brought by state and local governments over damages caused by climate change, with dozens more governments bringing new claims against the fossil fuel industry, with cases building toward more cases in more places using more legal theories to hold companies accountable. This momentum suggests that climate litigation will remain a significant feature of the legal landscape for years to come.
The Role of Federal Climate Policy
Trump has begun revoking renewable energy policies and fast-tracking oil and gas projects, with state attorneys general expected to play a critical role in protecting citizens from the harms of pollution and climate change. The relationship between federal climate policy and state litigation will continue to evolve based on which party controls the federal government and what policies are pursued at the federal level.
As the Trump administration reshuffles federal priorities, consumer litigation and "blue state" attorney general enforcement may intensify to promote integrity around climate claims in the face of federal animosity toward climate mitigation. This dynamic suggests that state-level climate litigation may serve as a counterbalance to federal policy, with State Attorneys General filling enforcement gaps left by federal inaction or rollbacks.
International Dimensions
While this article focuses on U.S. State Attorneys General, climate litigation is a global phenomenon. Courts in other countries have issued groundbreaking decisions requiring governments and corporations to take stronger climate action. These international developments may influence U.S. litigation by providing legal precedents, scientific evidence, and strategic insights that can be adapted to the American legal context.
State Attorneys General may increasingly look to international climate litigation for inspiration and support. Conversely, successful U.S. state-level litigation could inspire similar efforts in other countries with federal systems where subnational governments have significant enforcement authority.
Practical Implications for Businesses and Policymakers
The rise of climate litigation led by State Attorneys General has significant practical implications for businesses, policymakers, and other stakeholders.
Corporate Climate Disclosure and Risk Management
Companies across all sectors must now consider climate litigation risk as part of their enterprise risk management. This includes evaluating potential exposure to claims based on historical statements about climate change, current marketing and advertising practices, and the climate impacts of their products and operations. Companies should ensure that their climate-related disclosures are accurate, substantiated, and consistent across all communications.
Cases represent a shift in focus toward the integrity of carbon projects on which companies rely and the level of knowledge companies are expected to have regarding those projects, with companies wishing to minimize litigation exposure needing to carefully diligence projects that source carbon credits or offsets they purchase to support climate claims. This heightened scrutiny of climate claims means that companies must be prepared to substantiate any environmental marketing with robust evidence.
Insurance Industry Implications
Class-action insurance litigation blames rising insurance costs on U.S. energy companies, with the law firm leading the effort having already suffered losses in prior climate litigation and facing its own legal scrutiny. The insurance industry faces unique challenges from climate litigation, both as potential defendants in cases alleging that climate change has driven up insurance costs and as insurers of fossil fuel companies facing climate liability claims.
Insurance companies must carefully evaluate their exposure to climate-related claims and consider whether their policies cover climate litigation defense costs and potential judgments. The resolution of coverage disputes in climate cases will have significant implications for the insurance industry's approach to climate risk.
State and Local Government Planning
For state and local governments, climate litigation represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Successful litigation could provide significant funding for climate adaptation and resilience efforts. However, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain. Governments must carefully weigh the potential benefits against the costs and risks of pursuing climate cases.
Governments should also consider how climate litigation fits within their broader climate strategy. Litigation should complement, not replace, proactive climate policies, adaptation planning, and mitigation efforts. The most effective approach likely involves a combination of policy initiatives, regulatory enforcement, and strategic litigation.
Key Takeaways and Strategic Considerations
State Attorneys General have emerged as central players in climate accountability efforts, using their unique legal authority to pursue cases that could reshape corporate behavior and provide funding for climate adaptation. Their strategies include consumer protection claims, public nuisance theories, products liability actions, and challenges to federal policy rollbacks. Multi-state coalitions have amplified their impact and resources.
Major cases, particularly California's lawsuit against major oil companies, have established important precedents and demonstrated the viability of state-level climate litigation. These cases allege decades of corporate deception about climate science and seek to recover billions of dollars in climate-related damages. The litigation has expanded to include novel theories such as wrongful death claims and climate superfund legislation.
Significant challenges remain, including jurisdictional battles over whether cases belong in state or federal court, political opposition and partisan divisions, resource constraints, and the complexity of proving causation and calculating damages. The fossil fuel industry has mounted vigorous defenses, including procedural challenges, public relations campaigns, and defamation counterclaims.
The future of climate litigation will be shaped by potential Supreme Court intervention, the expansion of legal theories and defendants, changes in federal climate policy, and the continued development of attribution science and economic impact studies. State Attorneys General are likely to remain active in this space, particularly when federal climate policy is weak or regressing.
For businesses, the rise of climate litigation necessitates careful attention to climate-related disclosures, marketing practices, and risk management. For policymakers, climate litigation represents one tool among many for addressing climate change, most effective when integrated with comprehensive climate policy and planning. For the public, these cases represent an important mechanism for accountability and a potential source of funding for climate adaptation in communities already experiencing climate impacts.
Resources and Further Reading
For those interested in learning more about climate litigation and the role of State Attorneys General, several resources provide ongoing coverage and analysis. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University maintains comprehensive databases of climate litigation worldwide and publishes regular updates on new cases and developments. The Center for Climate Integrity provides resources and support for communities pursuing climate accountability litigation.
State Attorney General offices typically publish press releases and legal filings related to their climate cases on their official websites. Following these official sources provides direct access to the legal arguments and evidence being presented in major cases. Academic journals focusing on environmental law and climate policy regularly publish articles analyzing climate litigation trends and outcomes.
Legal and policy organizations across the political spectrum offer different perspectives on climate litigation. Environmental advocacy groups generally support aggressive climate litigation as a necessary tool for accountability, while free-market think tanks and industry associations often criticize such litigation as counterproductive and economically harmful. Reviewing sources from multiple perspectives provides a more complete understanding of the debates surrounding climate litigation.
As climate litigation continues to evolve, staying informed about new cases, court decisions, and legal developments will be essential for anyone interested in climate policy, environmental law, or corporate accountability. The actions of State Attorneys General in this space will likely influence climate policy and corporate behavior for years to come, making this an important area to watch for policymakers, business leaders, advocates, and concerned citizens alike.