Courts nationwide dismantle "quackery" against energy firms
By willowt // 2025-05-21
Copy
 
  • A growing trend of rulings by federal and state judges — including in Pennsylvania, New York City, Maryland and Delaware — has dismissed lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for climate damages, citing jurisdictional limits and legal precedent under the Clean Air Act. These cases are deemed a matter for federal, not local, policymaking.
  • Judges emphasize that state/local laws cannot regulate interstate emissions, with rulings underscoring the Clean Air Act’s federal preemption. New York’s case was dismissed for contradictions in claiming public climate awareness while alleging corporate deception ("greenwashing"), highlighting flawed legal arguments.
  • Bucks County’s lawsuit was criticized for violating transparency laws (Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act) by hiring a contingency-fee law firm without public input or cost-benefit analysis. Judges and industry lawyers condemned the lack of open government deliberation.
  • Opponents, like the Heritage Foundation’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth, argue these lawsuits are ideologically driven "lawfare" aiming to destabilize energy companies and force green policies through courts rather than legislation. Industry attorneys warn against conflating corporate disclosures with federal regulatory duties.
  • The rulings reinforce federal authority over climate policy, aligning with efforts (like Trump-era executive orders) to curb state overreach. They may shield consumers/taxpayers from costly liability claims (e.g., Bucks County’s $23 billion demand) while preserving affordable energy access — though political debates over policy-making power persist.
A growing chorus of federal and state judges has struck blows against a wave of climate lawsuits targeting energy companies, reaffirming that carbon emissions are the domain of federal policymakers, not local regulators. In a landmark ruling, Bucks County, Pennsylvania’s lawsuit against fossil fuel giants BP, ExxonMobil and others was dismissed last week by Common Pleas Judge Stephen Corr, who called the case “not judiciable by any court in Pennsylvania.” This decision follows similar dismissals in New York City and across the U.S., signaling a judicial rejection of efforts to hold energy companies legally liable for global climate impacts.

Jurisdictional barriers and legal precedent cripple claims

Judge Corr’s decision underscores longstanding legal interpretations of the Clean Air Act, which preempt state and local governments from regulating interstate emissions. “Pennsylvania cannot apply its own laws to claims dealing with air in its ambient or interstate aspects,” the ruling states. His opinion aligns with a trend among judges in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and New York, who have also ruled that climate lawsuits require national, not local solutions. This stance received support from industry observers like Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation, who argued, “Environmentalists are trying to use courts to do climate policy because they can’t get their way through elected officials. The way to channel this problem is through laws.” Meanwhile, New York Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel dismissed the city’s nearly identical lawsuit this month, noting the city’s contradiction in claiming both public awareness of climate change and corporate deception. “You cannot have it both ways,” Patel ruled, rejecting claims that companies contributed to a “greenwashing” campaign. Attorneys for energy firms have consistently maintained that such cases conflate corporate disclosures with federal regulatory responsibilities.

Procedural missteps and government transparency concerns

Beyond jurisdictional issues, Judge Corr took issue with Bucks County’s conduct, accusing its commissioners of violating Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act by failing to adequately engage the public in litigation planning. The county had hired a contingent-fee law firm, DiCello Levitt, to pursue claims without clear policymaker or resident input, leaving no public record of debate or cost-benefit analysis. Ted Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, praised the ruling, stating the court “correctly found the commissioners violated the spirit of open government, ensuring transparency in public decisions.” Critics, including Heritage’s Furchtgott-Roth, argue such lawsuits amount to “lawfare” against energy companies, prioritizing ideological agendas over economic stability. “These cases are a form of litigation demolition, seeking to destroy upstream companies and stabilize green energy via courtroom fiat,” the analyst added.

The broader political and economic stakes

The rulings amplify federal pushes to resist state overreach in energy policy. President Donald Trump’s April executive order directed agencies to challenge “misguided” state lawsuits, and the Justice Department recently challenged climate damage claims in Hawaii and Michigan. Observers note that if upheld, this legal consensus could spare consumers and taxpayers from bearing costs from dubious liability claims, which in Bucks County reached $23 billion — including demands for endless oversight of fossil fuel emissions. Bob Harvie, Bucks County’s current commissioner chairman, initially framed the lawsuit as a “historic” shift of climate costs onto energy firms. But Judge Corr’s dismissal underscored the futility of such efforts: “The commissioners’ press conference boasting ‘historic’ actions contrasts sharply with their failure to engage the public,” he noted, pointing to lackluster deliberations in a routine 2024 meeting.

Courts reinforce federalism in rebuffing climate “policy by lawsuit”

The 2025 rulings reflect a judicial acknowledgment that climate policy must originate from lawmakers, not courts. As more judges reject attempts to weaponize lawsuits against energy companies, the precedent sets a powerful defense for federal law in this contentious arena. For critics, it’s a reminder that “quackery” — as described by opponents of these claims — cannot override constitutional frameworks or the democratic process. The energy sector now faces fewer threats from local crusades, and consumers retain access to affordable energy while the political process navigates climate solutions. Yet, with polarization high, the debate over where power lies — Congress or courts — will likely endure long after court clerks file these cases away. Sources for this article include: WattsUpWithThat.com DailyCallerNewsFoundation.org FreeBeacon.com
Copy