US lawmakers in two red states are attempting to shield the fossil fuel industry from climate liability.
In Oklahoma, a newly introduced bill would bar most civil lawsuits against oil companies over their role in the climate crisis, unless plaintiffs allege violations of specific environmental or labor laws. A similar proposal in Utah would block lawsuits over climate-warming emissions, unless a court finds the defendant violated a statute or permit.
“I think anyone in America who breathes the air around them and also believes in corporate accountability ought to be very concerned about these types of end-runs against accountability,” said Jay Inslee, the former governor of Washington state and a former trial attorney.
The proposals appear designed to prevent parties in either state from joining the growing wave of US climate accountability litigation, which has seen more than 70 states, cities and local governments sue major oil companies for allegedly misleading the public about climate risks.
The Guardian has contacted the bills’ sponsors for comment.
The measures come as fossil fuel companies and their political allies push for broader protections from climate lawsuits nationwide. Last year, 16 Republican state attorneys general urged the justice department to provide a “liability shield” for oil companies, while lobbying disclosures show that ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute pressed Congress on draft legislation to limit climate liability. Lawmakers have also pursued narrower efforts, including a failed attempt to block Washington DC from enforcing consumer protection laws against oil companies, and a Maryland bill last year that would have barred state and local climate lawsuits but never reached a vote.
Both Oklahoma and Utah are oil-producing states where the fossil fuel industry wields significant political influence. The Guardian has asked the American Petroleum Institute and the bills’ sponsors whether industry groups lobbied for the proposals.
“These proposals are clearly part of a larger coordinated effort to strip communities and states of their right to hold Big Oil accountable,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit supporting climate accountability litigation. “If you have not violated the law, there is no reason to seek immunity.”
If enacted, the measures would likely face legal challenges, said Pat Parenteau, environmental law expert at Vermont Law School. “This kind of blanket waiver of liability could raise serious state constitutional issues,” he said.
Neither Oklahoma nor Utah has seen statewide or city-level climate accountability lawsuits filed. But the bills still pose “a threat to democracy”, said Inslee.
“The ultimate foundation of democracy is American jury system,” he said. “These efforts are attempting to deny Americans the right to that key democratic institution.”
If enacted, the measures would restrict future litigation – particularly Oklahoma’s, said Michael Gerrard, a climate law expert at Columbia University. That bill seeks to block claims alleging fraud, misrepresentation, deception, failure to warn or deceptive marketing, all of which are central to existing climate lawsuits against oil companies. Utah’s proposal is narrower, targeting only emissions-based claims.
Oil companies have repeatedly argued that climate cases aim to regulate emissions and are therefore preempted by federal law. But plaintiffs say their suits focus not on emissions, but rather on alleged deception about climate harms. Because Utah’s bill is limited to emissions-focused litigation, some cases could still be filed, Gerrard said, “though I’m sure the fossil fuel industry would find a way to push back”.
The state bills arrive as advocates await a US supreme court decision on whether it will review a climate lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, a ruling that could either embolden or constrain climate accountability litigation nationwide.
Big oil is not the only industry seeking limits on legal accountability. Pharmaceutical giants have pushed state and federal lawmakers to block some pesticide-focused lawsuits, successfully lobbying for such measures in Georgia and North Dakota. More recently, lawmakers attempted – but failed – to weaken pesticide regulations via a national bill. Tech companies have also raised concerns about lawsuits over harms linked to artificial intelligence, prompting federal and state proposals – including in Colorado and Texas – that would shield companies from certain civil claims.
Attempts from the oil industry to skirt liability are “expressions of fear”, said Inslee.
“They are right to be afraid,” he said. “When a jury finds out what these CEOs in their corner offices have been doing to Americans … they’re going to be boiling mad.”
Advancements in attribution science, which links specific extreme weather events to the climate crisis, have made climate accountability litigation even stronger, said Parenteau.
“It’s really only a matter of time before a jury hands down a multi billion dollar verdict,” he said. “I’m positive.”
