Republican lawmakers in two major US oil-producing states are advancing legislation designed to protect the fossil fuel industry from a growing wave of climate accountability lawsuits.
Bills Aim to Block Key Legal Claims
In Oklahoma, a newly introduced bill would bar most civil lawsuits against oil and gas companies concerning their role in the climate crisis. The proposed law, unless plaintiffs allege violations of specific environmental or labour statutes, seeks to block claims central to existing litigation, including allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, and failure to warn the public about climate risks.
A similar, though narrower, proposal in Utah would block lawsuits specifically focused on climate-warming emissions, unless a court finds the defendant violated an existing statute or permit. Both measures, if enacted, would significantly restrict the ability of states, cities, and individuals to sue major oil corporations.
Part of a Coordinated National Effort
These state-level efforts are not occurring in isolation. They form part of a broader push by fossil fuel interests and their political allies for protections from climate litigation across the United States. Last year, 16 Republican state attorneys general urged the US Department of Justice to provide a similar "liability shield" for the industry.
Lobbying disclosures reveal that major players like ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute have pressed Congress on draft legislation to limit climate liability. While neither Oklahoma nor Utah has yet seen a statewide or city-level climate lawsuit filed, the pre-emptive nature of the bills has raised alarm among accountability advocates.
"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. "If you have not violated the law, there is no reason to seek immunity."
Legal Challenges and Democratic Concerns
Legal experts suggest the measures would likely face constitutional challenges if passed. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law School, warned that "this kind of blanket waiver of liability could raise serious state constitutional issues."
The former governor of Washington state, Jay Inslee, a former trial attorney, framed the issue as a threat to democratic foundations. "The ultimate foundation of democracy is the American jury system," Inslee stated. "These efforts are attempting to deny Americans the right to that key democratic institution."
The push comes as the nation awaits a pivotal US Supreme Court decision on whether it will review a climate lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado. That ruling could either embolden or constrain the dozens of similar cases filed by more than 70 states, cities, and local governments across the country.
Michael Gerrard, a climate law expert at Columbia University, noted that while Utah's bill is limited to emissions-focused claims, Oklahoma's broader proposal would severely restrict future litigation. He added, however, that "I'm sure the fossil fuel industry would find a way to push back" against any cases that might still be filed.
Inslee characterised the industry's pursuit of legal protection as an "expression of fear," fuelled by advancements in climate attribution science that more directly link extreme weather events to corporate emissions. "It's really only a matter of time before a jury hands down a multi-billion dollar verdict," Parenteau predicted. "I'm positive."
