Fortify the Fuel: An Examination of the Legal Legitimacy Behind Immunizing Fossil Fuels

Since assuming office, the Trump Administration has made it blatantly clear that expediting the extraction and deployment of fossil fuels through legal measures is one of their priorities. On his Inauguration Day, Trump delivered EO 14154 Unleashing American Energy to redirect domestic energy development exclusively towards the oil and gas industry. Since then, he has pursued a hostile reversal of policies outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act. In May of 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed complaints against the states of New York and Vermont over their climate superfund laws and preemptively sued Michigan and Hawaii to prevent them from taking legal measures against oil companies. [1, 2] These states have cited tort laws, which allow parties to remedy their injuries through lawsuits, to recover damages associated with climate change. Tort-based claims are similarly found in three dozen other pending lawsuits in which state and local governments have sued major fossil fuel companies for inflicting harm upon people or property. [3] The DOJ, however, alleges that the Clean Air Act, a federal law that regulates air emissions, preempts state efforts to address and mitigate climate change. Citing Trump’s EO Protecting American Energy from State Overreach, the DOJ also argued that state-led energy regulation impinges on the executive branch’s foreign affairs powers. Other legal groups have sought long-term avenues to suppress climate cases. In a letter to the DOJ in June of 2025, 16 Republican state attorneys general requested that the administration enact protections for the fossil fuel industry modeled after a 2005 law that protects gun manufacturers from litigation when their guns are utilized for criminal purposes. [4] 

 If Big Oil is granted a legal shield, the courthouse doors would shut for Americans seeking accountability for the role corporations played in contributing to extreme weather damage. Such an action would establish a precedent of prioritizing corporate interests over community well-being and would shift the fiscal consequences of climate change onto taxpayers. Additionally, fossil fuel immunity claims should be considered illegitimate attempts to constitutionalize an economic interest and violate states’ regulatory power to impose environmental standards. Previous environmental cases have substantiated the lack of federal prerogative and accountability in climate action, and precedent has determined states’ constitutional power to enshrine environmental rights. 

 States that have filed lawsuits against energy and fossil fuel companies usually follow a consistent pattern of citing violations of state tort law, signifying their proper venue in state and local courts, and undermining the soundness of federal measures that intervene in fossil fuel regulation. In County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district order remanding to state court claims brought by California local governments against fossil fuel companies, finding that “the companies did not establish prerequisites for the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule for cases that raise a substantial federal issue.” [5] The Ninth Circuit held that such cases were not subject to federal jurisdiction because they did not raise concerns relevant to federal law. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit held that “the Clean Air Act did not completely preempt the plaintiffs’ state-law claims” and that the plaintiffs’ injuries were considered “too attenuated and remote” to be governed by federal law applicable to federal enclaves. [6] The plaintiffs' complaints remained a state law complaint on the grounds that the Clean Air Act (CAA) fails to address all claims related to air pollution. 

The decision on the Clean Air Act’s preemption power is particularly notable, as current lawsuits pursued by the DOJ call upon the CAA to prove state climate action inessential. Additionally, the court panel rejected the energy companies’ argument that the plaintiffs’ claims should be heard in federal court under 28 U.S. Code § 1331, also known as the federal question jurisdiction, simply because the alleged harm happened on federal land under exclusive federal control. The general federal question jurisdictional statute grants federal district courts original subject matter jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” [7] In this instance, the federal government’s tangential stake in the case — having dominion over the land in which the violations occurred — proved insufficient in employing this statute. Such a determination demonstrates that fossil fuel infrastructure operated on federal land is not exempt from civil liability, and even more so, that the harms these facilities produce can still be cited under state law. 

Corporations, like Chevron, host a portion of their oil extraction operations on federal land, and thus, it is notable that while operating in these areas, no immunity is being granted. Ultimately, the empirical favorability of state court climate litigation undermines the plausibility of federal directives on fossil fuel immunity. However, with the overruling of Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, redirecting the interpretation of federal statute from agencies to the court, the judicial system has assumed novel importance within the climate fight. Power has been further invested in the courts to issue sound rulings on environmental policy, subverting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the federal government’s reliance on it to supplement state regulation. [8]

In cases where the EPA does have ruling authority, modern environmental jurisprudence increasingly recognizes the right of states and their sovereignty to hold federal agencies accountable for regulatory neglect in the face of environmental degradation. Although Massachusetts v. EPA is largely recognized for declaring greenhouse gases pollutants, the landmark ruling also reinforced states' legal standing to sue federal agencies over subpar environmental regulations. In this case, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that Massachusetts, due to its "stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests" as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming, along with the legal right to seek redress for agency inaction. [9] Massachusetts specifically cited injuries to its land and health, which paved the way for administrative recognition of environmental harms. The majority decision concluded that Massachusetts had a legal right to seek relief given that the Commonwealth met all three conditions: (1) a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, (2) the injury that is traceable to the act of the defendant (the EPA in this case), and (3) evidence that favorable action by the EPA would help repair the injury. [10] 

In the wake of lawsuits against Big Oil, the question of whether judicial decisions can adequately ameliorate climate injuries has been contested. In May 2025, Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit public interest law firm, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging their executive orders that accelerate the deployment of fossil fuels in Lighthiser v. Trump. In October, a federal district court in Montana dismissed the case. According to the court, the plaintiffs were incapable of surmounting the ‘final, dispositive hurdle’ that the relief would be outside the court’s power to grant. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had proven sufficient injury, but argued that the issue of alleviating climate change was too broad and failed to meet the requirements of redressability. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the agency put forth a similar argument claiming that its power to regulate global climate change was insufficient to provide relief. Here, however, the majority reached a different conclusion than that of Montana’s federal district court. Majority leader Justice Stevens stated that ‘incremental agency action over time may produce cumulative effects and that for standing to be present, the state would not have to show that any single action would remedy its problems.” Stevens further argued that “the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases would have a significant effect because of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the U.S. transportation sector.” [11] Thus, the failure of Lighthiser v. Trump in seeking redress and holding fossil fuel companies accountable does not disprove the prospect of such action, as Massachusetts v. EPA validated the utility of regulatory standards in remedying climate injuries and proved that they can be traceable to an entity. 

In holding fossil fuel companies accountable, the application of the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) presents a potential avenue for asserting states’ role in environmental protection. The doctrine derives from the Roman "jus publicum" principle of common ownership of natural resources: “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind—the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea.” [12] In the U.S.’s recognition of the public trust doctrine, state governments rightfully serve as trustees of resources, though its application has traditionally been exclusive to that of waterways. The PTD has been constitutionalized by several states, including Hawaii, which enshrines that “all public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people” and explicitly defines resources to include “land, water, air, minerals, and energy sources.” [13] In Hawaii’s complaint against BP, Shell, and Exxon, the state alleges that it has a constitutional obligation to uphold this protection and cites eight causes of action in its complaint, among them negligence and “harm to public trust resources.” [14] Formerly employed to settle disputes over access to waterways, the doctrine has now imposed affirmative duties upon states to protect resources, as evidenced in various state constitutions. [15]

Similarly, Pennsylvania’s constitution guarantees a “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment,” and provides that “as trustee of these resources, [Pennsylvania] shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.” [16] As public-trust-based litigation becomes increasingly prevalent in state efforts to address climate change, courts must clarify their function. Hawaii’s invocation of its constitutionalized PTD in litigation against major oil companies emphasizes the doctrine’s contemporary expansion and undermines claims that fossil fuel entities enjoy protection from state-led environmental litigation.

Trump’s Executive Orders raise pressing concerns about the future of the fossil fuel industry and the extent of state autonomy in regulating and preserving these industries within their borders. Understanding how past legal actions have justified state countermeasures against federal expansion of fossil fuels is essential in today’s era of energy polarization. Efforts to immunize fossil fuel corporations place corporate interests above community well-being — a tension reflected in the growing incorporation of the public trust doctrine into state constitutions. This doctrine has been invoked in legal battles to defend states’ rights to safeguard their natural resources and land from oil and gas expansion. Moreover, climate cases are increasingly being remanded to state courts, underscoring the limits of federal authority in establishing doctrines that confer “rights” upon fossil fuel industries. The disparities between landmark cases such as Massachusetts v. EPA and Lighthiser v. Trump reveal that holding entities accountable for regulatory failures is possible, particularly when public health violations are at stake. As organizations and communities seek representation and redress for the harms caused by fossil fuels, these corporations must remain subject to rigorous public scrutiny and accountability.

Edited by Audrey Carbonell and Noelle Shih

[1] Rabinowitz, Hannah, et al. “The Trump Admin Is Suing Four States to Stop Them from Holding Fossil Fuel Giants Accountable for Climate Damage.” CNN, 2 May 2025, www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/climate/trump-climate-lawsuits-hawaii-michigan-new-york-vermont.

[2] “Justice Department Files Complaints against Hawaii, Michigan, New York and Vermont over Unconstitutional State Climate Actions.” Justice.gov, May 2025, www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaints-against-hawaii-michigan-new-york-and-vermont-over. 

‌[3] ​​Hupart, Jacob H. “Trump Administration Files Preemptive Lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan to Block Climate Change Litigation.” The National Law Review, National Law Review, 2025, natlawreview.com/article/trump-administration-files-preemptive-lawsuits-against-hawaii-and-michigan-block#google_vignette. 

[4] Hupart, Jacob H. “Trump Administration Files Preemptive Lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan to Block Climate Change Litigation.” The National Law Review, National Law Review, 2025, natlawreview.com/article/trump-administration-files-preemptive-lawsuits-against-hawaii-and-michigan-block#google_vignette. 

[5] “County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.” Climatecasechart.com, Sabin, 2017, www.climatecasechart.com/document/county-of-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp_ad46. 

‌[6] “Docket for 22-495.” Supremecourt.gov, 2022, www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-495.html. 

‌[7] Mulligan, Lumen N. “A Unified Theory of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction.” Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law, 2025, scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol61/iss6/2/. 

‌[8] Oyez. “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.” Oyez, 2024, www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451. 

[9] Oyez. “Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.” Oyez, 2019, www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1120. 

[10] Payne, Perry W., and Sara Rosenbaum. “Massachusetts et Al. V Environmental Protection Agency: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice.” Public Health Reports, vol. 122, no. 6, Nov. 2007, pp. 817–819, https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490712200614. 

‌[11] Payne, Perry W., and Sara Rosenbaum. “Massachusetts et Al. V Environmental Protection Agency: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice.” Public Health Reports, vol. 122, no. 6, Nov. 2007, pp. 817–819, https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490712200614. 

‌[12] “Environmental Rights for the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Public Trust Doctrine and Rights of Nature Movement | Cardozo Law Review.” Cardozolawreview.com, 2020, cardozolawreview.com/environmental-rights-for-the-21st-century-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-the-public-trust-doctrine-and-rights-of-nature-movement/. 

[13] “Hawaii’s Lawsuit against Oil Companies Alleges “Harm to Public Trust Resources.”” State Court Report, 2025, statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/hawaiis-lawsuit-against-oil-companies-alleges-harm-public-trust-resources. 

[14] Kolonie, Melissa. ANNE E. LOPEZ 7609 Attorney General of Hawaiʻi.

[15] I.d.

[16] “Section 127 - CONSTITUTION of PENNSYLVANIA.” Www.legis.state.pa.us, www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/00/00.001.027.000..HTM.