Red States Push Liability Shields for Oil Giants

Two Republican-led states are moving to erect legal barriers that would protect fossil fuel companies from a growing wave of climate accountability lawsuits. In Oklahoma and Utah, newly introduced legislation seeks to limit the ability of communities and governments to sue oil giants over their role in the climate crisis.

The proposals arrive as more than 70 states, cities, and local governments across the United States have filed lawsuits against major oil companies. These suits allege that the industry knowingly misled the public about climate risks for decades. The new bills appear designed to halt this legal momentum before it gains further traction in conservative states.

In Oklahoma, a newly introduced bill would bar most civil lawsuits against oil companies unless plaintiffs allege violations of specific environmental or labor laws. This requirement effectively blocks claims based on fraud, misrepresentation, deception, failure to warn, or deceptive marketing—the legal theories central to most existing climate lawsuits against the industry.

A similar proposal in Utah would block lawsuits over climate-warming emissions unless a court finds the defendant violated a statute or permit. While Utah’s bill is narrower, targeting only emissions-based claims, both measures share a common goal: preventing parties from joining the expanding wave of U.S. climate accountability litigation.

The political influence of the fossil fuel industry is significant in both states, which are major oil producers. Lobbying disclosures show that industry groups have been actively pressing for broader protections from climate lawsuits nationwide.

These state-level efforts are not isolated incidents but part of a broader, coordinated strategy. Last year, 16 Republican state attorneys general urged the Justice Department to provide a “liability shield” for oil companies. Major industry players, including ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute (API), have lobbied Congress on draft legislation to limit climate liability.

Similar attempts have been made in other states. A Maryland bill last year that would have barred state and local climate lawsuits failed to reach a vote. Advocates for climate accountability see a clear pattern.

“These proposals are clearly part of a larger coordinated effort to strip communities and states of their right to hold Big Oil accountable.”

— Richard Wiles, President, Center for Climate Integrity

The Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit supporting climate accountability litigation, argues that seeking immunity is unnecessary if no laws have been broken. The industry’s push for legal protections is viewed by critics as an admission of fear regarding potential jury verdicts.

Legal experts warn that if enacted, these measures would likely face immediate and significant legal challenges. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law School, suggests that such blanket waivers of liability could raise serious state constitutional issues.

While neither Oklahoma nor Utah has yet seen statewide or city-level climate accountability lawsuits filed, the bills are viewed as a preemptive strike. Michael Gerrard, a climate law expert at Columbia University, notes that Oklahoma’s bill is particularly restrictive, as it targets the specific legal theories used in current litigation.

However, the legal landscape is evolving. Advancements in attribution science, which links specific extreme weather events to the climate crisis, have strengthened the evidentiary basis for these lawsuits. Experts believe it is only a matter of time before a jury hands down a multi-billion dollar verdict.

The oil industry is not alone in seeking limits on legal accountability. Pharmaceutical giants have successfully lobbied for measures to block pesticide-focused lawsuits in states like Georgia and North Dakota. Tech companies have also raised concerns about lawsuits over harms linked to artificial intelligence, prompting proposals to shield them from certain civil claims.

As these industries push for protections, advocates await a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether it will review a climate lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado. That ruling could either embolden or constrain climate accountability litigation nationwide.

“When a jury finds out what these CEOs in their corner offices have been doing to Americans… they’re going to be boiling mad.”

— Jay Inslee, Former Governor of Washington

Former Washington Governor Jay Inslee, a former trial attorney, views these efforts as an attack on the fundamental right to a day in court. He argues that the American jury system is the ultimate foundation of democracy, and these bills attempt to deny citizens access to that key democratic institution.

The battle over climate liability is heating up in state legislatures across the country. While the fossil fuel industry and its political allies argue that climate lawsuits are an overreach, plaintiffs maintain they are seeking justice for communities harmed by deception.

The outcome of legal challenges to these liability shields will be critical in determining whether states can insulate industries from accountability. As the Supreme Court considers the Boulder case and attribution science advances, the pressure on oil companies is unlikely to subside.

Ultimately, these legislative maneuvers highlight the deep political divide over climate change and corporate responsibility. The question of who bears the financial and legal burden for the climate crisis remains far from settled.