In a significant win for climate litigation against Big Oil, the US Supreme Court on Monday denied a pair of petitions oil companies had filed seeking to block climate liability lawsuits from advancing to trial. The decision is a major victory for municipal and state governments trying to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for alleged deception and misrepresentations around the climate harms of their products. 

The petitions, submitted last year by Sunoco LP and Shell, sought the court’s review of a 2023 decision from the Hawai'i Supreme Court that allowed such a case, brought by the Hawaiian capital of Honolulu, to proceed to trial. In March 2020, Honolulu sued a handful of major oil and gas companies, accusing them of lying about climate change risks and exacerbating the damage from climate impacts such as extreme flooding and sea level rise. It is one of more than two dozen lawsuits brought by communities across the country in recent years aiming to hold major fossil fuel entities liable for climate deception and damages under state law. 

In their petitions to the Supreme Court, lawyers representing the oil companies argued that federal law bars state law claims pertaining to global greenhouse gas emissions—an argument that Hawai'i’s top court and other courts have rejected, saying it mischaracterizes what the legal claims are about. The Hawai'i Supreme Court’s October 31, 2023, ruling repeatedly states that Honolulu’s case is not about regulating emissions but rather about deceptive promotion and concealment of known dangers. The oil companies’ petitions disputed that determination and urged the court to “put a stop to” what they claimed are attempts by local and state governments to “assert control over the nation’s energy policies.” 

The court denied both petitions in an order list issued on January 13. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from their consideration, as he has done previously, likely because he holds stock in several big oil companies. 

The court’s decision comes after the US solicitor general weighed in, at the court’s request, with a brief in December recommending the justices not intervene at this time. The solicitor general under the Biden administration has previously supported government plaintiffs’ positions in climate liability litigation, urging the Supreme Court not to weigh in on disputes about whether the cases should be in state or federal court. In April 2023, the Supreme Court rejected industry petitions in several climate liability cases, allowing the litigation to advance in state courts. 

The Center for Climate Integrity, an advocacy organization that supports climate accountability initiatives against Big Oil, noted that Monday’s decision by the court “marks the fourth time since 2023 that the justices declined to consider an appeal from Big Oil companies” in this litigation. “Big Oil companies keep fighting a losing battle to avoid standing trial for their climate lies. With this latest denial, the fossil fuel industry’s worst nightmare—having to face the overwhelming evidence of their decades of calculated climate deception—is closer than ever to becoming a reality,” CCI president Richard Wiles said in a statement. 

Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, pointed out that the fossil fuel industry and its allies had asserted a “full-court press to get [the] Supreme Court to take [Honolulu’s] case” as an attempt to block the over two dozen other climate liability cases pending against them. 

Neither Sunoco LP nor Shell immediately responded to a request for comment. Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an advocacy initiative for the fossil fuel industry in climate liability litigation, called the Supreme Court’s decision denying the petitions “unfortunate.” 

The decision means that Honolulu’s case and others like it can move forward. “For now the cases can proceed to trial,” Patrick Parenteau, emeritus professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Sierra. Had the court decided to intervene, he said, it “would have frozen the cases for a year or more and could have resulted in a death blow for all of them” if the court adopted the oil companies’ arguments. 

Honolulu’s case is one of the furthest along procedurally with pretrial discovery underway. Parenteau said he expects “that process to accelerate this year” and that trial in 2026 is possible. A consumer protection case brought by the Massachusetts attorney general against ExxonMobil is also well into the discovery phase. 

A representative for the city and county of Honolulu welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a “significant day for the people of Honolulu and the rule of law.” “This landmark decision upholds our right to enforce Hawaiʻi laws in Hawaiʻi courts, ensuring the protection of Hawaiʻi taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct,” said Ben Sullivan, executive director and chief resilience officer for the city and county of Honolulu’s Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency. 

Climate accountability advocates applauded the decision. 

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a resounding affirmation of Honolulu’s right to seek justice under state law for the mounting climate impacts caused by fossil fuel companies’ deceptive practices,” said Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

“With this latest loss by the fossil fuel industry, it looks like the countless victims of Big Oil's climate crimes have a better chance than ever of getting their day in court. And that is a huge win for humanity,” Aaron Regunberg, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, told Sierra. He and other legal experts argue that fossil fuel companies could be prosecuted criminally for charges like homicide or reckless endangerment. 

“Climate change isn't just a tragedy. It's a crime,” Regunberg told Sierra. “The deaths, injuries, and unimaginable losses from climate disasters—including the burning of LA we've seen this week—didn't come out of nowhere. They are largely the result of reckless conduct undertaken by major fossil fuel companies that perfectly understood just how lethal their behavior was. We have laws against this kind of dangerous conduct, and the courts are the most appropriate place for adjudicating these laws.”