A man sitting at a table in front of a statue of Lady Justice.

Credit: Carlos Javier Yuste Jiménez/Unsplash

Oil companies use free speech claims to challenge climate lawsuits

Oil companies are invoking the First Amendment and anti-SLAPP laws to argue that lawsuits accusing them of misleading the public about climate change violate their free speech rights.

Karen Zraick and Sachi Kitajima Mulkey report for The New York Times.

In short:

Exxon Mobil, Chevron and other fossil fuel companies have filed anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motions in about a third of nearly 40 climate lawsuits brought by states and municipalities, arguing the cases seek to suppress constitutionally protected political speech.
California's attorney general and several local governments argue that the companies engaged in deceptive commercial speech to delay climate action, which they say is not protected under anti-SLAPP statutes.
Courts have so far largely rejected the oil companies’ arguments, but ongoing appeals and an upcoming August hearing in California may test the limits of using anti-SLAPP laws in climate litigation.

Key quote:

“The logic of what the energy companies are doing is the logic of a SLAPP, not the logic of an anti-SLAPP.”

— Penelope Canan, sociology professor and co-author of SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out

Why this matters:

Climate litigation is fast becoming one of the most contested fronts in the battle over environmental accountability. If oil companies succeed in redefining public lawsuits as threats to their free speech rights, future efforts to hold industries responsible for environmental harm could be sharply limited. Anti-SLAPP laws were designed to shield individuals from being silenced by powerful interests — not to protect corporate misinformation. These legal maneuvers raise fundamental questions about whether fossil fuel firms can use the First Amendment to shield decades of misleading claims that have delayed climate action, contributed to extreme weather damage, and endangered public health. The outcomes could ripple through courts and state legislatures nationwide.

www.nytimes.com

Oil companies use free speech claims to challenge climate lawsuits

Supreme Court allows fossil fuel companies to sue over California clean car rules

Clean energy projects face steep tax credit cuts under Republican megabill

Republicans in Senate clash over how fast to cut clean energy tax breaks

No going back: GOP plan to repeal Inflation Reduction Act could lock in dangerous global heating

Trump’s FEMA cuts leave flood-prone cities scrambling for aid

Falsehoods about climate change slow action and deepen the crisis, global report warns

New York mayoral race will shape city’s ability to tackle climate threats

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Pennsylvania health advocates say Trump’s first 100 days in office have caused “100 harms” to local communities

“They're terrorizing these scientists because they want to keep them silent.”

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.