Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation
Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.
Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility
U.S. and UN policies diverge, as litigation over corporate responsibility falters in one state and advances in another.
By Tom Hagy*
The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup.
A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists.
As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles.
The ICJ’s Climate Opinion: A New Legal Standard for Global Accountability
On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion that could redefine the legal obligations of nations in addressing climate change. Requested by the United Nations General Assembly, the opinion affirms that:
- States have a legal duty under international law to prevent environmental harm.
- Countries with higher emissions bear greater responsibility.
- Governments must regulate corporate climate impacts, including emissions and misinformation.
- A healthy environment is a human right, protected under international law.
This opinion doesn’t carry the force of binding precedent, but it sets a powerful normative standard. It will likely influence future litigation, especially in jurisdictions where international law is integrated into domestic legal systems. It also provides a legal foundation for climate activists and affected communities to challenge governmental inaction and corporate misconduct.
Implications for Mass Torts and Litigation
The ICJ’s opinion could bolster mass tort claims against multinational corporations by framing climate harm as a violation of human rights. Plaintiffs may now argue that companies and governments failed to meet international obligations, especially in cases involving vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by climate change.
Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Dismissed: A Setback for Municipal Tort Claims
On August 6, 2025, a South Carolina state court dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed by the City of Charleston against several fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP. The city alleged that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change and misled the public about its risks, resulting in costly infrastructure damage and increased flooding.
The court’s decision hinged on several key findings:
- Federal preemption: The judge ruled that federal law governs emissions and climate policy, preempting state tort claims.
- Jurisdictional issues: Some defendants were dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Causation and foreseeability: The court found the city’s theory of liability too broad, noting that climate change involves complex, global factors beyond the scope of tort law.
Implications for Future Litigation
Charleston’s loss is part of a broader trend of municipal climate lawsuits facing procedural hurdles. Courts have struggled with the challenge of attributing specific climate harms to individual companies, especially when those harms are diffuse and cumulative.
However, the dismissal does not necessarily signal the end of climate torts. Plaintiffs may refine their legal theories, focus on narrower claims (e.g., fraud or consumer protection), or pursue litigation in more favorable jurisdictions. The case also underscores the importance of venue selection and the evolving role of federal courts in climate litigation.
Honolulu’s Lawsuit Gains Momentum: A Bellwether for Climate Accountability
While Charleston’s case faltered, Honolulu’s climate lawsuit continues to gain traction. Filed in 2020, the city’s suit targets major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and contributing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
Unlike Charleston, Honolulu’s case has survived multiple procedural challenges and is moving toward trial. The city argues that:
- Fossil fuel companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of misinformation.
- The companies’ actions directly contributed to climate-related damages, including coastal erosion and infrastructure costs.
- The defendants should be held liable under state tort law, including public nuisance and failure to warn.
Why Honolulu Matters
Honolulu’s case is widely viewed as a bellwether for climate litigation. If successful, it could open the floodgates for similar suits by other municipalities, states, and even private entities. The case also reflects a strategic shift: rather than focusing solely on emissions, plaintiffs are targeting alleged corporate deception and public misinformation.
Trump Administration’s Political Overhaul of Environmental Policy
In August 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that dramatically reshape the federal government’s approach to climate science and environmental regulation. These actions reflect a broader agenda to centralize control over scientific research, dismantle climate protections, and boost fossil fuel development.
Political Control Over Scientific Grants
A new executive order places all federally funded research—including climate science—under direct political oversight. Agencies must now seek approval from political appointees before announcing or awarding grants. Previously awarded grants can be canceled if deemed inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. Peer review, long considered the gold standard for scientific integrity, is now advisory and subordinate to political judgment.
This move has raised alarm across the scientific community, with critics warning that it could stifle innovation, politicize research, and undermine the credibility of U.S. science.
Rewriting National Climate Reports
The administration has begun revising past editions of the National Climate Assessment, a key document synthesizing federal climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, announced that previous reports were being “reviewed” and would be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views.
This follows the revocation of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which underpins regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The administration has also dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the next climate assessment, raising concerns about transparency and scientific integrity.
Broad Rollback of Climate Protections
The Trump administration has taken sweeping steps to dismantle climate action, including:
- Opening 58 million acres of national forests to logging and development.
- Phasing out FEMA, the nation’s disaster recovery agency, amid predictions of an intense hurricane season.
- Fast-tracking deep-sea mining without environmental safeguards.
- Blocking state-level climate laws, including ESG and carbon emission regulations.
- Ramping up oil and gas production through emergency permitting and deregulation.
- Mass layoffs at NOAA, weakening the country’s ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather.
These actions mark a sharp departure from previous climate policy and have sparked legal challenges, public protests, and international criticism.
Scientific Community Reacts to Trump Administration’s Climate Orders
The Trump administration’s recent executive actions on climate change have sparked widespread concern and condemnation from the scientific community. These measures—ranging from political oversight of research grants to rewriting national climate reports—are seen by many experts as a direct assault on scientific integrity and environmental policy.
DOE Climate Report Sparks Outrage
A Department of Energy report claiming that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed” has drawn sharp criticism. The report was authored by a group of climate skeptics, including John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.
“The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”
Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona, described the report as “designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it.” Benjamin Santer, a prominent climate scientist formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called it “a revision of science and a revision of history,” adding, “We have to respond.” Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M, is helping coordinate a rebuttal, saying, “The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”
These scientists argue that the report misrepresents decades of climate research and is part of a broader strategy to repeal the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which legally recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public welfare.
Rewriting the National Climate Assessment
Energy Secretary Wright confirmed that previous editions of the National Climate Assessment have been removed from public access and will be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views. Hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition of the report have been dismissed, despite legal obligations under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to deliver the assessment to Congress and the president.
This move has raised concerns about transparency and the politicization of climate science.
Undermining Scientific Standards
Critics say the administration’s actions represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientific foundation of climate policy. The DOE report selectively uses outdated or regionally limited data to obscure global trends, such as rising sea levels and record-breaking temperatures. It introduces misleading terminology—like referring to ocean acidification as “neutralizing ocean alkalinity”—and questions well-established phenomena like Arctic warming and urban heat effects.
The revocation of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is framed as a legal correction rather than a scientific reassessment, despite overwhelming evidence of climate-related harm.
In response, scientists across the country are organizing formal rebuttals and public statements, warning that these actions could have long-term consequences for environmental regulation, public health, and the credibility of U.S. science.
Broader Trends in Environmental Mass Torts
These developments reflect several broader trends in environmental and climate-related mass tort litigation:
Shift Toward Corporate Accountability
Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on corporate behavior—especially misinformation, failure to warn, and deceptive marketing—rather than emissions alone. This approach may be more legally viable and emotionally compelling to juries.
International Law as a Litigation Tool
The ICJ’s opinion and similar international rulings are being used to frame climate harm as a human rights violation. This could expand the scope of liability and introduce new legal standards into domestic courts.
Municipalities as Plaintiffs
Cities and counties are leading the charge in climate litigation, often citing local infrastructure damage, public health costs, and emergency response burdens. These cases are testing the limits of tort law and raising questions about causation, foreseeability, and jurisdiction.
Procedural Challenges Remain
Despite growing momentum, climate torts face significant hurdles, including federal preemption, standing, and causation. Courts are still grappling with how to apply traditional tort principles to global, systemic harms.
*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com. He also insisted *we* include the following acknowledgement: This piece was written with research and drafting assistance provided by Microsoft Copilot™, their AI tool, under the direction, review, editing, and adornment of a human editor — Tom being that human. Also, he wrote this part, in case that wasn’t obvious.
