In a significant development for climate accountability, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a request from oil companies to block a climate liability lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco. The lawsuit, filed in 2017, accuses ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other oil giants of knowingly contributing to climate change through their business practices and deceptive marketing. This ruling allows the case to proceed in state court, marking a major moment in the broader trend of climate litigation in the U.S.
The Lawsuit: San Francisco’s Legal Challenge
The lawsuit filed by San Francisco and the City and County of San Mateo in 2017 alleges that the oil companies should be held accountable for the costs associated with climate change, including rising sea levels, flooding, and infrastructure damage. The plaintiffs argue that the companies knew for decades that fossil fuels were a primary driver of climate change but continued to promote their products without fully disclosing the environmental risks.
The lawsuit claims that the companies’ actions have led to significant economic damage to cities and coastal regions, as local governments are forced to spend billions of dollars on climate change mitigation measures such as building seawalls, improving infrastructure, and addressing flooding caused by rising sea levels. San Francisco’s legal team argues that the companies misled the public about the environmental harm their products caused, creating a public nuisance and contributing to the rising costs of protecting the city from climate-related impacts.
The Legal Process: State vs. Federal Court
Initially, the oil companies sought to move the case from California state court to federal court, arguing that climate change is a national issue and that only federal courts should handle such matters. They contended that the case raised complex federal questions, including energy policy and interstate commerce.
However, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of San Francisco, allowing the case to remain in state court. This decision was a major victory for the plaintiffs, as state courts are generally seen as more favorable to local governments in cases involving public nuisance and environmental harm. The oil companies then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in early 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively allowing the lawsuit to continue in the state court system.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene is seen as a significant victory for climate advocates and local governments. The decision strengthens the ability of cities and states to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in exacerbating climate change. Legal experts believe that this ruling could pave the way for more climate liability lawsuits in other jurisdictions, particularly in coastal cities and regions most vulnerable to climate impacts.
“This decision confirms that state courts have the authority to address the harms caused by climate change and hold corporations accountable for their role in causing those harms,” said Professor Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia Law School. “It also sends a clear message to corporations that they cannot evade responsibility by shifting cases to federal court.”
The ruling also strengthens the growing movement of climate litigation in the U.S. By allowing the case to proceed, the Supreme Court has given hope to other municipalities considering similar legal action. It may also influence future lawsuits against corporations accused of contributing to environmental damage through their products.
The Broader Context: Climate Litigation in the U.S.
San Francisco’s lawsuit is part of a broader trend of climate litigation across the United States. Local governments and state attorneys general have increasingly turned to the courts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the environmental and economic consequences of climate change.
Notably, New York City filed a similar lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other oil companies in 2018, seeking damages for climate change-related harm. Other cities, including Oakland and Santa Cruz, have also filed lawsuits targeting fossil fuel companies. These lawsuits often focus on claims of public nuisance, deceptive marketing, and failure to disclose the environmental risks of fossil fuels.
The San Francisco case, along with others, is seen as part of a larger push for corporate accountability. As cities face rising sea levels, more frequent flooding, and extreme weather events, there is growing pressure for corporations to take responsibility for their role in climate change and contribute to the costs of mitigation and adaptation.
Industry Response and Future Outlook
The oil companies involved in the San Francisco case have denied the allegations and expressed their intention to vigorously defend themselves in court. They argue that climate change is a global issue and that the responsibility for addressing it lies with governments, not individual corporations.
“We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are an attempt to shift responsibility for climate change onto the oil and gas industry,” said a spokesperson for Chevron. ExxonMobil has similarly stated that the case is without legal foundation and should not proceed.
Despite the oil companies’ defenses, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the case to continue in state court is expected to encourage more local governments to file similar lawsuits. Legal analysts believe that this trend could lead to significant changes in the way corporations are held accountable for their contributions to climate change. It may also spur changes in corporate practices, as companies may be more inclined to take climate change into account in their business strategies and public messaging.
by: Alicia Monroe
