As 2025 comes to a close, climate lawfare finds itself in a familiar position: facing another year of courtroom losses, growing skepticism from judges, and intensified public scrutiny. [some emphasis, links added]
Yet what makes this year different is not just what happened in the courts, it’s how these developments have positioned 2026 as a potentially decisive moment for the entire campaign.
After more than a decade of recycled legal theories and courtroom failures, frivolous climate lawfare is increasingly running out of places to hide.
SCOTUS Faces Pivotal Decision for the Future of Climate Litigation
After ten years of #ExxonKnew, the misguided climate claims are closer than ever before to finally being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices considered this month whether to grant review of a certiorari petition that should reshape the entire climate lawfare landscape.
The petition at issue challenged the Colorado State Supreme Court’s decision in the City of Boulder and Boulder County’s climate lawsuit, and has brought together a large coalition all united in one message: it is time for the Court to finally weigh in on these claims and rule on whether they actually belong in federal court.
The coalition of the U.S. Department of Justice, 26 state attorneys general, more than 100 members of Congress, and academic experts showcases that these concerns are not just coming from industry but rather signal the issue is of national importance.
With the Court yet to issue a decision, 2026 is set to be the year in which the decade-long climate litigation effort may totally collapse.
In the States, It’s Loss After Loss
Amidst this backdrop, it’s important to note that ten years into the climate lawfare experiment, much has changed, especially in 2025.
This year alone, seven climate cases were dismissed across the country, including lawsuits in Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York.
Judges issuing these dismissals raised many of the same concerns, including fundamental flaws in the legal theories and the impropriety of using state courts to adjudicate national claims.
Appeals have been filed in most of these matters, meaning they will continue to stumble through state courts in the new year, dragging the campaign out further.
In 2026, important events are imminent in other cases, including a ruling in Maryland’s consolidated Supreme Court case, after the court pressed the plaintiffs’ attorneys on the global implications of its claims.
Regardless, the court record doesn’t lie: the climate litigation campaign is losing ground, and fast.
Although climate activists may believe that certain rulings, such as the one being challenged by the Colorado Supreme Court, indicate hope for the campaign’s eventual success, the opposite is actually true.
Instead, the growing divide among lower courts on how to handle these fundamental constitutional questions only encourages the Supreme Court to step in.
New Strategies Bring No Success
As traditional climate claims continue to falter, activists have attempted to broaden their attack on energy companies by experimenting with new legal theories.
Among the notable tactics in 2025:
- Plastics litigation, pushed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and aligned NGOs, repurposes climate lawfare arguments for a new target.
- “Climate superfund” bills are designed to impose punitive fees on energy producers to fund climate projects.
- Enacted so far only in Vermont and New York.
- Already facing strong opposition and legal challenges, including from the Trump administration.
- Wrongful death claims in Washington state are attempting to hold oil companies liable for extreme weather events.
- Class-action insurance litigation blames rising insurance costs on U.S. energy companies.
In the insurance case, the law firm leading the effort has already suffered losses in prior climate litigation and is facing its own legal scrutiny.
The climate litigation campaign can try to spin the same claims in as many ways as they want, but the result will likely be the same: these claims have no place in state and municipal court systems.
Oversight and Scrutiny Close in on Climate Lawfare
Court losses were only part of the story in 2025. This year also brought unprecedented scrutiny of the institutions and actors driving climate litigation.
Key developments included:
- An Executive Order signed by President Trump that took direct aim at state climate litigation and superfund bills.
- Rising concerns over the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP).
- A letter from 23 Republican state attorneys general to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chief Administrator Lee Zeldin, calling for the cancellation of federal grants to ELI.
- A motion to strike was filed by Chevron in Multnomah County’s climate lawsuit due to the plaintiff attorney’s connections to CJP.
- The House Oversight subcommittee hearing included criticism from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), highlighting the biased nature of its training programs.
- Increased scrutiny of Bloomberg’s Special Assistant to the Attorney General (SAAG) program.
- The Wisconsin State Senate launches an investigation into the Department of Justice’s use of SAAGs.
- House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) announced a formal investigation into the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center (SEEIC) at NYU School of Law.
Bottom Line
For climate lawfare, 2025 marked another year riddled with legal losses and widespread criticism. Looking ahead to 2026, which will mark the eleventh year in the drawn-out campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court has a crucial opportunity to end the litigation campaign.
With the Trump administration, Congress, and many state AGs all aligned on the need to ensure proper oversight and transparency in the courts, it’s doubtful 2026 will look any better for anti-industry groups and their billionaire buddies.
Read more at EID Climate
