Michigan’s climate lawsuit has been controversial since Attorney General Dana Nessel announced her plans in 2024 – so much so that it never earned an endorsement from Governor Gretchen Whitmer, even after it was filed in January 2026. Now, it’s clear that Nessel is standing alone. [some emphasis, links added]
Last week, Michigan’s FY2027 budget was passed by the state’s bipartisan legislature and signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who celebrated it as a step toward bringing down high prices.
In a twist, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported the budget also restricts the Attorney General’s ability to use appropriated funds to sue oil and gas companies or the federal government unless the Legislature separately authorizes and funds the litigation.
Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall wanted their message to be unmistakable:
“The Legislature, and this speaks for the entire Legislature, Republican and Democrat, we all voted for this. We don’t want our attorney general suing the federal government. We don’t want our attorney general filing these lawsuits against oil and gas companies for political reasons.” (Emphasis added)
That is a remarkable rebuke of a climate litigation campaign that, until now, has largely depended on state and local officials acting without legislative approval.
State Legislature Says “Enough”
The message behind the budget language is straightforward: Michigan lawmakers across both sides of the aisle do not want taxpayer resources used to advance politically driven litigation against lawful energy producers.
In Michigan – one of the few genuinely purple states left – energy affordability is a pocketbook issue for families and employers alike.
While national activist groups and well-funded coastal interests continue to push litigation as a vehicle for restricting domestic energy production, Michigan lawmakers in both parties can see that voters are more interested in reliable, affordable energy than in courtroom campaigns designed to score ideological points.
Speaker Hall was direct in explaining the bipartisan consensus that the legislature wants the attorney general focused on consumer protection, fraud, and the office’s traditional responsibilities – not wasting time and taxpayer resources demonizing the oil and gas industry.
As state Rep. Cam Cavitt told Michigan Capitol Confidential:
“We can’t allow the attorney general to punish lawful businesses just because of the product they produce. Elected officials should not be using taxpayer-funded litigation to accomplish actions that the voters did not ask for.”
State attorneys general have broad authority to enforce existing laws and protect consumers. They are not elected to write energy policy through contingency-fee lawsuits developed in concert with private plaintiffs’ firms and activist organizations.
If Michigan fundamentally wants to alter its energy future, those debates belong in the Legislature, not in a courtroom.
A Lawsuit in Search of Sound Legal Theory
Michigan’s lawsuit has always stood out.
Rather than follow the climate nuisance and consumer protection cases – which have yet to produce a single meaningful win – Nessel landed on an antitrust theory.
In the filing, she cherry-picked evidence to allege that major energy producers conspired to suppress renewable energy and electric vehicles — claims that attempt to transform decades of public policy debates, consumer choice, and technological competition into an antitrust conspiracy.
But even that attempt appeared to be falling apart.
Legal experts, including in Nessel’s own backyard, raised serious questions about the viability of the case.
In addition to repackaging the same weak claims as the other cases, Nessel’s argument is essentially built around the idea that electric vehicles would dominate the market if not for alleged interference by energy companies.
Detroit would like a word.
Automakers in the Motor City have made clear that a lack of consumer demand is why EVs haven’t taken off as many imagined.
As Detroit News columnist Nolan Finley emphasized:
“The auto industry committed $1.2 trillion to developing electric vehicles and trying to create demand for them. Oil execs didn’t undermine that massive investment, the marketplace did.” (emphasis added)
Bottom Line
Michigan’s move is part of a growing pushback against climate lawfare. Congress has scrutinized the outside law firms, activist organizations, and funding behind these cases.
Federal officials have challenged cases that intrude on national energy policy. Courts are increasingly confronting efforts to impose state-law liability for conduct and emissions occurring worldwide.
Now the state legislature – Republicans and Democrats together – has asserted its own authority over whether taxpayer resources should fund the campaign at all. Climate activists may still view the courtroom as a way to achieve what they can’t win at the ballot box.
Michigan’s lawmakers just reminded them that public policy is supposed to be made by elected representatives, not outsourced to private plaintiffs’ lawyers one lawsuit at a time.
Read more at EID Climate
