COMMENTARY: Peeling back the curtain on climate lawsuits

Under Joe Biden, filing lawsuits against energy producers and accusing them of harming the environment was cool. Under Donald J. Trump’s America First energy policy, not so much.

The David vs. Goliath narrative has collapsed on the altar of proof. What had been sold to the public and policymakers as a righteous battle on behalf of the voiceless has been exposed as a series of coordinated political stunts driven by activist law firms, dark-money donors and operatives looking to have left-leaning judges formulate American energy policy from the bench.

On June 25, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing led by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz investigated the various outside entities perpetuating these lawsuits, including the San Francisco-based plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling LLP and the Environmental Law Institute.

Critics say these groups aren’t interested in pursuing justice or protecting the environment. Instead, they’re shaking down the energy industry using the threat of billion-dollar damages to bring about extreme policy changes that voters and lawmakers have both rejected.

These lawsuits needlessly clog the courts, so a growing number of state and federal judges are starting to slam the doors on them.

In the past few months, judges in Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have dismissed climate lawsuits as being outside the scope of state law. Pennsylvania Judge Stephen Corr put it this way: The “claims raised … are not justiciable by any state court.” Similar decisions have been rendered by judges in Baltimore; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, all of whom recognized the Clean Air Act delegates the authority to set emissions policy to the federal government, not to trial lawyers acting as climate crusaders.

Cases making the counterargument persist because an activist ecosystem gratuitously props them up. Sher Edling, operating on a contingency fee basis and bankrolled by dark-money funds such as the Collective Action Fund, has filed more than two dozen nearly identical lawsuits on behalf of states and municipalities. The objective is a massive payout emerging from a single court that breaks with the precedent being quickly established.

The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project has “briefed” more than 2,000 judges in closed-door sessions with no public oversight on issues including climate science and litigation strategy. The curriculum for these sessions was developed by academics and lawyers tied to the lawsuits themselves, notably former UCLA Professor Ann Carlson, a Biden appointee who helped fundraise and consult for the law firm.

This isn’t education. It’s lobbying cloaked in robes. And the consequences are severe. We’re told these lawsuits are about accountability. They’re really about politics, power and paychecks. This is lawfare, pure and simple, intended to pressure settlements, vilify American energy and circumvent the legislative process. Even Puerto Rico, once a willing participant, saw the writing on the wall. Just days after the DOJ moved to block similar cases in other states, the Commonwealth withdrew its lawsuit against the energy companies.

It was a smart move, one that other states should follow. Yet some, such as Hawaii and California, continue. In New Jersey, a judge dismissed the state’s case with prejudice, warning that global emissions can’t be regulated piecemeal through state courts. In Maryland, a judge reversed an earlier decision to allow Annapolis and Anne Arundel County’s case to proceed, citing mounting rulings across jurisdictions that found the legal theory doesn’t apply to state laws.

Still, the activist machine rolls on. The Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the federal court system, is collaborating with the Environmental Law Institute to provide judges with curated content that aligns with Sher Edling’s litigation narratives. A joint congressional investigation revealed that UCLA’s environmental law clinic has even admitted to providing legal assistance to Sher Edling on these suits — students doing the groundwork while activist lawyers cash in.

This is not the fair, impartial justice system Americans expect. It’s a coordinated campaign — funded in secret, litigated in bulk and designed to wear down the courts until someone, somewhere cracks. So far, the legal system is holding. It’s time for state leaders still involved in this mess to wake up.

Climate litigation may sound noble in a press release. In practice, it’s a bait-and-switch that wastes taxpayer money, undermines judicial integrity and accomplishes nothing. Governors and attorneys general need to stop enabling this legal charade. Drop the lawsuits. Reject the backroom influence of law firms, advocacy groups and their money enablers. Focus on generating reliable energy solutions that work for the future.

The climate litigation house of cards is falling. Who wants to be left holding the last worthless case?

Peter Roff is former U.S. News and World Report contributing editor and UPI senior political writer who writes a column for the Cagle Cartoons Newspaper Syndicate. Contact him at RoffColumns@gmail.com and follow him on X @TheRoffDraft.