The House Judiciary Committee will consider the 'Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026,' a bill from Rep. Harriet Hageman that would restrict many state and local climate-related liability claims against fossil fuel companies. A Senate companion led by Sen. Ted Cruz advances similar protections and disputes links between fossil-fuel pollution and extreme weather. The move comes as dozens of state and local lawsuits — including a Supreme Court case from Boulder County — seek industry accountability while federal climate regulations are being rolled back. Advocates warn the bill could limit state enforcement and shift costs to taxpayers.
Republicans Advance 'Stop Climate Shakedowns Act' To Shield Oil & Gas From Climate Lawsuits
Photo Credit: iStock
House Republicans are advancing legislation that would sharply limit attempts to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related harms. The House Judiciary Committee plans to debate and vote on the 'Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026,' introduced in April by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.). Supporters say the bill protects energy producers from retroactive legal exposure; critics say it would undercut state authority and shield industry actors from accountability.
What the Bill Would Do
The measure would bar many state and local liability claims tied to businesses across the energy supply chain, potentially insulating oil and gas firms from suits seeking damages for climate impacts. A companion Senate proposal led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and three other Republican senators would pursue similar protections.
Scientific Claims and Opposition
The bill's text and supporters have challenged the idea that pollution from burning oil, gas and coal has a direct, legally actionable link to climate disasters — a position that conflicts with decades of peer-reviewed climate science showing that greenhouse gas emissions contribute substantially to extreme heat, intensified storms and other hazards. Inside Climate News and other outlets report the conflict between the bill's assertions and mainstream scientific consensus.
Legal Context
The push arrives amid a wave of state and local lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. According to the Center for Climate Integrity, 11 states, Washington, D.C., two tribal governments and dozens of cities and counties have filed suits alleging industry deception about climate risks. Those suits typically seek compensation to pay for adaptation costs such as wildfire preparedness, cooling and flood mitigation — costs that local governments say too often fall to taxpayers.
'More than one in four Americans live in a community that is fighting to put big oil companies on trial to hold them accountable for their climate deception and make them pay for the harm that deception has caused,' said Mike Meno, communications director for the Center for Climate Integrity.
Key Case: Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
One high-profile case, Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, is slated for Supreme Court review on Oct. 5. Boulder County sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018 seeking damages to help cover adaptation costs for extreme heat and wildfire risks. Industry defendants argue emissions-related matters should be governed by federal law and addressed in federal courts rather than state courts.
Regulatory Backdrop
At the same time, federal climate and pollution rules have been scaled back. The Environmental Protection Agency repealed the Biden-era 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards that covered existing coal plants and new gas facilities and has proposed narrowing its authority over future power-plant pollution — moves critics say weaken regulatory avenues for addressing emissions while legislative shields for industry would further limit accountability.
Implications
Although the House bill faces a long path before becoming law, analysts warn its provisions—or elements of its language—could be folded into larger, must-pass bills. Advocates also argue that curtailing state and local legal claims would remove an important tool for communities seeking remediation and funding for climate-driven impacts.
'This is one piece of the bigger picture,' said Maggie Coulter, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. 'The federal government's backing off regulations. This kind of Big Oil immunity would take the power away from states to go after companies for their deceptive practices.'
Reporting for this story draws on coverage from Inside Climate News and statements from public-interest groups and lawmakers. The debate underscores an intensifying clash among legislatures, courts and regulators over how — and where — to hold energy companies responsible for climate-related harms.
Help us improve.
