Republican-led state legislatures are advancing a coordinated effort to shield oil and gas companies from legal accountability for the financial and environmental tolls of climate change. Across 11 states, 15 laws have either been passed or are currently under debate, creating a legal firewall that threatens to dismantle the ability of local governments to recover costs associated with climate-driven disasters.
The movement to provide this immunity is not a series of isolated state initiatives but a synchronized national strategy. It is orchestrated by a network of conservative organizations and operatives with deep funding ties to Leonard Leo, the influential activist credited with reshaping the U.S. Supreme Court. By drafting model legislation and deploying a specialized lobbying apparatus, this network aims to block more than 30 significant lawsuits currently weighing the liability of fossil fuel companies.
These lawsuits, filed by cities, counties, and states, accuse energy giants of misrepresenting the risks of their products and seek to recoup billions in damages from coastal flooding, wildfire losses, and infrastructure failure. For the oil industry, the stakes are astronomical; some estimates suggest that more than trillions of dollars in damages could be attributed to U.S. Emissions.
The Architecture of Immunity: The Leo Network
The blueprint for these laws was unveiled in December during a panel at the annual States and Nation Policy Summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). There, operatives including Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, and Oramel H. Skinner, former Arizona solicitor general, presented pre-written bills designed to shut down “woke lawfare”—their term for the wave of climate litigation.
Investigation into the funding reveals a complex web of “dark money” groups. Since 2021, Leonard Leo has deployed a $1.6 billion gift through a series of nonprofits, including The 85 Fund. These funds flow into organizations like Consumers’ Research and the Alliance for Consumers, which in turn draft the model legislation used by state lawmakers.
To ensure these bills move from paper to law, the network engaged Catherine Gunsalus, a former Heritage Action Fund official. In April 2025, Gunsalus formed Varidon Strategies, a lobbying firm that began representing Leo-affiliated entities in 25 states. This professionalized pipeline—from dark money funding to model bill drafting and finally to state-level lobbying—has accelerated the passage of laws that effectively grant legal immunity to energy producers.
Redefining “Nuisance” to Block Litigation
The primary legal target of these bills is the “public nuisance” claim. Historically, nuisance laws have allowed communities to sue when an entity’s actions damage property or degrade public health. In climate cases, plaintiffs argue that the buckling of roads from temperature extremes or coastal flooding constitutes a public nuisance caused by fossil fuel emissions.
The model legislation proposed by Oramel Skinner seeks to narrow this definition, arguing that nuisance laws should only apply to “local, easily fixable problems,” such as noise from a bar. By limiting liability for manufacturers and granting state attorneys general the sole authority to bring such suits, the bills would effectively bar cities and towns from seeking damages independently.
A second legislative effort, the “Energy Freedom Act,” goes further by shielding businesses from liability for greenhouse gas emissions provided those emissions did not violate the federal Clean Air Act. Critics, including scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists, argue that these measures essentially signal that corporations “can pollute with impunity.”
| Date | State/Action | Legislative Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 5 | Missouri | Eliminate Criminal Profiteering Act |
| Jan 7 | Missouri | Public Nuisance Reform Act |
| January | IN, OK, TN | Introduction of similar nuisance reform |
| February | OK, IA, SC, UT, LA, KS | Eight additional bills introduced |
| April 2 | 11 States Total | Versions of ALEC model legislation active |
The High Cost of Climate Liability
The urgency of this legislative push coincides with a critical phase in climate litigation: discovery. This is the period where plaintiffs gain access to confidential internal corporate documents and can depose executives. For the oil industry, the risk of uncovering evidence of a conspiracy to mislead the public about climate risks is a paramount concern.
The financial pressure on local governments is equally acute. In the last three years, climate-influenced disasters have cost between $350 billion and $450 billion annually. In Boulder, Colorado, the county sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy in 2018, alleging the companies misled the public and created a public nuisance. This case has become a focal point for the industry, with Suncor petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if federal environmental law preempts state-level claims.
Industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, have explicitly named fighting these liability lawsuits as a top priority for 2026. They argue that state courts are the wrong venue for issues involving global emissions that cross state and national borders, suggesting that federal courts should have sole jurisdiction.
A Strategy of “Economic Civil War”
The ultimate goal of these laws may extend beyond simply blocking individual lawsuits. By creating a patchwork of conflicting state laws—where some states allow climate suits and others grant immunity—the Leo network is effectively teeing up a constitutional conflict. This strategy forces a resolution that can only be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress.
Will Hild characterized this approach at the ALEC summit as an “economic civil war,” framing the litigation as an attempt by the left to “regulate the entire U.S. Economy from a single state.” Leonard Leo echoed this sentiment in a text message, stating that his enterprise supports organizations committed to “crushing liberal dominance” and restoring balance to institutions he believes have been captured by “woke culture.”
As these bills move toward signatures in states like Tennessee and Indiana, the pathway for local communities to seek redress for environmental damage continues to narrow. The next critical checkpoint will be the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether federal law preempts state climate claims, a ruling that could either validate this state-level immunity strategy or provide a roadmap for municipalities to continue their pursuit of corporate liability.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Do you believe local governments should have the right to sue corporations for climate damages? Share your thoughts in the comments below or share this story on social media to join the conversation.
Keep reading
