The Minnesota Climate Lawsuit That Could Force Big Oil to Pay for Flood Damage in Every State—If the Trump DOJ Doesn’t Kill It First

As is customary, the filing was received on a Monday. Early in the week, when the news cycle is fresh and reporters are still closely monitoring their inboxes, major legal actions take place. On May 4, the Justice Department entered a federal district court in Minnesota and pleaded with the judge to order a state attorney general to cease suing oil companies. It was a strange question. It is the third time the Trump administration has tried it. Due to their early filing, the prior two attempts—against Michigan and Hawaii—were rejected. From the DOJ’s perspective, Minnesota’s case has the opposite issue. Too much time has passed.

Six years ago, when masks were still novel and oil was momentarily worthless, Keith Ellison filed the initial lawsuit. As is often the case with consumer-protection laws, the accusation is simple both then and now. The state claims that Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and its subsidiary Flint Hills Resources told Minnesotans something different despite knowing what burning fossil fuels would do to the climate. Ellison’s desired solution is concrete. He demands that the businesses reimburse the profits, cease the behavior, and provide funding for what the complaint refers to as a corrective education campaign. When you sit with that final sentence, it has a certain sting.

The case dragged on for years. The defendants lost the procedural battle over whether the case belonged in state or federal court. Then they lost their state court dismissal motions. The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the appeal in April. At that point, the case actually started to pose a threat to those defending it. Depositions are the result of discovery. Internal documents are referred to as depositions. In tobacco-style litigation, cases are won through internal documents.

It’s difficult not to interpret the DOJ filing as a reaction to that particular moment. The complaint claims that Minnesota is attempting to “override” federal energy policy, that the Clean Air Act preempts the entire endeavor, and that only the federal government has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward referred to the state’s stance as “woke climate preferences,” using language that indicates the audience is not actually judges. When oil companies have directly brought up the preemption argument, federal courts have not yet been persuaded. It is genuinely unclear if the same argument would be successful when the United States is the plaintiff.

As this develops, it seems as though the meaning of these lawsuits is shifting. The climate-deception cases felt symbolic for a long time, like the legal equivalent of a stern letter. Hawaii filed a lawsuit the day after the DOJ sued Hawaii, Michigan filed an antitrust claim, and Minnesota is now moving toward discovery. In the courts, the tactic of preempting the lawsuits is failing. The administration continues to file them despite this, indicating that winning them is not the main objective. Slowing things down until something else happens, like an election, a decision, or a settlement that hasn’t been discussed yet, might be the aim. Ultimately, it will depend on a federal judge in Minneapolis who hasn’t yet spoken.