SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
April, 07 2022, 12:01pm EDT
Contact:
Mike Meno, Center for Climate Integrity, mike@climateintegrity.org
Oil Companies Lose Again: Baltimore Climate Lawsuit Belongs in State Court, Fourth Circuit Affirms
Two Federal Appeals Courts Have Now Handed Major Losses to Fossil Fuel Companies After the U.S. Supreme Court Ordered Expanded Review of Big Oil’s Arguments for Federal Jurisdiction
WASHINGTON
The City of Baltimore's lawsuit seeking to hold major oil and gas companies -- including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell -- accountable for the cost of climate damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a unanimous decision today.
"In this case, a municipality has decided to exclusively rely upon state-law claims to remedy its own climate-change injuries, which it perceives were caused, at least in part, by Defendants' fossil-fuel products and strategic misinformation campaign," the three judge panel ruled. "These claims do not belong in federal court."
The Fourth Circuit decision marks the second time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected arguments from the oil industry to move one of the growing number of climate liability lawsuits filed in state court to federal court following a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
At least ten federal district courts have similarly ruled that climate accountability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court -- "a batting average of .000" for the fossil fuel industry, in the words of one judge.
In response, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:
"This victory for the people of Baltimore shows that fossil fuel companies won't easily escape accountability for lying about their central role in the climate crisis and then sticking communities with the resulting bill.
"Once again, federal courts have rejected the oil and gas industry's attempts to evade justice in state court.
"Baltimore is now one important step closer to finally putting these polluters on trial to make them pay for the climate damages they knowingly caused."
Background:
The Fourth Circuit previously affirmed a lower court ruling to keep Baltimore's climate damages lawsuit in state court in 2020. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Fourth Circuit and others to consider an expanded list of arguments the oil and gas defendants made in support of federal jurisdiction.
The Fourth Circuit's ruling today will also set a precedent for climate accountability lawsuits filed by Charleston, South Carolina, and Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland -- all three of which are within the Fourth Circuit.
In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to rule on the issue in 2022, rejecting an expanded number of arguments the fossil fuel companies made to move a lawsuit brought by several Colorado communities to federal court.
Five other federal circuit courts across the country are considering similar arguments from Exxon and other oil and gas companies, which have repeatedly lost efforts to move climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products' role in climate change.
The Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) helps cities and states across the country hold corporate polluters accountable for the massive impacts of climate change.
(919) 307-6637LATEST NEWS
'Congress Must Reject This Attack': GOP Bill Would Revoke Charter of Largest US Teachers Union
The president of the National Education Association said Republicans are attacking the union because "the billionaires that fund their campaigns don't want educators to have a voice."
Jul 17, 2025
A group of congressional Republicans introduced legislation Wednesday that would revoke the federal charter of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the United States and an organization that has mobilized against the Trump administration's far-right agenda—which includes an ongoing effort to dismantle the Department of Education.
The bill, titled the National Education Association Charter Repeal Act, was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) and in the Senate by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).
The GOP lawmakers pointed specifically to the union's recent decision to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League and the NEA representative assembly's adoption earlier this month of a pledge to "defend democracy against [President Donald] Trump's embrace of fascism."
Blackburn, a supporter of privatized charter schools who has endorsed Trump's effort to eliminate the Education Department, accused the NEA of embracing "radical left policies and antisemitism." Harris declared that "it's time to remove Congress' seal of approval from this rogue organization."
Becky Pringle, the union's president, hit back at Blackburn, Harris, and other supporters of the legislation, saying in a statement that "rather than supporting students and educators, some anti-public education politicians are now introducing legislation to repeal the National Education Association charter because the billionaires that fund their campaigns don't want educators to have a voice."
"Let me be clear—public school educators will never stop advocating for our students and communities, and the National Education Association will never stop lifting up the voice of those educators who dedicate their lives to the success of all of our students," said Pringle.
"Some in Congress want to destroy them because they don't like what the NEA says and does."
The NEA, which currently has around 3 million members across the U.S., was chartered by Congress in 1906 to "promote the cause of education in the United States" and "elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching." The organization was originally founded in 1857.
Republican lawmakers have been working for years to strip the NEA of its federal charter to express disapproval of the organization's support for progressive causes.
Education Week noted that the legislation introduced Wednesday "echoes the Heritage Foundation's conservative Project 2025 plan that has guided much of the Trump administration's education policy, and it could find more traction in the current GOP-controlled Congress."
The outlet observed that the the anti-union Freedom Foundation, which supports the GOP legislation, has called on Congress "to, among other things, bar the NEA from traditional labor union activities such as engaging in electoral politics, lobbying, or collecting dues, and require it to 'actively intervene to prevent any strikes or work stoppages by its affiliates.'"
"Revoking the NEA's charter would not, on its own, do any of those things," Education Week reported. "But Aaron Withe, chief executive officer of the Freedom Foundation, suggested that additional legislation would be introduced next week, 'whether that be removing [the NEA charter] entirely, or stripping it, or changing how it operates.'"
Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement Wednesday that the NEA is "one of the most powerful voices for public education" and warned that "some in Congress want to destroy them because they don't like what the NEA says and does."
"This administration is trying to end the Department of Education and silence opposition, and it is attacking labor unions, law firms, news outlets, colleges and universities, philanthropy, and many of our members. We will not be silent," said Wiley. "Congress must reject this attack on the NEA and defend the constitutional principles that guarantee all Americans the right to organize, advocate, and petition government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deadly Shadow Prison': Inmates, ACLU Sue Trump Admin for Denying Due Process at 'Alligator Alcatraz'
"What's happening here is not just a policy failure, it's a moral one," said the executive director for the ACLU of Florida. "This is how rights are erased."
Jul 17, 2025
Detainees at "Alligator Alcatraz" are suing the Trump administration for subjecting them to inhumane conditions at the prison without due process.
The class action suit, brought Wednesday with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other immigrant rights groups, challenges the government's refusal to let detainees speak with lawyers and file legal documents needed to petition for their release.
Inmates in the Everglades detention facility have detailed horrific conditions, including crushing heat, incessant mosquito presence, tainted food, cramped conditions, and a lack of access to water and basic sanitation.
After visiting the detention center over the weekend, some Democratic lawmakers described it as an "internment camp," where as many as 32 inmates apiece were crammed into small cages beneath a single tent.
The majority of the roughly 1,000 people detained there, according to the Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times, have not been convicted of criminal offenses, while over a third have not even been charged.
"This facility opens another dark chapter in our nation's history. Its very existence is predicated on our country's basest impulses and shows the danger of unchecked governmental authority when combined with unbridled hate. It represents an attack on common decency, and in this case, its treatment of detained people is also unlawful," said Eunice Cho, senior counsel with the ACLU's National Prison Project and the lead attorney in the case.
According to the complaint, multiple attorneys have arrived at the detention center to meet with their clients, only to be turned away by armed police and members of the Florida National Guard. The attorneys were later told no in-person meetings would be allowed. They have additionally been given no information about how to communicate with their clients over the phone or virtually.
"The U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to simply lock people away without any ability to communicate with counsel or to petition the court for release from custody. The government may not trample on these most fundamental protections for people held in its custody," Cho said.
The plaintiffs argue this violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of those being detained, as well as the First Amendment rights of the attorneys.
"What's happening here is not just a policy failure, it's a moral one," said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. "The state has hastily erected a costly and deadly shadow prison in the middle of the Everglades during hurricane season to warehouse human beings—stripping them of due process and dignity, cutting them off from their families and legal counsel, intentionally putting their lives in danger, and leaving them to suffer in silence. This is how rights are erased."
The Trump administration is seeking to replicate "Alligator Alcatraz" all around the country. As The New Republic reports, the budget megabill signed by the president earlier this month contains $3.5 billion for "eligible states" to use for the "temporary detention of aliens."
In a Fox News interview earlier this month, Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade, called on Republican governors to use this fund to build their own immigrant detention camps.
"We want every governor of a red state, and if you are watching tonight: Pick up the phone, call [the Department of Homeland Security], work with us to build facilities in your state," Miller said.
"No amount of armed guards or government spin can shield this facility from legal scrutiny," Jackson said Wednesday. "We will use every tool at our disposal to end this cruel experiment and defend the rights of every person trapped inside of this unconstitutional abomination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Doing Trump's Bidding, Senate GOP Votes to Gut Public Media, Foreign Aid in Dead of Night
"At 2 am, Republicans just passed a bill to defund public broadcasting and lifesaving aid because Trump told them to—they wouldn't even protect rural radio or emergency alerts."
Jul 17, 2025
In the early hours of Thursday morning, Senate Republicans passed legislation that would claw back $9 billion in previously approved congressional funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid programs targeted by President Donald Trump's White House.
The final vote count was 51 to 48, with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joining Democrats in opposing the package, which now heads back to the GOP-controlled House for final passage. The legislation would cement some of the Trump administration's lawless, unilateral attacks on programs approved by Congress with bipartisan support.
"At 2 am, Republicans just passed a bill to defund public broadcasting and lifesaving aid because Trump told them to—they wouldn't even protect rural radio or emergency alerts," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, warning that the GOP's partisan clawback of funding imperils all future spending negotiations.
"Congress should decide what we spend and what we cut—not Trump and not Russ Vought," Murray added, referring to the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
In a floor speech ahead of the Thursday morning vote, Murray said Vought refused to be specific about which programs would be cut if the rescissions bill passes.
"It's one of the great outrages of this package," said Murray. "At our hearing with him, he refused to go into detail. He stonewalled us. We asked and we asked. The chair, the Republican chair, even asked him about this. But OMB would not tell us. The question is: What will you cut? The answer has been: Pass it, we'll see."
"The thing that's particularly dangerous about it is that this is probably a test case. If they pull it off with these topics, they'll move on to more and more and more topics."
The White House rescissions request was broadly outlined in a May memo authored by Vought, an architect of the far-right Project 2025 agenda.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund PBS and NPR, is expected to face over $1 billion in cuts, while the rest of the rescissions package targets foreign assistance.
"With this vote, Senate Republicans are telling us everything we need to know about their priorities," said Alex Jacquez, the Groundwork Collaborative's chief of policy and advocacy. "After passing a tax law that gives a massive giveaway to billionaires and raises costs on working families, Senate Republicans are now codifying DOGE's deeply unpopular and reckless cuts to vital programs. Once again, Republicans are failing to deliver on the one thing they promised: lower prices. Instead, they're waging a campaign that will make life more expensive and difficult for working families while lining the pockets of the wealthy."
During the marathon amendment process, Republicans rejected Democratic proposals to shield public safety alerts and prevent cuts to international disaster relief programs.
Vought has signaled that the White House will likely submit more rescissions requests if the $9 billion in cuts make it through Congress.
Kate Riley, the president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, said in a statement following the Senate vote that the rescissions bill would "eliminate federal funding to the local public television stations throughout this country that provide essential lifesaving public safety services, proven educational services, and community connections to their communities every day for free."
"This elimination of federal funding will decimate public media and put local stations at risk of going dark, cutting off service to communities that rely on them—many of which have no other access to locally controlled media," Riley warned.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) accused Republicans of weaponizing the rescissions process to attack "some of their favorite enemies, like National Public Radio, Elmo, or food for starving people overseas."
"The thing that's particularly dangerous about it is that this is probably a test case," Whitehouse added. "If they pull it off with these topics, they'll move on to more and more and more topics, bringing their Musk-type chainsaw to projects which Congress has approved on a bipartisan basis, put into law, and funded."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular