

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Mike Meno, Center for Climate Integrity, mike@climateintegrity.org
Eight Federal Appeals Courts Have Unanimously Rejected Fossil Fuel Company Attempts to Avoid Trials in State Court
In the latest victory for communities seeking to hold Big Oil companies accountable for climate deception, a federal appeals court has ruled that the District of Columbia’s consumer protection lawsuit against ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell can proceed in D.C. Superior Court, where it was filed.
The unanimous ruling, authored by Judge Neomi Rao, makes the D.C. Circuit the eighth federal appeals court in the U.S. to have unanimously rejected fossil fuel industry arguments to avoid facing climate accountability lawsuits in state courts.
The Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the oil companies violated D.C.’s consumer protection law by misleading consumers about the role of their fossil fuel products in causing climate change.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:
“Judges from across the ideological spectrum have once again unanimously rejected Big Oil’s desperate arguments to avoid facing the evidence of their climate lies in local courts. It’s time for these companies to give up their losing arguments to escape the courtroom and instead prepare to explain their well-documented history of lying about the dangers of fossil fuels to members of a jury. The people of D.C. deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable.”
Background on Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil:
Since 2017, nine attorneys general — in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia — as well as dozens of municipal governments in California, Colorado, Hawai'i, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change.
Eight federal appeals courts — the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits — and more than a dozen federal district courts have now unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry’s arguments to avoid climate accountability trials in state courts. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear fossil fuel industry requests to hear appeals of similar rulings this spring, allowing climate lawsuits in states across the country to proceed toward trial. Earlier this year, California became the eighth U.S. state to take Exxon and other companies to court for climate deception.
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) 307-6637"We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts," said the ACLU of Wisconsin legal director.
Residents of Wisconsin and Washington, DC this week continued the legal fight against efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to gain access to confidential information about registered voters as the Democratic National Committee issued a related warning to 10 state governments.
The group Common Cause on Thursday highlighted its recent motion to intervene in United States v. Evans, a federal lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) against the District of Columbia's Board of Elections, led by Monica Evans.
Lawyers from the ACLU National Voting Rights Project filed the motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Common Cause and two DC voters, Ruth Goldman and Chris Melody Fields, in late December.
As the filing notes, the Trump administration wants to obtain personal details about adults in DC and all 50 states "to build an unauthorized national voter database and to target voters for potential challenges and disenfranchisement."
The Republican administration has sued nearly half of US states plus DC in a bid to get their voter information.
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote."
Ethan Herenstein, staff attorney with the ACLU project, explained in a statement that "federal law does not authorize the Department of Justice to demand sweeping access to voters' most sensitive personal information."
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote," Herenstein warned.
Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, senior director of litigation at Common Cause, said that "voters in DC, and all voters, rightly expect the government to keep their personal information secure and only use it for its intended purpose of maintaining accurate records."
"We are committed to defending voters' rights and privacy in Washington, DC and nationwide, and this case is one of many where we are stepping in to ensure those protections are upheld," she continued.
The Trump administration's attempt to build a national voter database could be the catalyst for disenfranchising voters nationwide and putting our private data at risk.We're taking legal action to defend the states rightfully refusing to cooperate with the U.S. Justice Department's scheme.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) January 6, 2026 at 11:29 AM
Demonstrating that commitment, Common Cause and the ACLU also partnered with attorneys from Law Forward and three Wisconsin voters—Melissa Adams, Amanda Makulec, and Jaime Riefer—on Thursday to file a motion to intervene in a similar suit the administration launched against the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which has refused to hand over vote data.
"If provided this data, the Justice Department could easily manipulate the data to spread disinformation about voting and attempt to baselessly target eligible voters and remove them from the rolls," said Ryan Cox, legal director at the ACLU of Wisconsin. "We've seen this play out in numerous other states, and there is no reason to believe that this administration wouldn't weaponize Wisconsinites' private data toward those same ends. We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts."
Eric Neff, the acting chief of the DOJ's Voting Section, said in federal court last month that Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming—which all have Republican secretaries of state—have "complied voluntarily" with the department's data demand. He also said that several other states "have expressed with us a willingness to comply" based on an agreement called a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "that we have sent them." The DNC issued warnings to 10 of those states on Friday.
Daniel Freeman, the DNC's litigation director, sent letters to election leaders Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah "to address an imminent violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)," pointing to Neff's comments about the MOU.
Specifically, the letter warns that the MOU's 45-day removal demand "has the potential to violate two provisions of the NVRA: the notice and waiting provision governing removal based on a suspected change in residence... and the quiet period provision barring systematic voter list maintenance in the months before a federal election."
"This letter does not constitute written notice of violations of the NVRA," Freeman noted. "Rather, the DNC sends this letter in the hope that the imminent violations set out above may still be avoided. Nonetheless, the DNC stands ready to issue a formal notice should evidence of ongoing violations come to light."
In a Friday statement, DNC Chair Ken Martin accused Trump and US Attorney General Pam Bondi of a "big government power grab" aimed at gathering "sensitive personal information like driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and party affiliation, opening the door to privacy concerns and further political retribution."
"The DNC won't stand idly by as the Trump DOJ tries to get access to voters' sensitive information and put eligible voters at risk of being wrongfully purged from voter rolls, which is why we are calling on secretaries of state and election officials across the country to stand up for voters and reject the Trump administration's illegal agreement," he said. "To be clear: Democrats stand ready to fight back and defend voters, and we're prepared to use the tools at our disposal to do so."
Some state officials have already publicly responded. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen accused the DNC of "grandstanding" and said that he has no plans to sign an MOU but will send the state's registration list next month "unless barred by a court order," while a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that the state sent its voter roll last month.
Others have been tight-lipped. The office of Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson—who gave the administration a public statewide voter registration list last year—told Deseret News on Friday that she doesn't have anything additional to add at this time. Mississippi Today reported that Secretary of State Michael Watson's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
TJ Lundeen, a spokeperson for the South Carolina Election Commission, told the Post and Courier that the agency's legal team is reviewing the DNC's letter. Lunden added that any deal with the DOJ will be presented and voted on during a public meeting.
Meanwhile, a DOJ spokesperson told Axios, which reported on the DNC letters, that "organizations should think twice before interfering in a federal investigation and encouraging the obstruction of justice, unless they'd like to join the dozens of states that are learning their lesson in federal court."
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson also weighed in, telling the outlet that "the Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act all give the Department of Justice full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls."
"President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered noncitizen voters," she added of the Republican leader who notably tried to cling to power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
The current fight over voter data dates back to Trump's controversial March executive order on US elections. In October, DC-based District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked the part that required proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms. The ACLU was also involved in that legal battle. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the group's Voting Rights Project, welcomed the ruling as a "clear victory for our democracy."
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," implored Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
ExxonMobil's CEO told President Donald Trump during a Friday meeting that Venezuela is currently "uninvestible" following the US invasion and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, underscoring fears that American taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the administration's goal of exploiting the South American nation's vast petroleum resources.
Trump had hoped to convince executives from around two dozen oil companies to invest in Venezuela after the president claimed US firms pledged to spend at least $100 billion in the country. However, Trump got a reality check during Friday's White House meeting, as at least one Big Oil CEO balked at committing financial and other resources in an uncertain political, legal, and security environment.
“If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump during the meeting. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”
Exxon CEO: If you look at the commercial constructs, frameworks in place in Venezuela today, it's uninvestable. Significant changes have to be made to these frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections and change to the hydrocarbon laws. pic.twitter.com/vpdH6ftfzm
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026
There is also skepticism regarding Trump's promise of "total safety" for investors in Venezuela amid deadly US military aggression and regime change.
However, many of the executives—who stand to make billions of dollars from the invasion—told Trump that they remain eager to eventually reap the rewards of any potential US takeover of Venezuela's vast oil resources.
The oil executives' apparent aversion to immediate investment in Venezuela—and Trump's own admission that the American people might end up reimbursing Big Oil for its efforts—prompted backlash from taxpayer advocates.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media Friday. "And oil execs should commit now: no taxpayer subsidies, no special favors from the White House."
Sam Ratner, policy director at the group Win Without War, said Wednesday that "already today, Trump was saying that US taxpayers should front the money to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, all while oil companies keep the proceeds from the oil."
"This is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil executives," Ratner added.
Noting that "Big Oil spent nearly $100 million to get Trump elected in 2024," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich—who served during the Clinton administration—described Friday's meeting as "returning the favor" and "oligarchy in action."
According to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power, fossil fuel industry interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle in support of Trump and other Republican candidates and initiatives.
Trump shows you his priorities–Big Oil companies.“Running” Venezuela is all about enriching his donors.The American people are done fighting foreign wars to pad the pockets of oil executives.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jason Crow (@crow.house.gov) January 9, 2026 at 12:35 PM
Reich and others also noted that Trump informed oil executives about the Venezuelan invasion even before he notified members of Congress.
"That tells you everything you need to know: It was never about 'narcoterrorism' and always about oil," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Bluesky.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward this week filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about any possible Trump administration collusion with Big Oil in the lead-up to the Venezuela invasion.
Other observers shot down assertions by Trump and members of his administration that the attack on Venezuela and Maduro's ouster are ultimately about restoring democracy.
"Want to know who’s meeting with Trump this morning about Venezuela’s future?" Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asked on X.
"Not pro-democracy leaders," she said. "Oil and gas executives."
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that's surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding—and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department's ability to wreak further havoc.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. "I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities."
But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
Both Schumer and Jeffries sharply criticized Wednesday's shooting and the Trump administration's insistence that, contrary to mounting video evidence, the ICE agent who shot Good was acting in self-defense.
But Jeffries said Thursday that he was focused on passing other appropriations bills that were ultimately approved by the House.
“We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time," Jeffries told reporters.
With Congress facing a January 30 deadline for approving government spending packages—and with public disapproval of ICE at an all-time high—several lawmakers have said this week that right now is the "appropriate time" to rein in the agency in any way the Democrats can.
"Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios.
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.
The Senate leader said only that he has "lots of problems with ICE" when asked whether he would support abolishing the agency—a proposal whose support has gone by 20 percentage points among voters in just one year, according to a recent survey. Both leaders also would not commit to slashing the homeland security budget should the Democrats win back majorities in Congress this year.
"It’s hard to be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose the blatantly illegal and immoral things being done by the opposition," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
Sharing a clip of Jeffries' remarks to reporters about the agency's funding, historian Moshik Temkin said that "people need to understand that at its core ICE is a bipartisan project, increasingly funded and normalized over multiple Democratic administrations and congressional majorities, and a few of them (not this guy) are starting to realize how foolish, weak, and misguided they were."
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the progressive lawmakers calling on the Democrats to demand reduced funding for ICE—even if it means another government shutdown months after the longest one in US history late last year, which began when the Democrats refused to join the GOP in passing a spending bill that would have allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Ultimately, some Senate Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
"We can't just keep authorizing money for these illegal killers," Jayapal told Axios. "That's what they are, this rogue force."
Ocasio-Cortez told the Independent that Democrats should "absolutely" push to cut funding.
“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ healthcare, and they exploded the ICE budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot US citizens in the head—absolutely,” she said.
On the podcast The Majority Report, Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder called on progressive Democrats to demand Schumer's ouster in light of his refusal to take action to rein in ICE as its violence in American communities escalates.
It's time for Democrats to oust Chuck Schumer from leadership pic.twitter.com/ByWMJ495zb
— Majority Report (@majorityfm) January 9, 2026
"Change the news cycle and show that you'll be an opposition party," said Vigeland. "Call for his ouster."
Seder added that Schumer "has the ability to wage a fight to prevent the funding of DHS. He has the ability to do that and he doesn't want it. He's running away from any leverage he has, deliberately."