Michigan has joined the ranks of cities and states suing the oil and gas industry for allegedly deceiving the public about climate change, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to block the lawsuit.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) filed a first-of-its-kind complaint Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, accusing four of the largest producers and the American Petroleum Institute of breaking federal and state antitrust laws by acting as a “cartel” to restrict the development of renewable energy and electric vehicles.
The lawsuit came a day before a federal judge in Michigan rejected the administration’s bid to block such a lawsuit, ruling the federal government’s alleged injuries were “conjectural or hypothetical.”
Judge Jane Beckering of the Western District of Michigan, a Biden appointee, said the federal government’s claims that it would be hurt by a lawsuit were based on a “chain of possibilities” that were “too speculative and attenuated.”
Nessel’s lawsuit asserts that the companies conducted a sprawling “conspiracy” to impede green energy, beginning in 1979 after an Exxon study found it would be necessary to have renewable energy supply at least 50 percent of global energy by 2010 to avoid catastrophic climate change. It alleges that the companies used patent litigation to hinder rivals, suppressed information about the “hidden costs” of burning fossil fuels, tried to discredit scientific studies documenting the severity of climate change and used hackers to intimidate watchdogs — “all to further one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history.”
The state also argued that the companies’ “collusion” has raised energy prices for Michigan consumers and set back alternatives to gas-powered transportation. Without such concerted efforts by the companies, the state claimed, electric vehicles “would not be a fringe technology or a luxury alternative.”
“They would be a common sight in every neighborhood — rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn, charging outside grocery stores in Grand Rapids, and running quietly down Woodward Avenue,” the lawsuit said.
The case, which marks the 11th lawsuit to be filed by a state, targets BP, Shell, Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Its focus on energy costs marks a new escalation in climate litigation, a field that has largely involved cities and states seeking compensation for dealing with rising tides and warming temperatures. The suits, which are modeled after successful tobacco and opioid litigation, could cost fossil fuel companies billions of dollars if successful.
“Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation,” Nessel said. “These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings.”
Ted Boutrous, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who represents Chevron in the lawsuits, called the state’s claims “baseless” and noted that federal and state courts have dismissed lawsuits seeking climate-related damages in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and South Carolina.
“This lawsuit,” Boutrous added, “also ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state’s automakers and workers.”
The American Petroleum Institute, which has been named in several other climate lawsuits, echoed Boutrous’ criticism, calling the Michigan case “part of a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy, and is actively reducing emissions.”
“We continue to believe that energy policy belongs in Congress, not a patchwork of courtrooms,” said Ryan Meyers, a senior vice president and general counsel at API.
Exxon Mobil called it “yet another legally incoherent effort to regulate by lawsuit.” Company spokesperson Elise Otten said the lawsuit “won’t reduce emissions, it won’t help consumers, and it won’t stand up to the law.”
The lawsuit comes as the oil and gas industry and its allies have pressed states and Congress for immunity from liability from climate-related damage. Two Republican-led states have introduced legislation to shield oil and gas companies from having to pay potentially billions of dollars in damages. API Chief Executive Mike Sommers said last week that blocking such “extreme” lawsuits is a top priority for 2026.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports local governments’ lawsuits against the industry, called on Congress to prevent the companies from escaping trial.
“Big Oil is desperate to keep the evidence of their climate lies from juries in cases like Michigan’s, and that’s why the fossil fuel industry is now lobbying Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Wiles said. “Congress must protect the right of the people of Michigan and every state to hold Big Oil accountable for the harm their climate lies have caused.”
Michigan filed its case as the Supreme Court was poised to considered whether to take up the industry’s latest effort to convince the court to invalidate the climate lawsuits.
The high court could reveal Monday whether it will hear the industry’s request to find that federal law bars local governments from seeking relief for climate change in state courts.
A decision to take up the case would be a significant — if preliminary — win for the companies, which have warned that the liability lawsuits could cost them billions of dollars.
The Trump administration has backed the oil companies’ petition, boosting its chance of being heard by the justices. It also filed lawsuits against Michigan and Hawaii last May in an attempt to prevent the two states from filing climate lawsuits. Hawaii sued the industry in May, followed by Michigan last week. The administration’s lawsuits against the two states are pending in federal court.
The administration has argued that the climate liability cases filed by states, counties and cities — now numbering more than two dozen — complicate foreign policy. It has also argued that states lack the authority under their laws to obtain damages for alleged harms from global greenhouse gas emissions.
Unlike most of the climate lawsuits, Nessel filed the complaint in federal court, where the industry has sought to move the other cases because it believes they will be dismissed under the Clean Air Act.
But Nessel’s lawsuit argues that the companies engaged in a conspiracy to restrain trade under the federal Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts, as well as the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act.
Nessel had announced plans to launch a lawsuit in 2024, saying her office would begin seeking proposals from lawyers and law firms to serve as special assistants to pursue litigation against the industry for climate disruption in the state.
Her office is handling the case, along with Sher Edling, a California-based law firm that represents a number of municipalities in climate lawsuits around the country. Also listed are DiCello Levitt, a Chicago-based firm that has represented Maine and the city of Chicago, and Hausfeld, which has represented young people in climate complaints before the United Nations.
