Chevron filed a motion for a partial summary judgment in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on June 5. One of several defendants in the lawsuit, District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil, et al., Chevron alleges that the District exceeded the power granted by Congress in the Home Rule Act.

The District joined many other states and municipalities in suing energy producers in state courts under state laws for alleged damage caused by carbon emissions. These lawsuits have attempted to utilize fraud and consumer protection laws to advance their claims, while proponents reject allegations that the lawsuits are attempts to bypass the federal regulatory authority.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron, former Attorney General Karl A. Racine claimed that the companies’ marketing campaigns and public comments violated the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA): “The defendants violated the District’s consumer protection law by concealing the fact that using fossil fuels threatens the health of District residents and the environment.”

The Limits of the Home Rule Act

The District’s allegations against Chevron relate to climate-related statements the company has posted on its website. At no point does the District claim D.C. consumers were misled or deceived by the company’s website; in fact, the suit contends that harm is not necessary to establish CPPA liability.

Chevron contends that the Home Rule Act, through which Congress granted legislative power to the D.C. Council, placed strict geographical limits on the District. In its motion, Chevron asks the court to grant partial summary judgment declaring that the District cannot apply the CPPA to statements on Chevron’s website.

The Home Rule Act states that the D.C. Council has no authority to pass any law “which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.” Chevron contends that the Home Rule Act prevents the District from reaching statements that were not published within the District or targeted D.C. consumers.

The District’s lawsuit contends that the reach of the CPPA extends to every statement that can potentially be accessed by D.C. consumers and that there is no requirement to demonstrate that any D.C. consumer has actually suffered harm by such statements. Chevron’s lawyers argue in their motion that such a broad interpretation of the CPPA claims the power to regulate online statements that have no nexus to the District, theoretically allowing the council to operate as the de facto Internet police.

George Mason University Law Professor Donald Kochan highlights how the District differs from states in how it is allowed to regulate online discourse: “Unlike states who have broad residual power getting everything not claimed by the federal government, the DC Council has very narrow quasi-legislative power and can only exercise what it is given by the federal government.” Kochan argues that these novel interpretations of consumer protection laws in recent climate lawsuits, especially in the case of District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil, undercut the design of the Constitution by making the regulatory authority of states essentially boundless.

Climate Lawsuits in State Courts

Many view the District’s case against the leading energy producers as another example of how tort law is being used by states and cities to set climate policy in the absence of congressional actions.

In an earlier opinion piece on the District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil, Kochan suggests the case should be viewed as part of a strategy funded by climate activist organizations to create leverage. The growing number of lawsuits seeks state courts to litigate the alleged impacts of global carbon emissions “to pressure defendants to settle with terms requiring fundamental changes to industry practices” and pay substantial damages to balance municipal budgets.

Chevron’s motion notes that, in the absence of a proven connection to consumers in the District, federal laws offer protection to consumers for online content.

In March, the Maryland Supreme Court rejected the arguments filed by local municipalities in their pursuit to hold oil companies liable for climate change, upholding three lower courts’ dismissal of lawsuits filed by Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Brynja M. Booth, the court dismissed the argument by the three local governments insisting that they are using their local powers and authority to protect consumers from misleading marketing campaigns. The court rejected that such sweeping claims can be pursued in state courts, rather than federal courts, adding: “No amount of creative pleading can masquerade the fact that the local governments are attempting to utilize state law to regulate global conduct that is purportedly causing global harm.”

The Supreme Court May Wade Further into the Forum Question

In another materially similar climate lawsuit, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. County Commissioners of Boulder County this fall, which may resolve the split in lower courts as to whether federal law preempts the novel use of state laws to advance climate liability claims.

While the Colorado and Hawaii Supreme Courts have allowed municipalities to use state tort laws to litigate climate liability claims, the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Second Circuit have held that federal laws are the appropriate arbiters to litigate these claims.

The question of federal preemption is a primary issue in several other climate lawsuits as well. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Suncor v. Boulder County in February, there was an expectation that other courts would wait for clarity from the Supreme Court. Three courts have stayed proceedings — California v. Exxon Mobil., et al. (Superior Court of California), Plankin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (Superior Court of New Jersey) and Kennedy v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington) — and, earlier this week, Hartford Superior Court Judge John B. Farley suggested he may wait for the Supreme Court decision in Suncor before ruling on one of Exxon’s defenses in a similar environmental marketing lawsuit.

Since 2017, nearly 40 lawsuits have been filed, where numerous states and municipalities have sued to hold energy companies liable for damages allegedly connected to climate change. The Supreme Court’s decision in Suncor v. Boulder County is anticipated to dictate the viability of climate liability lawsuits progressing in state courts.

Dates for oral arguments have yet to be published, but the Court has confirmed the case is on its Granted and Noted List for its October 2026 session.

Using Courts to Rewrite Federal Policy

Congress and several states have proposed legislation to limit or block climate liability lawsuits in state courts. Utah, Tennessee, Iowa, and Louisiana have enacted legislation, although the Louisiana Energy Protection Act that Governor Landry signed in June controversially grandfathered the 42 coastal erosion lawsuits that had already begun.

Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Harriet Hageman’s Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026 seeks to protect the oil and gas sector from liability for alleged damages caused by carbon emissions. The proposed legislation aims to curb the surge in climate lawsuits filed by states and municipalities that claim deceptive marketing and commercial practices.

Critics of these climate lawsuits rely on federal preemption arguments because large monetary awards would effectively move beyond state tort actions to reshape federal energy policy. John Yoo of UC Berkeley School of Law and Michael Toth of the Civitas Institute argued that, regardless of intent, the inevitable outcome of similar awards would reach beyond state line and even national boundaries: “A victory for the plaintiffs would impose a de facto carbon tax on U.S. exports and raise the cost of energy shipped to allies while leaving adversaries untouched. That affects every American.” Potentially, these climate lawsuits attempt to stake a claim in creating foreign policy, the sole purview of the federal government.

In its motion for a partial summary judgment in District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil, Chevron asks the court to rule that statements posted to its website by employees located outside of the District — and that did not directly target District residents — fall outside of the scope of the CPPA.

Chevron argues that, at a bare minimum, since the District is attempting to exact civil penalties on the defendants, it needs to prove that each of the statements placed into evidence harmed D.C. consumers or originated in the District.

State and federal courts have been divided on whether state laws regulating consumer protection and deceptive marketing concerns can be used to prosecute energy companies. In the case of District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil, the actions by the District appear to exceed the limits created by the Home Rule Act. Or, in the words of Maryland Supreme Court Justice Booth, it’s another instance of “creative pleading” to regulate global activities that are the purview of the federal government.