Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel refuses to give up her campaign of lawfare against oil companies, pushing allegations that oil and gas companies cause global warming and thus inflict damage on the state. Nessel recruited three out-of-state private law firms that specialize in activist litigation to bring the case on behalf of the state. Nessel claims that climate change, most of which occurs outside of the state’s borders, will decrease Michigan tourism, harm state agriculture and deplete Michigan’s tax base.

This litigation essentially copies lawsuits being brought in other states. Because cases in other states are further along, recent rulings from those states provide a useful preview of what Michigan judges might make of Nessel’s case.

In the case that may be the most similar to Michigan’s, a New Jersey judge on Feb. 5 dismissed with prejudice the New Jersey Attorney General’s attempt to collect damages from petroleum companies for their alleged role in accelerating climate change. This case was brought by the same lead law firm that Nessel has chosen to represent Michigan in its litigation.

The New Jersey court was particularly troubled by how the claims in the lawsuit were based on worldwide activities by oil companies, only a very small fraction of which occurred in New Jersey. According to the ruling: “Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case, this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.” The New Jersey judge added, quoting the defendant’s brief, “The federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions.”

A week earlier, a judge in Maryland dismissed a similar case, which was also brought by the attorneys representing Michigan. In that case, the judge ruled that the claims brought by the government were not subject to state law, which is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The Maryland case was the second bite at the apple for these attorneys, who brought a separate case on behalf of the City of Baltimore. The Baltimore case was dismissed last summer, with a Maryland state judge ruling that the “Supreme Court of the United States has held that state law cannot be used to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries caused by out of state pollution.”

In dismissing the Baltimore lawsuit, the judge cited a 2021 federal court case dismissing claims made by New York City. Since that 2021 case, New York City has tried two more times. All three of the Empire State’s climate change lawsuits have now been dismissed.

Nearly identical cases in other states are still moving along, although none have been decided in favor of the governments bringing the cases against oil companies. The most notable is in Hawaii, where the U.S Supreme Court recently declined to dismiss the case before it was heard by courts in Hawaii.

A Delaware court also allowed the state attorney general’s case against the oil companies to go forward, but on the condition that the attorney general limit damage claims to harm from activities by oil companies within the Delaware borders.

Notably, in the January 2025 Maryland lawsuit dismissal, the judge reversed his earlier ruling allowing the case to go forward. The judge explained that after he previously declined to dismiss the case, other courts came to the opposite conclusion. He specifically pointed out that local, state and federal courts in other states were all finding that federal law preempted state law global warming claims against oil companies.

Nessel’s case has been criticized for violating legal ethics, for being funded by inappropriate government grants and for being bad for the state’s economy. Nessel should take note of how courts in other states are dismissing similar cases brought by the same attorneys she chose to represent her office. She should end Michigan’s dubious and ethically questionable climate litigation against oil companies.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.