Ten Democratic governors, led by California's Gavin Newsom, Minnesota's Tim Walz, and Illinois's J.B. Pritzker, have formally urged Congress to reject the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, arguing the legislation would transfer the financial burden of climate-related damages from fossil fuel companies onto taxpayers. The move escalates a multi-front battle over climate litigation just as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a landmark case this fall involving ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy.
What the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act Would Do
Introduced in April by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), the bill would grant oil and gas companies immunity from climate-related lawsuits brought by state and local governments. If enacted, the legislation would clear more than a dozen active suits currently filed against the industry. Republicans argue the measure protects American energy producers from litigation that could bankrupt companies, eliminate jobs, and push up electricity and gasoline prices for consumers.
The governors' letter argues the opposite — that communities in both red and blue states have absorbed staggering costs from fires, floods, storms, and heat waves that scientists link to fossil fuel combustion, and that shielding producers from liability shifts those costs to the public.
Attorneys General Add Their Weight
More than 20 Democratic attorneys general separately wrote to Congress opposing the bill, framing their opposition around the growing prevalence of climate science in the courts. California sued several major oil companies in 2023, a case that remains in litigation. Newsom, who has publicly accused major producers of suppressing climate science and misleading the public, has been a consistent driver of that state-level strategy.
Industry groups counter that the lawsuits amount to coordinated legal pressure designed to impose carbon costs through the judiciary rather than the legislature. Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, described the campaign as an effort to bankrupt lawful producers through what he called junk litigation. Michael Toth, research director at the Civitas Institute, argued the litigation threatens federal authority over national security-related energy matters.
Supreme Court Case Adds Immediate Stakes
The congressional debate is running parallel to a Supreme Court case set for the fall term, in which justices will decide whether federal law preempts localities from pursuing climate damage claims in state courts. The case stems from a 2018 lawsuit by Boulder, Colorado, against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy over alleged climate contributions and public deception. More than 70 House Republicans have filed briefs urging the Court to reject the Boulder claims, calling the suit a war on American energy.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, argued the litigation drives up consumer costs and restricts market supply, framing it as an extension of policies advanced under the prior administration.
The outcome of both the congressional vote and the Supreme Court ruling will determine whether state-level climate liability suits survive as a viable policy tool — or are foreclosed at the federal level before they reach verdict.