Judges around the country are making quick work of climate lawfare, a welcome development following the U.S. Supreme Court declining to confront the issue earlier this year.  

In recent months, three judges in Maryland and New York have dismissed climate-change lawsuits from public litigants who accuse energy companies of harming communities through emissions and concealing those harms from the public. Their decisions suggest an emerging consensus that federal law does not permit these kinds of claims, which fail on their own terms in all events.  

More than two dozen cities and states have filed nearly identical climate-change lawsuits, creating significant risk for energy companies and consumers who enjoy the quality of life cheap and abundant power provides. 

NJ LAWSUIT CLAIMING OIL COMPANIES CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE DEALT MASSIVE BLOW IN COURT

The plaintiffs pleaded state law claims accusing the defendants of creating a public nuisance and deceiving the public. The energy companies have raised a variety of defenses. Their principal defense is that the climate claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act, which assigns emissions regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency, with limited carve-outs for states that do not apply in the instant cases.  

Taken together, the recent decisions clarify the fundamental political goals of climate litigants. In dismissing the city of Baltimore’s climate lawsuit, Judge Videtta Brown explained that a successful state law climate claim "would operate as a de facto regulation on greenhouse gas emissions," echoing the like conclusions of the Second and Ninth U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.  

The reason for that is obvious. In these cases, the energy providers face liability unbound. The prospective damages are so high that the defendants would fundamentally alter their business practices. That is the policy outcome the plaintiffs intend, which makes the preemption issue straightforward.  

Indeed, U.S. District Judge William Alsup speculated that climate lawfare threatens the continued viability of fossil fuel production altogether. When dismissing Oakland’s climate change lawsuit in 2021, Alsup wrote that the damages sought "would make the continuation of defendants’ fossil fuel production ‘not feasible.’" 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Public reporting about the origins of the climate nuisance, fraud and misrepresentation cases fills out the picture. News accounts establish that a skillful network of academics, lawyers, celebrities and leftwing foundations are at work behind the scenes, at once incubating new legal theories and lining up financing. These facts aren’t necessarily germane for a court, but reasonable onlookers should not be obtuse about what’s going on here.  

Apart from the preemption issues, a Jan. 14 decision in New York clarifies that climate deception suits don’t meet the requirements of a misrepresentation tort. As above, the reason is obvious.  

"The connection between fossil fuels and climate change is public information," Judge Anar Rathod Patel wrote in dismissing the second of New York City’s climate change lawsuits. Courts have determined that "a reasonable consumer cannot have been misled" when the plaintiff does not identify salient facts that the defendant alone possessed.  

The climate misrepresentation claims rest on a contradiction. The plaintiffs maintain that the public is broadly aware of climate change, and that "climate anxiety" shapes economic and political choices. But those same consumers have supposedly been deceived by the energy companies and kept in the dark about the connection between fossil fuels and a changing climate. As Patel wrote, the plaintiffs "cannot have it both ways."  

Rebranding extreme social engineering as environmental or consumer protection is an old liberal trick. Ironically, the pioneer of this tactic, Ralph Nader, contributed to the current climate policy problem with his successful "pro-consumer, pro-safety" crusade against nuclear power in the 1970s.   

I am not sure that the Supreme Court is clear of climate lawfare. While most courts confronting the late wave of climate lawsuits have dismissed them, a few have allowed them to proceed to discovery and trial. The existing split in authorities thus seems like to grow. And the plaintiffs need only prevail in a handful of cases to extract the changes they seek. But it is surely positive for consumers and for the rule of law that the prevailing trend is against the plaintiffs. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM JOHN YOO

The climate change movement was issued a massive blow on Wednesday after a trial judge permanently closed a Democrat-charged lawsuit claiming that big oil was to blame for climate-caused damages in the state.

In 2022, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin filed a lawsuit against the country's largest oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, claiming that the fossil fuel industry was worsening the effects of climate change, and therefore, causing damage to the state.

However, the case was tossed out on Wednesday by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd, who ruled that lawful oil companies could not be held liable for worldwide emissions. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened.

"Plaintiffs seek to regulate the nationwide—and even worldwide—marketing and distribution of lawful products on which billions of people outside of New Jersey rely to heat their homes, power their hospitals and schools, produce and transport their food, and manufacture countless items essential to the safety, wellbeing, and advancement of modern society," said Hurd, who issued the ruling.

ENERGY SECRETARY WARNS AGAINST TREATING CLIMATE CHANGE AS ‘POLITICAL FOOTBALL’: SLOW-MOVING PROBLEM'

Hurd said that the plaintiffs could not justly claim damages caused by nationwide emissions.

ENERGY SEC. WRIGHT OUTLINES DAY 1 PRIORITIES: REFILLING SPR, PROMPTING ‘ENERGY ADDITION, NOT SUBTRACTION’

"Because Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged harms caused by interstate and international emissions and global warming, their claims cannot be governed by state law. Under our federal constitutional system, states cannot use their laws to resolve claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by out-of-state and worldwide emissions," Hurd said in the decision.

Energy experts told Fox News Digital that the dismissal sends a clear message that "energy policy should be set by elected officials, not litigated into existence by activist lawyers."

"This ruling is a major victory for common sense and the rule of law. Climate activists have been using the courts to push their radical agenda, but judges are increasingly rejecting these baseless lawsuits that threaten energy security and economic stability," Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute and former Texas representative, said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital.

Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and former Trump EPA transition team member, said that similar lawsuits could face the same fate because "the climate controversy is a political, not a legal one."

"Although Democrats don’t really understand this, political issues are on the ballot box, not the courtroom," Milloy said.

Fox News Digital reached out to Platkin's office for comment.

California Democrats are attempting to make state oil and gas companies pay for damage caused by the Los Angeles wildfires, claiming that fossil fuel emissions are to blame for the deadly disaster.

A new Democrat-introduced bill, the Affordable Insurance and Climate Recovery Act, if passed, would allow for "victims of climate disasters," such as the L.A. fires, and insurance groups to sue oil and gas companies for damages under the claim that their emissions fueled the raging fires.

Democrat state Sen. Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill this week, said that fossil fuel companies should pay for fire damage, because they are "driving the climate crisis."

"Californians shouldn’t be the only ones to pay the costs of devastating climate disasters. From last year’s floods to the fires in LA, we know that the fossil fuel industry bears ultimate responsibility for fueling these disasters," state Sen. Scott Wiener wrote in a post on X announcing the legislation. 

TRUMP MEETS WITH CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS, FIRE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO SEE LA WILDFIRE DAMAGE FIRST HAND

The bill, which received the backing of several state lawmakers, comes as Democrats have attempted to blame the recent fires on climate change rather than state and city policies, which have faced heightened criticism in the weeks following the deadly blaze.

Just months before the wildfire, the city of Los Angeles slashed the fire department funding by over $17 million. The L.A. fire chief said that there are "not enough firefighters in L.A. County to address four separate fires of this magnitude."

NEWSOM THANKS TRUMP FOR COMING TO CALIFORNIA TO TOUR FIRE DAMAGE IN TARMAC FACE-OFF

"We pay the highest taxes in California. Our fire hydrants were empty. Our vegetation was overgrown, brush not cleared. Our reservoirs were emptied by our governor because tribal leaders wanted to save fish. Our fire department budget was cut by our mayor. But thank god drug addicts are getting their drug kits," actress Sara Foster wrote in a post on X. "@MayorOfLA @GavinNewsom RESIGN. Your far-left policies have ruined our state. And also our party."

Trump used the power of his pen this week to sign an executive order to override the state's environmental policies in order to create more water availability in the L.A. area. 

In the executive order issued on Sunday, Trump called on federal agencies to override regulations potentially limiting water availability in the area, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which seeks to minimize water infrastructure to protect certain fish species, such as the Delta smelt. 

The order comes just weeks after Trump accused Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., of caring more about protecting an endangered fish species than the state's residents amid the wildfires.

The global climate movement is already feeling the sting of the "Trump effect" after green energy policies were a target of President Donald Trump's first executive orders, according to energy experts who reacted to the president's first week in office.

Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States Monday, signing numerous executive orders aimed at unraveling former President Joe Biden's climate agenda.  

"President Trump has not wasted any time to undo Biden’s many climate policies designed to make energy more expensive and less affordable. America and the world can look forward to a brighter future because of the actions that President Trump has started on his first day in office," Myron Ebell, chairman of the American Lands Council, said in a statement.

But Ebell added that "it’s going to be a long, hard fight because of ferocious opposition" from climate groups.

ENERGY EXPERTS WEIGH IN AFTER CANADIAN PREMIER SAYS SHE WANTS TO DISCUSS KEYSTONE PIPELINE 2.0 WITH TRUMP

This week, Trump signed an executive order to ax the U.S. climate standards, which aimed to reduce emissions 61-66% by 2035. 

Additionally, the president ended the electric vehicle (EV) mandate and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, a legally binding treaty among more than 190 parties committed to international cooperation on climate change.

TRUMP ELIMINATING LNG PAUSE TO HAVE ‘QUICKEST EFFECT’ ON ENERGY INDUSTRY: RICK PERRY

"President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accords is a victory for American workers and families, rejecting policies that prioritize the Chinese Communist Party’s interests over our own," said Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute and a former Texas state representative.

"The Paris framework does nothing to mitigate a changing climate but drives up energy costs and burdens Americans with decarbonization mandates rooted in the climate hoax. By making American energy more affordable and accessible, President Trump is benefiting not only our nation but the world."

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a communication platform for climate issues designed by the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, a D.C.-based public policy group, said that Trump's second term "could become one of our lifetimes' most consequential presidencies."

"Trump is poised to, once and for all, put a stake through the heart of the U.N. globalist climate change scam," Morano said in a statement shared with Fox. "The Trump effect is already derailing the U.N. climate summits, canceling EV mandates, disintegrating the Wall Street climate group and Net Zero goals. Trump's policies could have the effect of collapsing the entire climate house of cards."

Trump's executive orders were not accepted by many Democratic lawmakers and climate groups, who criticized the president's executive orders. 

"It’s the second day of the second Trump presidency, and there are three things we know for sure: there is no energy emergency; there is a climate emergency; and the policies rolled out in these past 24 hours will make the climate crisis worse," said Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress plan on going even deeper on reversing green energy policies enacted over the past four years. Republicans in the House have already introduced legislation to block Biden's climate standards on household appliances.

Democratic lawmakers are claiming the severity of the Los Angeles wildfires was a result of climate change, despite reports that the city's fire hydrants ran out of water and the fire department's budget was slashed just weeks before the Palisades fire destroyed thousands of homes and burned more than 15,000 acres.

Several fires broke out across the Southern California mountains in early January, quickly spreading to coastal residential areas and destroying more than 10,000 homes and structures. 

As the fires gained national attention, Democratic lawmakers across the country began to claim it was climate change rather than state policies that caused the disastrous fire damage.

"And what has happened is that climate change has dried out our foliage, our flora. And coupled with these massive winds, these 50 to 100 miles an hour winds that happen every year around this time, a little ember can turn into a massive fire," Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., who represents a district not far from the raging fires, told NewsNation’s "The Hill Sunday."

LA COUNTRY CUT FIRE BUDGET WHILE SPENDING HEAVILY ON DEI, WOKE ITEMS: ‘MIDNIGHT STROLL TRANSGENDER CAFE'

"Climate change has wreaked havoc on us," Min said.

After the fires engulfed the Los Angeles mountains, it was reported that local fire hydrants were not producing water and that the firefighter funding had recently been cut by millions.

Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged these reports, and demanded an independent investigation be conducted into the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) regarding the lack of water in the middle of the crisis, but Democratic lawmakers shifted the blame away from state leaders.

"The scale of damage and loss is unimaginable. Climate change is real, not 'a hoax.' Donald Trump must treat this like the existential crisis it is," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a social media post on Wednesday morning.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said that the state leaders who don't acknowledge climate change as a crisis, who are commonly Republican, are at fault. 

"I’m so heartbroken at the devastation that’s continuously inflicted upon our country & the world & elected ‘leaders’ are ignorant, impotent, or just incompetent to doing the smart thing, which is to acknowledge that climate change is real & start to solve it," Crockett wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Jan. 8. 

Another Democratic lawmaker, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, said in January that he was "glad to be working with Gov. Newsom and helping CA, ravaged repeatedly by the effects of climate change."

Months before the fires broke out, Los Angeles city officials cut the fire department budget by $17.6 million, while hundreds of thousands of dollars were being allocated to fund diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the state.

Celebrities immediately began pointing fingers at city leadership for investing in programs such as a "syringe exchange" program that gives sterile syringes to homeless drug addicts, instead of more funding for fire prevention efforts.

"We pay the highest taxes in California. Our fire hydrants were empty. Our vegetation was overgrown, brush not cleared. Our reservoirs were emptied by our governor because tribal leaders wanted to save fish. Our fire department budget was cut by our mayor. But thank god drug addicts are getting their drug kits," actress Sara Foster wrote in a post on X. 

On the same platform, Khloé Kardashian called out the city's Democratic mayor, writing, "Mayor Bass you are a joke!!!!"

Rick Caruso, founder of a real estate company and former Los Angeles mayoral candidate, suggested that forest management could have mitigated the fires.

"We knew the winds were coming. We knew that there was brush that needed to be cleared 20 years ago," Caruso, founder of a real estate company and former Los Angeles mayoral candidate, told the LA Times. "This fire could have been mitigated — maybe not prevented."

In her State of the State address Tuesday, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is expected to lay out her "Cap & Invest" anti-pollution program that critics warn will cause gasoline and utility costs to soar in the already fossil-fuel-averse state.

The plan seeks to reduce emissions by levying companies for their greenhouse gas outputs and investing that money into initiatives like retrofitting buildings to run on green electric power.

A "cap" refers to the limit of greenhouse gas emissions that is imposed by a state. The "cap" is often projected to decrease each year in order to meet climate change prevention goals.

The state then can set up an auction to let energy companies bid on pollution-weight-based "allowances" – the proceeds from which can be invested by the government in "green" initiatives, according to New York Focus.

NY LAWMAKERS DEMAND SUBWAY CHIEF'S OUSTER AFTER COMMENTS DISMISSIVE OF CRIME AMID NEW TOLLS

New York drivers could see more pain at the pump from such a proposal, according to critics like the nonpartisan group Upstate United, which advocates for boosting upstate New York's economy. 

The AAA average gas price in New York sits at $3.14/gallon – comparable to most of the surrounding states except Pennsylvania – which usually remains higher than the rest of the Northeast due to its nationally-third-highest gas tax.

A Hochul spokesman told the New York Post that the governor is "focused on lowering the cost of living, putting money back in New Yorkers’ pockets with refunds, tax credits and more."

Since Democrats took the executive reins from term-limited GOP Gov. George Pataki in 2007 and have held them without interruption, the Empire State has progressively restricted energy exploration in the state. 

The trend began with Gov. David Paterson’s 2010 "timeout" on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas that effectively remains to this day. 

The "Marcellus Shale" range is named for a town in New York – but any fracking activity since that time has occurred on the Pennsylvania end of the deposits.

State Sen. Tom O’Mara, R-Elmira, represents a district that sits on part of the Marcellus oil shale formation that remains untouchable under state policy.

Natural gas wells dot the countryside in neighboring Bradford and Tioga counties just to the south in Pennsylvania, but the landscape is clear of any signs of exploration to those traversing NY-17 through New York’s Southern Tier only a few miles away.

HOCHUL CHRISTMASTIME BOAST OF SAFER SUBWAYS CAME AMID STRING OF ALARMING VIOLENT ATTACKS

On Monday, O’Mara criticized what he called the latest "radical climate mandate" to be handed down:

"Gov. Hochul and the Albany Democrats are going to keep talking about addressing New York's affordability crisis. But it's clear that their actions like Cap and Invest, more aptly called 'Cap and Tax'… will only keep driving this state into the ground economically," he said.

In 2014, O’Mara slammed New York’s original decision to ban fracking in his area, saying it "eviscerates the hope of so many Southern Tier farmers, landowners, businesses and potential jobs in the natural gas industry."

Hochul’s cap-and-tax plan, he said, will only increase the cost of doing business in New York and drive more families and employers out of the state while exacerbating the affordability crisis.

The plan shows the governor is out of touch with New Yorkers, Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay told Fox News Digital.

"The last thing we need is more unworkable environmental policy from Albany that drives costs up and drives residents away. Democrats constantly lecture us about the need for Cap and Invest and other misguided energy policy, but when people are paying more at the pump and can’t afford their heating bills, who benefits?" asked Barclay, R-Oneida.

"It’s our responsibility to make sure New Yorkers have reliable, affordable energy sources – not force consumers to subsidize the green dreams of the liberal environmental lobby." 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In 2021, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo successfully shuttered the massive 2,000MW Indian Point nuclear power generation plant on the Hudson River opposite Haverstraw.

Cuomo cited safety concerns at the time and said "it does not belong… in close proximity to the most densely-populated area in the country." Critics responded that that area cited – New York City – relied heavily on the power it generated and complained of increased utility bills.

A 2019 law commits New York to net-zero emissions by 2050, according to The New York Times.

Nationally, "Cap & Trade" first entered the American lexicon during the 2008 presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wooed environmentalists with the idea of taxing entities that release greenhouse gases and affect the atmosphere.

As fires wreak havoc in California, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., claimed in a post on X the catastrophe is "what a climate emergency looks like." In another tweet, he took aim at President-elect Trump, asserting the incoming president has been bought off by the oil industry.

"Trump has been bought for $1 billion by Big Oil. Just a payoff to kill the IRA and the Green New Deal. We know what will happen. More fires, more climate disasters, more death. The LA fires are preview of coming atrocities," Markey declared in a post on X.

Markey, who claims there is a "climate crisis," has also warned about the potential effects of artificial intelligence (AI).

DEM CLAIMS TRUMP WIELDING NUCLEAR STRIKE AUTHORITY ‘SHOULD TERRIFY YOU’ — THEN PEOPLE POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS

He suggested rising use of AI could result in "doubling data center electricity demand by 2026," "increased carbon emissions," "water supply shortages" and "electronic waste." 

"We are already facing a climate crisis. We can't let AI make it worse," Markey warned.

ESSENTIAL PHONE NUMBERS FOR LOS ANGELES-AREA RESIDENTS AND HOW YOU CAN HELP

Trump is slated to take office Jan. 20.

"In his first term, President Trump advanced conservation and environmental stewardship while promoting economic growth for families across the country," incoming White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

TRUMP REPORTEDLY PLANS TO UNLEASH AROUND 100 EXECUTIVE ORDERS AFTER TAKING OFFICE

"America’s energy agenda under President Trump produced affordable, reliable energy for consumers along with stable, high-paying jobs for small businesses — all while dropping U.S. carbon emissions to their lowest level in 25 years. In his second term, President Trump will once again deliver clean air and water for American families while Making America Wealthy Again."

President-elect Trump set off a fiery debate over whether Democrats should be to blame for California's wildfires after he accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of caring more about protecting an endangered fish species than protecting the state's residents from wildfires. 

The president-elect has long railed against Democrats in California for limiting the availability of water for Californians that comes from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the northern part of the state. He stumped on the issue during his 2016 campaign and, during his first term, Trump sought to divert more water away from a delta where the two rivers meet that is home to an endangered fish species known as smelt.

But Newsom and his administration challenged this in court, arguing opinions suggesting that the water diversion would not impact the fish were wrong. Newsom also previously opposed efforts to construct a pipeline meant to divert water south. He has overseen programs in his state that annually release hundreds of billions of gallons of stormwater buildup into the Sacramento-San Jaoquin River Delta to benefit the smelt habitat — rather than redirecting the water south for use by people in the central and southern parts of the state.

BERNIE SANDERS TAKES HEAT FOR BLAMING CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES ON CLIMATE CHANGE: ‘GLOBAL WARMING ATE MY HOMEWORK’

Trump set off a firestorm on Wednesday when he called out Newsom on his Truth Social platform for wanting "to protect an essentially worthless fish" over protecting the water needs of Californians. The comments are not new, however. In the run-up to the November election, Trump made the claim during an October interview with podcaster Joe Rogan.

"I was in [California] farm country with some of the congressmen," he told Rogan. "We're driving up a highway and I say, ‘How come all this land is so barren?’ It's farmland and it looked terrible. It was just brown and bad. I said, 'But there's always that little corner that's so green and beautiful.' They said, ‘We have no water.’ I said, ‘Do you have a drought?’ 'No, we don't have a drought.' I said, 'Why don't you have no water?' Because the water isn't allowed to flow down. And in order to protect a tiny little fish, the water up north gets routed into the Pacific Ocean. Millions and millions of gallons of water gets poured."

California's devastating wildfires have killed at least five people and driven hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. The Palisades Fire alone has burned through more than 17,000 acres of land, which is larger than the island of Manhattan. The damage so far has been estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars. 

The president-elect's claims have been paired with reports that firefighters are running out of water as they battle the blaze, prompting the state to mobilize resources to replenish empty supplies. 

CAUSE OF RAGING LOS ANGELES WILDFIRES STILL UNDETERMINED AS MAYOR KAREN BASS DEFENDS HER LEADERSHIP

"There's no water in the Palisades. There's no water coming out of the fire hydrants. This is an absolute mismanagement by the city. Not the firefighters' fault, but the city's," Rick Caruso, a billionaire developer who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass for mayor in 2022, told Fox News.  

The governor's press office said in response to Trump's accusations that he was completely wrong, arguing the president-elect "is conflating two entirely unrelated things: the conveyance of water to Southern California and supply from local storage."

"Broadly speaking, there is no water shortage in Southern California right now, despite Trump's claims that he would open some imaginary spigot," Newsom's office added. "[The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power] said that because of the high water demand, pump stations at lower elevations did not have enough pressure refill tanks at higher elevations, and the ongoing fire hampered the ability of crews to access the pumps. To supplement, they used water tenders to supply water — a common tactic in wildland firefighting."

Firefighters in California made progress towards slowing the spread of the fire on Thursday, according to The Associated Press. Crews reportedly were able to eliminate a fire that broke out in the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday evening and by Thursday had lifted the area's evacuation order. Still, the fires continue to burn and most are only partially contained as of Thursday afternoon, according to reports.