Can a state or county force oil companies to pay for climate damage in its own courts? That question sits behind a wave of lawsuits filed across the United States, and the newest one comes from Middlesex County, New Jersey. In September 2026, the county sued ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that decades of climate deception contributed to local flooding and other climate-related harms, according to the Business & Human Rights Centre.
The answer is not settled. A judge already dismissed New Jersey's own version of this case in 2025, and the US Supreme Court is weighing a ruling that could decide whether these lawsuits can proceed anywhere. This explainer walks through who is suing, what they claim, and what could end the entire line of cases with one ruling.
What do these lawsuits actually allege?
The claims are about concealment, not emissions. In 2022, New Jersey filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute. The state alleged that the defendants concealed information about the links between fossil fuel combustion and climate change, in violation of state law, per the Business & Human Rights Centre.
The logic follows a familiar pattern from tobacco and consumer-fraud litigation: not that a product is legal, but that its makers knew something harmful and said otherwise. The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, is named as a defendant alongside the companies.
The Middlesex County case adds a local dimension. The county alleges that climate deception contributed to flooding and other harms it says it is already paying to manage. It brings claims of public nuisance, trespass, negligence and consumer fraud. In plain terms: nuisance and trespass point to harm imposed on public land and property; negligence points to a duty of care the companies allegedly breached; consumer fraud points to what buyers were told.
Why was New Jersey's own case dismissed?
On 5 February 2025, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd dismissed the state's claims, finding that they were governed by federal law, according to the Business & Human Rights Centre. That is a procedural decision, not a finding on the merits. The judge did not rule that the companies did or did not deceive anyone. He ruled that the state's claims belong in a federal framework rather than a state courtroom.
That distinction matters for every similar case. If state-law claims are displaced by federal law, state courts cannot hear them, and the plaintiffs' chosen forum disappears. The Middlesex County suit was filed after that dismissal, which suggests local governments are still willing to test the theory in state court.
What is the Supreme Court case that could change everything?
The proceedings may be affected by a pending US Supreme Court ruling in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The case concerns whether federal law preempts state-law climate claims — that is, whether federal law overrides the state-law theories these lawsuits rest on, per the Business & Human Rights Centre. This connects to our earlier piece, Supreme Court weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Callais ruling.
Preemption is the same question Judge Hurd used to dismiss New Jersey's claims, now elevated to the country's highest court. A ruling either way would ripple across every pending and future case of this kind. If federal law preempts state-law claims, the state and county suits lose their legal footing. If it does not, the cases can proceed on their merits — where the companies would contest the deception allegations themselves.
Who is suing, and who is being sued?
The record here covers two New Jersey plaintiffs. The state sued six companies plus the American Petroleum Institute in 2022. Middlesex County sued seven companies plus the institute in September 2026, adding Phillips 66 to the defendant list. The county's claims are broader on paper: four causes of action rather than the concealment framing alone.
Both suits are at early stages. The county case is new, and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled in the Suncor matter. Neither plaintiff has won a merits ruling in the supplied record.
Why does this matter for readers tracking rights and accountability?
These cases test who bears the cost of climate harm: the governments managing floods and repairs, or the companies whose products caused the emissions. They also test a structural question that recurs across rights coverage — whether state courts remain a viable venue for holding large companies to account, or whether federal preemption closes that door. The same venue question shapes other accountability fights, from who can enforce the Voting Rights Act to what qualified immunity shields government officials from. Readers following this should also see Who can enforce the Voting Rights Act is now a question of where you live.
The next development to watch is the Supreme Court's ruling in the Suncor case. Until it lands, the Middlesex County litigation proceeds against the backdrop of a dismissal that already sank the state's version of the same theory.
