A Chevron station in Simi Valley, Calif.
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Appellate judges considering whether to revive a Pennsylvania county’s climate lawsuit against major oil companies were told the state “would rule the world” if the case is allowed to proceed.
Arguing for Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil and other defendants, attorney Ted Boutrous told the Commonwealth Court that Bucks County tried, but failed, to make its lawsuit about product liability when in fact it is just another attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
“Their lawsuit claims these defendants caused global greenhouse gas emissions to be too high,” said Boutrous, of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. “Their whole claim is that Pennsylvania law should regulate the activities of these defendants all over the world.”
Bucks County has appealed a 2025 ruling by Judge Stephen Corr dismissing its case as precluded under federal law. Bucks County approved hiring private lawyers at DiCello Levitt from Chicago in a meeting, though three commissioners later rebelled against the decision.
DiCello Levitt attorney Dan Flynn argued before the Commonwealth Court that the county’s lawsuit makes simple claims under Pennsylvania common law that the oil companies failed to warn consumers about the dangers of global warming.
“Every state requires manufacturers to give reasonable warnings when the manufacturer knows their product to be dangerous,” Flynn said, dismissing as a “straw man” arguments the lawsuit was really about emissions. “The most defendants would have to do is be truthful about what they know about the dangers of their product.”
Judge Patricia McCullough pushed back, saying: “It all goes back to fossil fuel emissions. You’re really pleading a case for emissions.”
“Nowhere do we allege defendants wrongfully emitted anything,” Flynn responded. “We claim their market influence and misrepresentations caused an increase in emissions from various sources, not defendants.”
“Can you help me understand the lie,” asked Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon.
“It was the advertisements, articles, how they talked about the very existence of climate change being in doubt,” Flynn said.
“Those are positions that some people do take?” the judge responded.
“Yes, but the defendants had scientists, they knew that was incorrect information,” Flynn said.
Judge Matthew Wolf appeared the most sympathetic to the county, asking Boutrous how the plaintiffs could achieve their goals since the Trump administration has abandoned regulating CO2 at the federal level. When Boutrous said Congress still delegated that question to the EPA to manage, Judge Wolf interrupted: “that’s a catch-and-kill. They delegate authority and then kill the authority.”
“For now,” Boutrous said.
In his dismissal, Judge Corr noted that state and federal courts have repeatedly held lawsuits over greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of how carefully they are worded, involve interstate and international claims that don’t belong in state court.
"Today we join a growing chorus of state and federal courts across the United States, singing from the same hymnal, in concluding that the claims raised by Bucks County are not judiciable by any court in Pennsylvania," Corr wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Boulder County, Colorado’s lawsuit against Suncor and Exxon, with the justices also questioning whether state-law claims are preempted by federal law. The justices are also considering refusing jurisdiction in that case, however, because there has not been a final judgment, only the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision allowing the case to go to trial.
In his arguments, Flynn acknowledged Bucks County might have a tough time proving the alleged “campaign of lies” by the oil companies actually caused consumers to burn more fuel than they otherwise would.
“Causation will be a challenge in this case. Bucks doesn’t shy away from it,” Flynn said.
Later, Boutrous pointed out the county itself is a major consumer of fossil fuels, “and they’re suing saying they need warnings.”
