The attempt to punish fossil fuel companies for what environmental activists say is their role in fueling climate change is facing another setback after a judge in New Jersey dismissed a lawsuit against five fossil fuel companies with prejudice. 

New Jersey’s attorney general, Matthew Platkin, filed a lawsuit against Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, in 2022 for allegedly “systematically” hiding information that proved their industry had a role in climate change. 

However, a state superior judge, Douglas Hurd, dismissed the case with prejudice Wednesday, saying the state could not seek damages for emissions that occurred throughout the country and the world. 

“Only federal law can govern Plaintiffs’ interstate and international emissions claims because ‘the basic scheme of the Constitution so demands,’” Judge Hurd wrote. “Therefore, Plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.”

His decision likely means that the case cannot be re-opened unless the state successfully appeals it. 

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Platkin’s office said, “We are disappointed in today’s decision, which allows some of the country’s most powerful companies to escape accountability for hiding the truth and misleading New Jerseyans about the role their products play in causing climate change.

“The trial court’s decision is wrong, and inconsistent with decisions in other states, and we are appealing immediately. We will not let companies get away with putting profit above public safety,” the spokesman added. 

The defeat for New Jersey is the latest setback for environmental activists who have been urging state and local governments to take the fossil fuel industry to court in the name of curbing climate change. 

The general counsel at the Center for Climate Integrity, Alyssa Johl, told New Jersey Spotlight News that Judge Hurd’s “analysis of this case is flawed.

“This case is about holding Big Oil companies accountable for deceiving the people of New Jersey about the dangers of fossil fuels — it is not seeking to solve global climate change,” she added.

An attorney for Chevron, Theodore Boutros, said in a statement, “The New Jersey Superior Court’s decision joins the growing and nearly unanimous consensus among both federal and state courts across the country.

“These types of claims are precluded and preempted by federal law and must be dismissed,” Mr. Boutros said. 

There have been dozens of similar cases filed against the fossil fuel industry at the local level. None have made it to trial. 

In January, a circuit court judge in Maryland, Judge Steven Platt, dismissed lawsuits filed by the city of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County against more than two dozen fossil fuel companies. 

Judge Platt said he was “persuaded” by the reasoning of a circuit court judge at Baltimore in a previous case that found that “global pollution-based complaints were never intended by Congress to be handled by individual states.”

While New Jersey’s lawsuit has been dismissed, several lawsuits from other states and cities are still pending. A left-wing law firm based in California, Sher Edling, has filed more than 20 similar lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry on behalf of cities and states such as Delaware, Rhode Island, California, and Chicago. 

A 2024 congressional report found that the firm has received “substantial assistance” from left-wing “third parties.” It noted, “Left-wing funds’ tax returns indicated that they gave Sher Edling millions of dollars in relation to the climate nuisance cases.”

Although New Jersey is not listed on Sher Edling’s list of cases that it filed, the decision by Judge Hurd is another blow against environmental activists’ strategy of seeking hefty sums in damages from the fossil fuel industry even in traditionally blue states.