US Representative Harriet Hageman has openly stated that Congress is working on “a form of preemption” to shield fossil fuel companies from accountability for contributing to the climate crisis.
Hageman, representing one of the top oil-producing states, mentioned in February her intentions to draft legislation granting the oil industry immunity from numerous pending lawsuits. She asserted, “Clearly, this is an area in which Congress has a role to play.”
However, is this the right approach? More critically, should politicians have the power to erase the rights of those who suffer due to the oil companies’ decades-long deception about climate impacts? Should they block future generations from seeking justice for droughts, diseases, and wildfires?
The unequivocal answer is no. This stance is supported by over 200 organizations, including the National Association of Counties, which represents approximately 3,000 counties in the United States. Our justice system is designed to address wrongful actions, whether by individuals or corporations.
Examining past attempts at corporate immunity helps illuminate what is currently at risk, why granting immunity to polluters is perilous, and why such matters should be decided by the courts, not politicians.
Tobacco industry: No waiver, $260 billion settlement
Smoking has historically been the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US, incurring hundreds of billions in health costs and lost productivity annually. Lawsuits against tobacco firms started in the 1950s, but the industry successfully quashed them for decades by claiming warning labels shifted responsibility to consumers.
The 1990s marked a turning point when state attorneys general filed numerous suits to recover medical costs from smoking-related illnesses. Legal discovery revealed documentation showing tobacco companies knew about the harm caused by their products and engaged in disinformation. This shifted the legal focus from individual responsibility to public harm.
In 1997, several tobacco companies proposed legislation that would grant them immunity from class-action suits in exchange for a fine and stronger warning labels. The bill, backed by Senator John McCain, was eventually killed by tobacco industry lobbying.
With that option closed, the industry settled the remaining cases through the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which required four major tobacco companies to pay $260 billion to states. The settlement included advertising reductions and dissolution of trade associations spreading disinformation. It remains the largest civil litigation agreement in US history and offers lessons for other industries facing lawsuits.
Firearms industry: Won a waiver, $0 settlement
During the MSA period, cities filed suits against the gun industry to address gun violence. Gun-related murder deaths had increased since the 1960s and spiked in the mid-90s due to handguns flooding cities.
The National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation lobbied for immunity legislation. In 2005, Senator Larry Craig and Rep. Cliff Stearns introduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, shielding the industry from liability, even when guns were used illegally. President George W. Bush signed it into law, granting unprecedented legal protection.
Before the law, lawsuits often led to penalties for negligence. One notable case involved the “Beltway Snipers,” who killed 17 people in 2002. The dealer lost his license, and Bushmaster changed its distribution practices. Since the Act’s passage, no negligence cases against gun manufacturers have gone to trial.
Pesticides industry: Lobbying for waiver, avoiding damages
Since the World Health Organization classified glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—as a probable carcinogen in 2015, the pesticide industry faced mounting litigation. In 2020, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, paid over $10 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits.
Nonetheless, Bayer continues to pursue immunity through courts, Congress, state legislatures, and the Executive Branch. The Trump administration supported this with a February 2026 executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to ensure glyphosate supply.
In Congress, industry allies inserted language into an appropriations bill to prevent states from regulating chemicals or requiring warnings. Health advocates successfully removed it. Bayer created the Modern Ag Alliance to push for state-level immunity legislation, and nine states are considering bills.
The US Supreme Court will soon hear a case involving a man who sued Monsanto after a 2018 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis linked to Roundup exposure. The ruling could impact whether federal pesticide label laws preempt state lawsuits.
Suppressing rights to escape accountability
The fossil fuel industry has also sought legal immunity, lobbying the White House, Congress, and state leaders for protection. The Trump administration responded with an April 2025 executive order and preemptive lawsuits against states suing fossil fuel companies. Attorneys general from 16 oil-centric states requested a “liability shield” from the Department of Justice, and lawmakers in four states have introduced immunity bills, with one in Utah recently signed into law.
These actions potentially undermine foundational rights. The US Constitution gives states primary responsibility for tort law, which addresses harm caused by wrongful actions. Tort law compensates victims and deters future harm. For example, litigation against automakers led to safety innovations like seat belts and airbags. Immunity legislation disrupts state rights.
The struggle between state and federal law is evident in corporate efforts to move cases to federal courts, seeking favorable judges and juries. The oil industry has tried this but was stopped by lower courts and the Supreme Court, which declined to hear state-based climate suits. However, the recent Supreme Court decision to hear a 2018 case involving Boulder, CO, suing oil companies for misinformation could change this, weakening climate accountability.
Don’t let Big Oil beat the rap
The numerous lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, affecting one in four US residents, focus on the damages climate change is inflicting now and in the future. These damages include billions in costs from climate-related extreme weather, often linked to carbon emissions from fossil fuel companies, such as heat waves increasing deaths and labor costs, and rising sea levels destroying infrastructure and property value.
The case against these companies is strengthened by evidence that the industry was aware for decades of the potential catastrophes their products could cause but continued to operate without accountability.
Ensuring those affected by climate change have their day in court is a constitutional right. Reviewing recent history demonstrates that granting legal immunity to fossil fuel companies would repeat past mistakes, distorting justice and prioritizing corporate power over democratic accountability. It would also erode public trust in the government and legal system’s ability to protect them from harm.
Take 90 seconds right now to demand your Member of Congress reject the push for immunity for Big Oil’s devastating climate harms.
