Trump aims to gut environmental legal protections. Easier said than done.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Donald Trump has promised to deregulate the energy sector, boost fossil fuels, dismantle environmental rules, and otherwise attack climate progress. However, experts and advocates say that lawsuits that aim to hold the fossil fuel sector responsible for deceiving the public about the climate crisis still “have a clear path forward.”

“The overwhelming evidence of the industry’s lies and ongoing deception does not change with administrations,” said Richard Wiles, president of the nonprofit Center for Climate Integrity, which tracks and supports the litigation. There are more than 30 accountability lawsuits active around the US brought by states and municipalities accusing fossil fuel interests of covering up the climate risks of their products or seeking damages for impacts. “Climate deception lawsuits against Big Oil have a clear path forward no matter who is in the White House.”

On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to “stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists.”

But the administration’s ability to block the suits will be limited, Wiles said.

Since the federal government is neither plaintiff nor defendant in any of the suits, Trump’s election will not directly affect their outcome. And since each case was filed in state court, the president cannot appoint judges who will oversee them.

However, if any of the cases are sent to the federal courts—something oil companies have long pushed for but have not achieved—Trump’s right-wing appointees could rule in favor of fossil fuel companies.

“The most important impact that Trump will have on the climate accountability litigation is the justices he has appointed to the supreme court,” said Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

In his first term, Trump appointed three justices to the high court, including two with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In early December, Joe Biden’s solicitor general urged the Supreme Court to reject requests from fossil fuel interests to quash two climate accountability lawsuits, after a July call from the court for the administration to weigh in.

Experts say Trump’s White House could attempt to politically tip the scales in favor of the oil companies. “The views of the federal government tend to carry weight with the Supreme Court, so if Trump did that it would give a bit of a boost to the oil companies,” said Daniel Farber, who directs the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.

But that doesn’t guarantee that the court would agree with the administration, he said. “The court doesn’t always listen to the government’s view, and it would really depend on how persuasively they were able to argue the point,” Farber said.

Trump’s justice department could also file influential “friend of the court” briefs in the cases, said Gerrard.. The Biden administration filed such a brief in support of the plaintiff last year, whereas Trump’s previous administration reliably supported the defendants and is expected to do so again.

These can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case, but similarly do not guarantee an outcome.

Another possibility advocates are preparing for: Trump could work with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to attempt to offer legal immunity to the fossil fuel industry from the lawsuits.

But such a measure is unlikely to succeed, even with a Republican trifecta, said Farber. “You’d need 60 votes to break the filibuster in the Senate, and that means they would need to pick up seven Democrats,” he said. “I just don’t see that happening.”

The firearms industry successfully won a liability waiver in 2005 which has successfully blocked most attempts to hold them accountable for violence. Fossil fuel companies have pushed to be granted the same treatment, but have failed so far.

The Trump administration’s pledges to roll back environmental regulation and boost fossil fuels could inspire additional climate accountability litigation. “If they feel like other channels for change have gotten cut off, maybe that would make the legal channel more appealing,” said Farber.

Climate accountability suits filed by cities and states have gained steam in recent months. In December, a North Carolina town launched the nation’s first-ever climate accountability lawsuit against an electric utility. In November, Maine also filed a suit against big oil, while a Kansas county sued major fossil fuel producers, alleging they had waged “a decades-long campaign of fraud and deception about the recyclability of plastics.”

Even amid Trump’s expected environmental rollbacks, the suits are a way to “secure some measure of justice and accountability for big oil’s climate lies and the damages that they’ve caused,” said Wiles.