While “traditional” climate lawsuits continue to face a string of dismissals and a pending U.S. Supreme Court review, the same activists and plaintiffs’ attorneys are scrambling to repackage the same claims into new legal frameworks.  

But Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s sweeping antitrust climate lawsuit against the U.S. oil and gas industry has already drawn a blunt assessment from legal experts: it’s “facing a meaningful risk of dismissal” – just like the growing list of similar climate cases that have been thrown out in courts across the country. 

The Michigan complaint attempts to repackage decades of lawful industry behavior – investment decisions, public statements, and participation in industry trade associations – as evidence of a coordinated conspiracy to suppress competing energy technologies. 

That’s a major stretch. And one that’s been tried with no success in the past (flashback to Puerto Rico). 

It’s been roughly two months since Nessel filed her major lawsuit. Let’s examine what energy and legal experts are saying about the case. 

Read the full post at EIDClimate.org.