"Assigning legal responsibility for climate change, let alone which companies should pay, how much they should pay, and which local governments should receive that money, are issues that state liability law is ill-equipped to address. They raise national policy questions that state courts do not have the tools to resolve, particularly on a case-by-case basis.” – MAP’s Phil Goldberg Ahead of the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, read @MFGProject Special Counsel Phil Goldberg’s latest @dcexaminer op-ed on why climate liability questions should be addressed through federal policymaking. washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed…

Today’s dismissal is another reminder that creative legal theories are no substitute for sound climate and energy policy. Michigan sought to stretch antitrust law into a tool for litigating decades of national energy policy and global climate change, and the court rejected its federal claims. Manufacturers remain focused on working with Michigan and other states on practical, durable solutions to reduce emissions while maintaining affordability, reliability, and access to energy.

Whether it be social media or climate change, no single court should decide policy for the entire country. When an issue crosses local, state, and national borders, Congress, not the courts, should write the rules. Good read from @WLF

"Today's challenge is not more state solutions, but developing the technologies that will allow energy to be produced and used in ways that are both affordable for people and sustainable for the planet. This litigation does nothing to advance us toward this critical endpoint.” – MAP’s Phil Goldberg Read @MFGProject Special Counsel Phil Goldberg's latest Law360 analysis on how conflicting climate rulings in Maryland and Colorado highlight the need for a uniform federal solution: law360.com/articles/2489949/…

ICYMI: MAP Special Counsel Phil Goldberg recently joined Meet the Future host Kevin Cirilli to discuss the growing wave of climate lawsuits targeting U.S. energy producers and the broader implications these cases could have for national security, energy policy, and the American economy. Watch the full interview here: iheart.com/podcast/1119-hell…

MAP’s Phil Goldberg joined the Gonzales Mitchell podcast to discuss the Maryland Supreme Court’s recent climate litigation ruling. He warned a growing patchwork of lawsuits could raise energy costs by turning policy debates into court battles. Watch the full podcast here: youtube.com/watch?v=pi3L2UhZ…

MAP Special Counsel Phil Goldberg: “The Maryland Supreme Court got it right. Its ruling reflects the growing trend among state and federal courts that state law cannot govern interstate and international emissions, the global production and sale of energy, or global climate change. As the court made clear, managing these issues presents serious and complex public policy challenges that cannot and should not be solved through a patchwork of state law claims, regardless of how they are pled. Public nuisance and other state laws are simply inapplicable to the production and sale of energy worldwide. This ruling also comes at a critical moment by sharpening the split among the state and federal courts just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider these very issues in response to a similar case brought by Boulder, Colorado.” mfgaccountabilityproject.org…

MAP Special Counsel Phil Goldberg: “The Supreme Court’s decision to review Boulder’s climate lawsuit is a decisive step toward resolving conflicting rulings nationwide and reaffirming that climate policy belongs with elected policymakers – not the courts. Courts across the country have responded to these cases in divergent ways, with many dismissing them for lack of legal and practical foundation. Supreme Court review will bring much-needed clarity and uniformity to this issue and help ensure that fundamental policy decisions about energy and climate are made by the appropriate branches of government. We look forward to the Court’s consideration of these critical questions.” nytimes.com/2026/02/23/clima…

By suing energy producers over local climate impacts, Boulder is pushing complex energy policy into the courts. Legal scholars warn this kind of litigation can lead to "total regulatory incoherence" and instead belongs in the legislative arena. Read more: washingtonexaminer.com/resto…

A North Carolina judge dismissed Carrboro’s first-of-its-kind climate lawsuit against Duke Energy, ruling courts can’t answer political questions or assign responsibility for global emissions. The decision is a major signal that broad climate policy fights belong in legislatures and regulatory forum, not courtrooms. carolinajournal.com/judge-di…

"Boulder’s brief in the U.S. Supreme Court underscores why the Court should grant review and reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to allow Boulder to pursue global climate claims under its state law." - @MFGProject's Phil Goldberg mfgaccountabilityproject.org…

@MFGProject Special Counsel Phil Goldberg: “Litigation is not a substitute for meaningful climate action, and we urge policymakers to focus on collaborative efforts that deliver real and lasting climate solutions.” dcjournal.com/puerto-rico-de…

Phil Goldberg of @MFGProject: “Litigation is not a substitute for meaningful climate action, and we urge policymakers to focus on collaborative efforts that deliver real and lasting climate solutions.” forbes.com/sites/davidblackm…

Phil Goldberg of @MFGProject: "The decision to dismiss the Municipalities of Puerto Rico’s climate lawsuit reflects the strong trend among courts nationwide that these cases are legally unsound and counterproductive." mfgaccountabilityproject.org…