Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to shield the energy industry from climate change-related lawsuits and state-level regulations by asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction over climate change liability.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026," prohibits all federal and state lawsuits, referred to as "climate suits" or "qualified liability actions," against energy companies for alleged harms related to climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. It also voids any state laws, regulations, or ordinances that impose liability or compensatory payments on energy businesses for climate change-related costs, asserting that federal law exclusively governs greenhouse gas emissions and climate change regulation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is necessary to protect the energy industry from what they view as scientifically unfounded and economically destabilizing lawsuits that burden interstate commerce and undermine national security by threatening affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. They contend that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is exclusively a federal matter, and state actions infringe upon this jurisdiction and offend principles of fairness by seeking retroactive liability for lawful conduct.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill strips states and municipalities of their ability to seek redress for climate change impacts, effectively granting immunity to polluters. They would contend that it undermines environmental protection efforts, ignores the scientific consensus on climate change, and prevents communities from recovering costs associated with climate-related disasters, thereby shifting the financial burden to taxpayers.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions quickly.
Section 2
Congressional Declaration, Purposes, and Findings on Energy and Climate Liability
This section establishes the legislative intent, declaring that Congress aims to promote energy self-sufficiency, economic productivity, and affordable energy. It asserts that federal law has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate and global emissions, and that state efforts to impose liability on energy businesses for climate change harms lack scientific credibility, offend fairness, and burden commerce and national security.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings are essential to establish the constitutional basis for federal preemption, highlighting the importance of affordable energy for national security and economic stability, and asserting the scientific and legal flaws in state-led climate litigation.
Critics contend
Opponents would dispute these findings, arguing that they misrepresent scientific consensus on climate change attribution, undermine states' rights to protect their citizens, and provide a pretext for shielding corporations from accountability for environmental damage.
Tradeoffs
Balances federal authority over interstate commerce and national energy policy against states' traditional police powers and tort law jurisdiction.
Section 3
Key Definitions for Climate Suits and Energy Penalty Laws
This section defines critical terms that determine the scope of the bill's prohibitions. "Climate suit" covers any legal action seeking damages or relief for past or future harm from climate change, including claims related to marketing or alleged misrepresentation. "Energy penalty law" refers to state laws imposing compensatory payments or liability on energy businesses for climate change costs. "Person engaged in the energy business" is broadly defined to include mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, manufacture, or sale of crude oil, natural gas, and coal.
Section 4(a)-(c)
Prohibition and Dismissal of Climate-Related Liability Actions
This core provision explicitly prohibits the filing or maintenance of any "qualified liability action" (as defined in Section 3) in both federal and state courts. It further mandates the immediate dismissal of any such actions currently pending. Additionally, it declares all existing "energy penalty laws" enacted by states, regulations, or ordinances to be void and without legal effect.
Section 4(d)
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
This provision explicitly states that the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is, and will continue to be, exclusively governed by federal law and federal agencies. It further clarifies that no private right of action or claim can be maintained, implied, or inferred under any state law regarding climate change-related harms stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
The definitions of "climate suit" and "energy penalty law" explicitly include actions based on "marketing, alleged misrepresentation, alleged failure to warn, or any other speech" related to climate change.
Section 3(1) and 3(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the scope of a bill, but its specific wording has broad implications for corporate speech and disclosure.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is necessary to prevent plaintiffs from re-framing traditional climate liability suits as consumer protection or fraud claims, thereby circumventing the bill's intent to prohibit all climate-related liability. They would assert that such claims are still fundamentally about climate change harms and should be covered by federal preemption.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this broad language could be interpreted to suppress legitimate free speech and consumer protection claims, potentially shielding companies from accountability for misleading advertising or failure to disclose known risks related to their products' climate impact. They might contend it goes beyond emissions liability to protect against claims of corporate deception.
Estimated impact: Potentially shields energy companies from a significant category of climate-related litigation that has gained traction in recent years, impacting legal strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants.