In a closely watched case that could have set a precedent for climate litigation, a federal judge has dismissed a sweeping lawsuit brought by 37 municipalities in Puerto Rico against some of the world’s largest oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP. The ruling represents a major win for the energy industry and a setback for local governments seeking to hold fossil fuel producers accountable for climate change damages.
The Case and Its Claims
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, accused the oil giants of knowingly contributing to global warming and misleading the public about the risks of fossil fuel emissions. The plaintiffs argued that the companies engaged in a decades-long campaign to deny climate science, delay the adoption of cleaner energy technologies, and maximize profits—all while knowing that the continued burning of fossil fuels would exacerbate severe weather events.
Puerto Rico’s municipalities specifically pointed to the devastation caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, which caused catastrophic infrastructure damage, displaced thousands, and led to significant loss of life. They alleged that the oil companies’ conduct worsened the impacts of those storms by contributing to climate change, ultimately costing local governments billions in recovery efforts.
The Court’s Decision
U.S. District Judge Silvia Carreño-Coll issued the dismissal, finding that the claims were filed too late under the applicable statutes of limitations. According to the court, the towns “knew or should have known” of the alleged connection between fossil fuel emissions, climate change, and the destructive hurricanes well before the 2022 filing date.
The dismissal was
with prejudice for some of the defendants, meaning those claims are permanently barred and cannot be refiled. For other defendants, however, the court allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend and potentially refile their complaint with additional information.
Judge Carreño-Coll’s ruling focused heavily on timing, underscoring that even if the plaintiffs’ claims were legally viable, they were barred because they were not brought within the allowable window for litigation. This mirrors the outcomes in several other climate lawsuits across the country, where courts have dismissed claims due to statutes of limitations and jurisdictional hurdles.
The Oil Companies’ Defense
The energy companies consistently denied wrongdoing and argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were not just time-barred but legally flawed. Their legal teams maintained that lawsuits attempting to assign liability for global climate change are inappropriate for the courts and should be handled by policymakers, not judges.
Chevron’s attorney, Ted Boutrous, praised the ruling, stating that “the civil justice system exists to resolve live controversies, not to revisit decades-old debates.” The companies emphasized that the plaintiffs had access to information about climate change and its potential effects long before 2017, making the lawsuit untimely.
The Plaintiffs’ Next Steps
Attorneys for the Puerto Rican municipalities expressed disappointment but signaled they are not backing down. Lead counsel Melissa Sims announced that the towns plan to amend the complaint where allowed and may pursue an appeal to challenge the dismissal. The plaintiffs maintain that fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the extraordinary costs of climate change and its impact on vulnerable communities like Puerto Rico.
Broader Implications for Climate Litigation
This ruling is part of a growing body of legal decisions that could shape the future of climate accountability lawsuits. Across the United States, cities, counties, and states have filed cases seeking damages from oil and gas companies for climate-related infrastructure costs, public health impacts, and disaster response. While some cases have survived early motions to dismiss and are proceeding toward trial, others—like this one—have been rejected on procedural grounds.
Legal experts say that the Puerto Rico case highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when bringing climate litigation decades after the alleged wrongdoing began. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing when plaintiffs first learned, or reasonably should have learned, about the connection between climate change and the harm they suffered. The question of timing can determine whether such lawsuits proceed or are barred entirely.
Why This Case Matters
Puerto Rico is among the most climate-vulnerable regions in the United States, with its location in the Caribbean making it highly susceptible to hurricanes, rising sea levels, and other climate-related threats. A successful lawsuit could have provided billions in potential funding for resiliency projects, infrastructure repairs, and disaster preparedness.
The dismissal also sends a signal to other municipalities considering similar litigation. It demonstrates that while the legal and political conversation around corporate climate accountability is growing, plaintiffs must overcome strict procedural hurdles before courts will allow their cases to proceed.
The Road Ahead
Despite this setback, the momentum behind climate litigation is unlikely to slow. Dozens of cases remain pending in courts across the country, and some have already cleared preliminary legal challenges. Appeals courts and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court may soon be asked to weigh in on key legal questions, including jurisdiction, causation, and the role of state versus federal courts in hearing such claims.
For now, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and other defendants have secured an important victory. But the battle over climate accountability—and who should pay for the costs of extreme weather events—is far from over. Puerto Rican towns and other communities on the front lines of climate change are expected to continue pursuing legal strategies aimed at recouping damages and forcing greater corporate responsibility.
Stay ahead in your legal career while keeping up with the latest climate litigation news. Visit
LawCrossing today to explore thousands of legal jobs across the country — from environmental law positions to BigLaw opportunities. Don’t wait — the right job could be just a click away!
