Bucks County’s shaky climate lawsuit against the energy industry is facing mounting opposition – and now Pennsylvania’s top legal official is joining the growing chorus calling out the case’s fatal flaws.

In amicus briefs filed last month before Commonwealth Court, Attorney General Dave Sunday joined a broad coalition of state and national organizations — including the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — in backing the dismissal of Bucks County’s climate lawsuit.

The filings come as Bucks County attempts to revive its lawsuit after Court of Common Pleas Judge Stephen Corr dismissed the case with prejudice last May. The ongoing appeal also follows another major setback for climate litigation advocates: in March, the Maryland Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of three similar climate lawsuits, further underscoring the growing legal headwinds facing these cases nationwide.

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Rejects Bucks County’s Climate Lawfare

In his first direct comments on the lawsuit, AG Sunday made clear that the county’s claims are preempted by federal law because they seek to regulate interstate and global emissions. Courts across the country have echoed that argument in dismissing similar cases.

But Sunday’s brief also highlighted something unique about Bucks County’s lawsuit: unlike activist-driven cases filed in deep-blue coastal states, this lawsuit targets one of Pennsylvania’s most important industries. As The Bucks Independence reports:

“Sunday also wrote that Bucks County’s climate lawsuit negatively impacts Pennsylvania, the second-largest natural gas producer in the U.S. after Texas, and the third largest coal-producing state after Wyoming and West Virginia. And because the energy sector employs hundreds of thousands of workers in Pennsylvania, it is integral to the commonwealth’s economy.”

The Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform echoed those concerns in its own amicus filing, warning of potential state-wide and local impacts if Bucks County’s suit were to succeed.

That concern is hardly speculative. Supporters of climate lawsuits have openly admitted that these lawsuits are designed to “bankrupt” oil and natural gas companies.

The Case’s Dismissal Leaves Little Room for Interpretation

AG Sunday’s amicus brief also revived another major issue surrounding the lawsuit from the very beginning: the lack of lack of transparency behind its approval.

According to the brief, Bucks County officials moved forward with the lawsuit without public meeting or conversation. Instead, the decision was approved behind closed-doors – a process that drew immediate criticism from Pennsylvania business leaders and labor groups.

The backlash became so significant that Bucks County Republican County Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo ultimately retracted his support for the case shortly after it was filed.

As Energy in Depth has previously noted, the secrecy surrounding the deliberations raise serious questions about the role outside activists and special interests may have played in influencing Bucks County to file the case.

Judge Corr himself sharpy criticized county officials during oral arguments for shielding the lawsuit from public scrutiny – even going as far as to call it “sneaky:”

“How can the public ask an intelligent question? You go out there and tout transparency…Why are you hiding this?…It’s a sneaky way of doing it.”

Bottom line: As Bucks County continues to try to keep its ill-fated climate lawsuit alive, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, national business groups, and state legal reform organizations have made their message clear: climate policy cannot be dictated through local courtroom activism.

Courts across the country have repeatedly rejected these lawsuits because they attempt to override federal authority, undermine domestic energy production, and advance political agendas through litigation rather than legislation. It is time to end Bucks County’s climate lawfare ploy once and for all.