July, 24 2024, 04:16pm EDT
Connecticut Prevails Over Exxon's Attempt to Escape Climate Deception Lawsuit
Attorney General Tong's consumer protection case against ExxonMobil can advance toward trial, following state court ruling
Connecticut
Connecticut scored a major victory yesterday in its lawsuit seeking to hold ExxonMobil accountable for “an ongoing, systematic campaign of lies and deception” about the role of the company’s fossil fuel products in causing climate change, after a state court judge denied Exxon’s motion to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit, filed by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong in 2020 under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeks to make Exxon
- Stop lying in violation of the state’s consumer protection act;
- Pay $5,000 for each time Exxon violated the act;
- Disclose climate research and studies in Exxon’s possession;
- “Fund a corrective education campaign to remedy the harm inflicted by decades of disinformation” — similar to how tobacco companies have been made to fund efforts to educate the public about the harms of smoking;
- Pay “equitable relief” for “past and ongoing deceptive acts and practices associated with climate change” that will require costs to mitigate, adapt, and make Connecticut more resilient; and
- Pay restitution and disgorgement to Connecticut “as appropriate to rectify” Exxon’s “unlawful behavior.”
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:
“Connecticut is now one major step closer to putting ExxonMobil on trial for lying to consumers about the catastrophic harms caused by their fossil fuel products. It’s time for the people of Connecticut to have their day in court to hold Exxon accountable for its climate lies and make the company pay for the damages its deception has caused.”
Connecticut’s victory is the latest defeat for Exxon in climate accountability lawsuits facing the oil giant.
Judges have allowed similar lawsuits against Exxon and other Big Oil companies in Massachusetts, Hawai`i, Colorado, and Maryland, to advance toward discovery and trial in state courts. A judge in Delaware also ruled that a limited version of that state’s lawsuit could proceed toward trial in state court, while the City of Baltimore is planning to appeal a ruling in its case that is at odds with the others. Exxon and other fossil fuel companies are separately urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up and overturn a Hawai`i Supreme Court ruling in favor of Honolulu’s climate accountability lawsuit, but the federal preemption issues presented in their petitions were not considered in the recent decision in Connecticut’s lawsuit.
Background on State and Local Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil
Ten attorneys general — in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico — and dozens of municipal or tribal governments in California, Colorado, Hawai`i, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change. Earlier this year, the attorney general of Michigan announced plans to take fossil fuel companies to court.
The Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) helps cities and states across the country hold corporate polluters accountable for the massive impacts of climate change.
(919) 307-6637LATEST NEWS
Trump's 'Bomb Magnet' Fleet Could 'Never Sail' and Waste Billions of Dollars: Experts
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," said one critic.
Dec 26, 2025
President Donald Trump on Monday announced that the US Navy is building a new class of warship that will be named after him—but naval warfare experts are warning the project looks like a wasteful boondoggle.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote an analysis of the Trump-branded ships the day after their announcement in which he bluntly predicted that they "will never sail."
Among other things, Cancian argued that the ship being commissioned by the president "will take years to design, cost $9 billion each to build, and contravene the Navy’s new concept of operations, which envisions distributed firepower."
As if that weren't enough, Cancian projected that "a future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water."
Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center, also predicted doom for Trump's prized ships, which he said would be too overloaded with the latest cutting-edge technology to be effective at naval combat.
"Every gadget you add to one of these systems is one more thing that can break," Grazier wrote in an analysis published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "When designers lack discipline, as they obviously did while sketching out this latest future boondoggle, a simple mathematical truth asserts itself."
In fact, Grazier felt so confident in his gloomy prognostication for Trump's warships that he told readers they could "take it to the bank."
"The Navy will spend tens of billions of dollars over the course of the next decade on the Trump-class program," he wrote. "At best, the Navy will receive three troublesome ships that will cost more than $10 billion each before then entire scheme is abandoned."
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, flagged a particularly troubling detail of Trump's warship plan in a lengthy analysis published by Forbes on Thursday.
"The most troubling aspect of the proposed Trump-class ships is that they are supposed to carry sea-launched nuclear armed cruise missiles," Hartung explained. "The last thing the US military needs is yet another way to deliver nuclear weapons. And because nuclear-armed cruise missiles are difficult to tell from cruise missiles armed with nonnuclear bombs, there is a danger that and adversary could mistake an attack with a nonnuclear armed missile with a nuclear attack, with devastating consequences."
Hartung also pointed out that the ships, which are projected to cost billions each, are not the only pricey weapons system that Trump is planning to build, as earlier this year he vowed to build a "Golden Dome" missile defense system that is projected to cost anywhere from $292 billion and $3.6 trillion.
"It’s time for Congress to do its oversight job and slow down these 'golden' programs until the administration can make a plausible case that they can be both affordable and effective," Hartung concluded. "The odds are against them."
Bernard Loo, senior fellow at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said in an interview with CNBC that Trump's proposed ships appear to be "a prestige project more than anything else."
Loo argued that the proposed ships' massive size, with each projected to displace more than 35,000 tons while measuring more than 840 feet, would make each vessel a "bomb magnet" for adversaries.
"The size and the prestige value of it all make it an even more tempting target," Loo added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Halts Trump's 'Arbitrary and Capricious' Immigration Court Arrests
"This decision means I can finally focus on my asylum case, not on the ICE officers who might be waiting for me outside the courtroom door,” said the plaintiff in the class action suit.
Dec 26, 2025
A US judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked two federal agencies from arresting noncitizens at immigration courthouses in the San Francisco area, a ruling hailed by migrant justice advocates amid ongoing legal challenges to the Trump administration's policy.
US District Judge for the Northern District of California Casey Pitts granted a stay in Sequen v. Albarran blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) from carrying out courthouse arrests within ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, pending the outcome of a broader legal challenge.
"Plaintiffs have established a likelihood that members of the courthouse-arrest class will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay," Pitts, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote in his 38-page ruling. "ICE has arrested large numbers of noncitizens at immigration courthouses in northern California pursuant to the challenged courthouse arrest policies, and it avows that it will continue doing so."
“This ruling is a critical step in ensuring that immigrants can safely pursue their immigration cases without fear of arrest."
For decades, federal immigration authorities eschewed arrests at "sensitive locations," including places of worship, hospitals, schools, and—during the Obama and Biden administrations—immigration courts. Trump began targeting courthouses during his first term.
"This circumstance presents noncitizens in removal proceedings with a Hobson’s choice between two irreparable harms," Pitts wrote in his decision. "First, they may appear in immigration court and face likely arrest and detention... And for many class members whom ICE arrests under the challenged policies... such an arrest would likely violate their rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."
"Alternatively, noncitizens may choose not to appear and instead to forego their opportunity to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal," Pitts wrote. "As the declarations of immigration attorneys and former immigration judges establish, dozens of noncitizens are already taking this path and receiving in absentia removal orders as a result."
"Accordingly, if noncitizens wish to avoid the irreparable harm of arrest and detention, they must instead irrevocably give up their pursuit of potentially valid immigration claims and be ordered removed," he noted. "There can be little question that this permanent loss of noncitizen’s opportunity to have their claims heard, and their resulting removal, is an irreparable injury."
Pitts found that the class plaintiffs "are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims" that the Trump administration's ICE and EOIR courthouse arrest policy is "arbitrary and capricious."
Wednesday's decision follows a November 25 preliminary injunction in the same case requiring ICE to remedy unconstitutionally unsafe conditions in temporary holding cells at the agency's San Francisco field office.
Responding to Wednesday's ruling, class plaintiff Carmen Pablo Sequen said: "I fled persecution to seek safety, only to find myself arrested in the courthouse, the one place I was told to trust. The terror of that day has haunted me. This decision means I can finally focus on my asylum case, not on the ICE officers who might be waiting for me outside the courtroom door."
Plaintiffs' lawyer Jordan Wells, a senior staff attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, said in a statement that "the administration’s reckless policy is an affront to justice, designed to sabotage the immigration court system and force people to abandon their lawful claims."
“This ruling is a critical step in ensuring that immigrants can safely pursue their immigration cases without fear of arrest," Wells added.
Laura Sanchez, legal director at the Central American Resource Center of Northern California, said, "For our clients, who are asylum seekers, survivors of violence, parents fighting to stay with their children, this ruling begins to lift a cloud of terror."
"They can now walk into court, not as targets, but as people lawfully pursuing their cases," Sanchez added. "This stay is a profound affirmation of their humanity and their right to be heard."
"This ruling begins to lift a cloud of terror."
In a separate case, Pitts earlier this week issued a 67-page order in Garro Pinchi v. Noem blocking the Trump administration’s rearrest and redetention policy targeting noncitizens who had previously been released and later taken into custody after attending immigration court hearings or check-ins.
Other courts have ruled against the arrest of noncitizens at immigration courthouses, including in a 2019 preliminary injunction granted by District Court Judge Indira Talwani—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—blocking ICE “from civilly arresting parties, witnesses, and others attending Massachusetts courthouses on official business while they are going to, attending, or leaving the courthouse.”
A federal appellate court reversed Talwani's preliminary injunction in the case, which did not result in any final judgment for or against ICE's courthouse arrest policy, as plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit as moot after the Biden administration ended such apprehensions.
Earlier this month, US District Judge for the District of Columbia Beryl Howell—an Obama appointee—issued a ruling in Escobar Molina v. US Department of Homeland Security that preliminarily blocked warrantless civil immigration arrests by DHS officers in Washington, DC absent probable cause.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Police Release Settler Filmed Running ATV Over Praying Palestinian in West Bank
A group of Israeli military veterans called his punishment "just a slap on the wrist" and "state-backed impunity for state-backed terror."
Dec 26, 2025
Israeli police have released a soldier from custody after he was filmed running his vehicle over a Palestinian man who was praying outside the city of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.
A silent video of the incident, which both Israeli and Palestinian outlets reported on Thursday, shows an Israeli settler with a rifle slung over his back driving his all-terrain vehicle (ATV) toward a 23-year-old Palestinian man as he knelt in prayer on the roadside.
After barrelling over the man, the settler shouted something in his direction and backed up, then gestured for him to move.
The settler then turned his ATV around, got off, and shouted something at a Palestinian taxi driver. The injured Palestinian man then stood up, approaching the cab. The settler again shooed him off before hopping back on the ATV and speeding away.
Majdi Abu Mokho, the father of the Palestinian man, said his son now has pain in both legs after he was struck.
Mokho told Agence France-Presse: “The assailant is a known settler. He set up an outpost near the village, and with other settlers he comes to graze his livestock, blocks the road, and provokes the residents."
He also said the settler blinded him with pepper spray after hitting his son, though this is not shown in the video.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) identified the driver as an Israeli reserve soldier with one of its regional defense units. These battalions have dramatically expanded in recent years with backing from Israel's right-wing government, which contains many officials at the center of the settler movement.
Breaking the Silence, a group of Israeli military veterans critical of the occupation of Palestine, has referred to the regional defense units—which have been responsible for many other attacks on Palestinian civilians in the West Bank—as "no more than settler militias in uniform."
The IDF said the soldier's weapon has been confiscated and that he's been suspended due to the "severity of the incident," which the IDF said it was investigating. The IDF has not released the soldier's name.
An initial probe found that the same settler had opened fire in the village of Deir Jarir, north of Ramallah, earlier that same day, in an incident that resulted in a young Palestinian man being injured by gunfire.
During that altercation, which was also caught on film, a group of masked settlers was seen hurling rocks at the village's entrance. According to Palestinian sources who spoke with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the targets of the attack were villagers who were grazing their cattle near their homes.
In another video, a masked man—who the IDF identified as the same reservist responsible for the ATV attack—is seen firing his weapon in the direction of the camera. The IDF said that by opening fire inside the village while in civilian clothes, the soldier had committed a “serious breach of his authority.”
According to the Times of Israel, Israeli police released the settler reservist from custody on Friday. He has been placed under house arrest for five days and is banned from approaching Deir Jarir, where the incident occurred, or from contacting anyone else connected with the case.
The violent incident is the latest in a year that has seen a record number of attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers against Palestinian villagers.
According to official figures, Israeli forces and illegal settlers have killed at least 1,130 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, injured nearly 11,000, and detained around 21,000, since October 2023, when Israel launched its two-year genocide in Gaza following Hamas' attack.
On the same day as the ATV attack, Israeli police announced that they had arrested five Israeli settlers over their alleged involvement in an ambush against a Palestinian home, which resulted in “moderate injuries to the face and head” of an eight-month-old Palestinian girl, according to the Palestinian news agency WAFA.
While the IDF says it is investigating the ATV attack along with local police, attacks by Israeli settlers are often treated with leniency.
In January 2025, the Israeli watchdog group Yesh Din reported that across more than 1,700 reports of religious or politically motivated hate crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians in the West Bank over the past two decades, nearly 94% of them were closed without any indictment being filed, and only 3% resulted in a conviction.
Although there has been a documented rise in killings by Israeli settlers since October 2023, not a single one of those cases has resulted in an indictment, and only about a quarter have resulted in investigations by Israeli authorities.
Critics found the punishment of the reservist to be similarly lackluster and the latest example of settlers' immunity from justice.
"Israeli reserve soldier intentionally runs over Palestinian praying on the side of the road," said Rabbi David Mivasair, an activist with the Canadian group Independent Jewish Voices. "His punishment: his weapon was taken away, and he was suspended from the reserves... nothing more."
Breaking the Silence called the punishment "just a slap on the wrist" and "state-backed impunity for state-backed terror."
Others noted that nearly 8,000 Palestinians are currently being held in Israeli prisons indefinitely without trial, including in Israel's "administrative detention" system, which allows them to be confined based on secret evidence that they and their lawyers cannot see.
Israel has justified it as a measure to prevent terrorism. However, in January, the government banned Israeli settlers from being held under those same administrative detention orders, with Defense Minister Israel Katz saying the goal was “to convey a clear message of strengthening and encouraging the settlements."
Ihab Hassan, a Palestinian human rights activist, said of the ATV attack: "Had the victim been Israeli and the attacker Palestinian, the sentence would be life in prison. That is why it is called apartheid."
Following the attack, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reiterated its calls for the US Congress to stop sending military aid to the Israeli government.
"This shocking and dehumanizing act is yet another example of the unchecked violence and abuse Palestinians face daily under Israel’s illegal occupation," the group said. "Brazenly running over a man while he prays is enabled by a system that grants near-total impunity to illegal settlers. The Trump administration must end its silence and take concrete steps to hold the Israeli government accountable for these ongoing human rights abuses.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular