President Donald Trump’s bold agenda for American energy dominance is in full effect. Summer drivers already see the benefits as summer gas prices are unseasonably low. The White House press team recently explained, “Prices at the pump keep dropping, thanks to President Trump unleashing American energy … making life more affordable for families as a result.”
Despite this celebrated success, the energy dominance agenda faces unexpected headwinds from a red state that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. In Louisiana, a state built on energy, trial attorneys are waging a campaign of frivolous litigation, exploiting decades-old laws to sue producers for billions over dubious coastal erosion claims. These lawsuits, backed by political allies, not only burden major energy companies with massive verdicts but also stand to choke investment, kill jobs, and undermine the very industry at the center of Trump’s energy dominance goals.
Recommended Stories
- Trump bolsters military's nuclear readiness to deter Russia
- The Manhattan mass shooter was ready for his close-up
- The Left’s Caucasophobia on display over Sydney Sweeney ad
At the heart of these cases is a very real environmental problem facing Louisiana’s coastal parishes: land loss. Experts agree that there are a multitude of causes encompassing natural variation as well as human development. One of the main human-caused culprits is the Mississippi River levee system, which has dramatically changed the depositional patterns of sediment. However, plaintiffs in these local lawsuits wish to ascribe most of this land loss to oil and gas companies and are seeking damages as well as vaguely defined climate funding. Trial attorneys coordinating these lawsuits recently won a significant verdict, which is likely short-lived.
George Mason University law professor Donald Kochan summed up fundamental flaws with these lawsuits explaining that, “[T]hese cases lack legal foundation, offend due process by seeking to impose retroactive liability for lawful conduct, and seek to set aside the requirement that plaintiffs must prove causation and traceability for alleged injuries in a way that defies fundamental fairness.”
Now, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to review one of the more recent decisions to determine whether these issues should be resolved locally or handled more appropriately at the federal level. The crux of this venue decision is tied to the fact that the energy companies were operating as government contractors when engaging in the development activities plaintiffs allege as a key source of coastal land loss. These activities date back to work done during World War II, as the government called on the private sector to fulfill a critical war function. U.S. oil and gas companies answered this call.
However, the implications of these lawsuits go beyond the legal outcomes. They stand to denigrate the critical work private companies undertake as federal contractors. This onslaught of litigation will likely give the private sector pause before partnering with the government again. It’s especially concerning, in this instance, that the parties to the lawsuit, mainly the state itself, authorized and applauded these development activities.
The policy reality is that Louisiana has not lacked access to funds for coastal restoration; it has struggled to manage them responsibly. Over the years, billions of federal and state dollars have been allocated, plus the $8 billion Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement. One major initiative, the $3 billion Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Project, was poised to restore more than 20 square miles of lost wetlands, but this July, the state canceled the project. Meanwhile, instead of fully implementing the restoration strategies already in place, state leaders appear to be banking on another round of speculative litigation to generate future funding.
This is not an effective strategy. One analysis by the Pelican Institute for Public Policy found that past lawsuits in Louisiana have failed to deliver significant restoration funds, often enriching plaintiffs’ firms while depressing the oil and gas industry. In other words, it fails to achieve the promised environmental improvements while curbing local job opportunities and economic development.
TIME TO CHOOSE: TRIAL LAWYERS OR TRUMP’S ENERGY AGENDA
Trump’s vision for American energy dominance is a proven win for families, businesses, and national security, delivering tangible relief at the pump and bolstering economic growth. Yet, this patchwork of frivolous lawsuits in Louisiana threatens to derail this progress, jeopardizing jobs and investment in a state that thrives on energy.
To safeguard this bold agenda, policymakers and industry leaders must unite to curb these exploitative legal battles, develop long-term policy solutions for coastal land loss, and actively participate in America’s energy dominance.
Mandy Gunasekara is an environmental attorney and consultant who served as the U.S. EPA Chief of Staff during the first Trump administration.