Honolulu has taken a crucial step forward in its climate accountability efforts. On July 28, 2025, the City and County of Honolulu advanced its legal action against multiple fossil fuel giants—including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, Sunoco, and others—claiming they contributed to Hawaii’s climate-related impacts through decades of deception and misinformation.
A pivotal hearing is now scheduled in Hawaii state court to address a key defense motion seeking dismissal based on the state’s two-year statute of limitations. Defendants argue that claims about fossil fuel harms have been publicly known for decades, rendering many allegations time-barred.
The lawsuit—City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP et al.—was originally filed in 2020, alleging that the defendants knowingly concealed the dangers of burning fossil fuels and misled the public for profit, while local communities are now paying for climate-related damage, including rising sea levels, coral reef loss, extreme weather events, and freshwater shortages.
In March 2022, a Hawaii state trial court rejected motions to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. The court viewed the claims as traditional state-law tort claims—such as negligence and nuisance—not preempted by federal law. In October 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court reaffirmed that the lawsuit could proceed, ruling that neither the Clean Air Act nor federal common law preempt state law claims tied to deceptive marketing practices. In January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from fossil fuel companies aiming to remove the case to federal court, clearing additional jurisdictional obstacles and removing further challenges to the suit’s continuation in state court.
Read Also: https://democratdigest.com/wall-street-hits-record-highs-following-landmark-u-s-japan-trade-pact/
This next defense motion hearing, scheduled for later this week, focuses on whether Honolulu’s claims are time-barred under the state’s statute of limitations. The defense contends the public should have been aware of climate risks decades ago, but city attorneys argue the basis of the lawsuit has evolved with emerging harms and new information about the defendants’ conduct.
Legal analysts see this hearing as a critical test: the outcome could either give Honolulu the green light to proceed to trial or halt the case before deeper examination of the merits. If Honolulu prevails, it would become the first U.S. trial to hold fossil fuel corporations legally liable for decades of climate deception. Given that similar lawsuits have been filed by multiple states, counties, and cities—including Maui County and the State of Hawaii—the outcome could ripple across domestic climate litigation.
Honolulu’s suit is part of a growing wave of climate liability litigation across the United States. Cities and states including California, New Jersey, and Colorado are seeking damages for severe weather, wildfires, coastal flooding, and public health harms tied to fossil fuel emissions.
Prominent climate scholars have compared the fossil fuel industry’s tactics to those of Big Tobacco. Harvard University’s Naomi Oreskes, who submitted a declaration in the case, describes an organized effort to generate doubt and delay regulation, despite scientific consensus on the harms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Meanwhile, Hawaiʻi state government has reinforced the push. In May 2025, Attorney General Anne Lopez announced a separate state lawsuit against fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute, seeking damages under Hawaii law and condemning federal efforts to block legal accountability.
If the court rejects the defense motion, Honolulu’s case will proceed toward trial. That could usher in a historic legal precedent for climate accountability via state tort law. A ruling in favor of dismissal on statute of limitations grounds could significantly stall Honolulu’s claims and influence whether similar lawsuits survive pretrial scrutiny in other jurisdictions. Regardless of the hearing outcome, further appeals remain possible. Fossil fuel firms are expected to continue fighting claims aggressively, potentially extending the legal battle for years.
Honolulu’s climate lawsuit has advanced to a defining moment: a hearing on whether its claims are timely and allowable under state law. A favorable ruling would mark a historic U.S. trial, potentially holding fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages in Hawaii. The case’s outcome could shape the future of climate litigation nationwide and determine how courts handle decades of alleged deception by the oil and gas industry.
