In March 2024, the County of Bucks filed a controversial suit under state law against a number of large oil companies alleging the County was injured because of the companies’ deceptive conduct with respect to their impact on climate change. The Defendants filed various preliminary objections including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that despite the County’s effort to focus the complaint on fraudulent practices, the case at bottom alleged harm from severe weather allegedly due to air emissions, which are governed exclusively by federal law. On May 16, 2025, the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas issued an opinion agreeing with the Defendants and dismissing the case entirely.  See Bucks County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024-01836 (Bucks Cty. Com. Pl. May 16, 2025).

Before addressing the subject-matter jurisdiction issue, the Court waded into the political history, evaluating the Defendants’ threshold argument that the County violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, a law mandating government transparency. Two months before the lawsuit was filed, the County Commissioners included a line item in their meeting agenda that purportedly concerned this case, which stated generally that the County planned to hire a law firm to “evaluate and litigate potential environmental claims on behalf of the County on a contingent basis.” This line item was listed as part of the “Consent Agenda” that typically covered non-controversial topics requiring no discussion.

In March 2024, when the lawsuit was filed, County officials described it as “historic” and “momentous,” and it immediately garnered national news coverage. The Defendants argued that the County’s conduct violated the Sunshine Act. The Court disagreed, holding that the County technically met the disclosure requirements of the Sunshine Act and, in any event, the Defendants’ challenge on this issue was untimely. The Court emphasized, however, that it believed the County violated the “spirit of the Sunshine Act” by failing to provide the public with sufficient information regarding its intentions to bring a major lawsuit.  

With respect to subject-matter jurisdiction, the Defendants argued that the case should be dismissed because it asserted state common law claims for alleged harm from air emissions, which are covered by federal law and regulated by federal agencies. The Court agreed, “join[ing] a growing chorus of state and federal courts across the United States . . . in concluding that the claims raised by Bucks County are not judiciable by any state court in Pennsylvania.” The Court cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that the Clean Air Act displaces any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants, and it applied that precedent to hold that the Act likewise preempted state common law in the case

The Court acknowledged that the County attempted to frame its complaint to focus not on harm from air emissions but, rather, on harm from the Defendants’ deceptive practices regarding their fossil fuel products. According to the Court, though, the essence of the complaint was that the County was harmed by severe weather caused by the Defendants’ exacerbation of climate change. The Court noted that had there been no emissions, the allegedly deceptive conduct by the Defendants would not have caused any direct harm to the County. As a result, the Court dismissed the case, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims were preempted by federal law. 

Share | Email| Print| Comments|  Topics: Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Standing