In recent years, the City of Chicago has experienced record‑breaking heat, flash‑flooding from intense downpours, and repeated episodes of hazardous wildfire smoke drifting in from Canada, with air‑quality readings at times among the worst in the world. Chicago is fighting back in one of the few ways it can. The city has sued BP, Chevron, and other multinational fossil-fuel corporations for violations of Illinois state law and related local codes for their role in helping create extreme weather events.
This past week, Chicago scored a procedural victory in the lawsuit, as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor. The oil and gas companies removed the case to federal court and invoked the federal‑officer removal statute, but on July 15, 2026, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a remand order sending the case back to Illinois state court. This allows Chicago’s state‑law claims to move forward where they began: in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
For Chicago and other communities bringing similar cases, keeping these lawsuits in state court is critical. State judges are more accustomed to applying state consumer‑protection and tort law, and plaintiffs generally see fewer procedural hurdles there than in federal court. State forums also avoid some jurisdictional and preemption arguments that defendants have used to try to shut down climate‑damage suits before they ever reach a jury.
Nonetheless, Chicago’s case has an uncertain path forward. A pending case at the Supreme Court could well put an end to all state lawsuits seeking redress for climate change.
Chicago’s Claims Against the Oil Companies
The city’s 2024 complaint in Illinois state court names BP, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and ExxonMobil as defendants, together with their trade group, the American Petroleum Institute. It sues on eleven separate counts, including products liability, public nuisance, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.
With its extensive scientific and historical claims, the complaint reaches nearly 200 pages. It asserts that the oil companies “mounted a disinformation campaign beginning as early as the 1970s to discredit the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change [and] deny their own knowledge of climate change-related threats …” The companies allegedly also “deceived customers and the public by misrepresenting the climate impacts of their products sold in the City.”
By misleading consumers about greenhouse gas emissions (as the city says), the oil companies’ conduct has led to major weather emergencies in Chicago. The deaths, suffering, and extensive property damage have required the city to invest $188 million in remediation. The city asks the court for equitable relief, including injunctions and orders for abatement, as well as monetary damages, penalties, and costs.
State Court vs. Federal Court
Once the City of Chicago filed its lawsuit, the defendant oil companies promptly filed for the suit’s removal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On behalf of all defendants, Chevron argued that the companies had the right to federal jurisdiction because they had worked for the federal government.
Under the federal officer removal statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1442, someone who was “acting under [an officer] of the United States or of any agency thereof” may remove a state proceeding to federal court. Since the 1940s, the federal government (according to Chevron) has used the companies to produce specialized fuels for defense purposes; indeed, the government put the industry under outright control during wartime.
As the city of Chicago complains about actions that took place during the energy companies' time working with the government, Chevron claims it and the other defendants are entitled to federal jurisdiction. Chevron also argued that the city cannot distinguish the effects of pollution that occurred during its federal work from unrelated pollution.
The Decision: Back to State Court
In the federal district court, Chicago moved to remand the case to state court. The city argued that it specifically excluded any claims involving federal property or federal work. Moreover, it said, the oil companies were not acting for the government when they allegedly conspired to mislead the public in Chicago. The district court agreed with the City; in its May 2025 ruling, it remanded the case back to Cook County. Before the month was out, the oil companies sought appellate review on the federal-officer issue at the Seventh Circuit.
This April, after the companies had argued their position (but before the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion), the Supreme Court made its ruling in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish. There, Louisiana parishes had sued Chevron over its crude oil extraction activities during World War II. Here, the Supreme Court held that the federal officer removal statute did in fact grant federal jurisdiction.
On July 15, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion. Though it integrated the Plaquemines case into the opinion, the appeals court ruled in Chicago’s favor and affirmed the remand order to state court. “Even under the broader formulation [of federal connections] favored by the defendants,” writes Circuit Judge Rebecca Taibleson, “Chicago’s suit is insufficiently related to the defendants’ federal duties to support removal.”
Will the Litigation Last?
Despite Chicago’s victory, the suit may be endangered. In the October 2026 term, the Supreme Court will hear Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a very similar state-law suit from Boulder, Colorado. Suncor Energy asked the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law entirely precludes state-law claims regarding climate change, and the Court agreed to decide the issue, together with the question of its own jurisdiction. The Trump administration has already filed an amicus brief effectively asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of Suncor Energy.
The Supreme Court has also denied review of the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of Juliana v. United States. In that case, a coalition of young people claimed that the government had violated their constitutional rights by failing to address climate change. Although sympathetic, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion stated that hearing Juliana’s claims would amount to judicial policy-making, which is itself unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit took the same position on Lighthiser v. Trump, a recent case brought with similar though narrower claims.
As the Ninth Circuit quoted from an earlier opinion: “‘Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies.’” If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Suncor Energy, it may put yet another remedy out of reach.
