The oil and gas industry is grappling with a growing number of lawsuits claiming the sector misled the public about its role in climate change. States like California, Colorado, and New Jersey are suing for billions in damages linked to wildfires, sea-level rise, and severe weather. This legal wave reflects an increasing use of courts to drive climate action globally.

Hawaii's Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit filed by Honolulu against major companies, including Sunoco, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP, to proceed. These corporations, many based in Texas, argue that emissions are a national issue requiring federal jurisdiction, where they have historically succeeded in dismissing such cases. Their Supreme Court appeal was declined, leaving the matter in state court.

The companies’ legal team emphasized the case's high stakes, warning that these lawsuits could undermine a critical national industry. The American Enterprise Institute echoed these concerns, suggesting the cases might empower activists to act as de facto energy regulators.

The Biden administration supported the lawsuit remaining in state court, though it noted that companies might ultimately prevail. In contrast, the incoming Trump administration is expected to adopt policies favoring the fossil fuel industry and opposing stringent environmental laws.

Honolulu claims the companies engaged in deceptive marketing under state laws, a matter the city argues falls within state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's track record on environmental regulations under its conservative majority includes limiting the EPA’s authority in cases like the regulation of power plant emissions.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the appeal, likely due to his financial ties to the companies involved. This marks another high-profile climate case amidst increasing scrutiny of corporate responsibility for environmental impacts.

At a time of heightened political division, Americans’ confidence in their country’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record low of 35% this year, according to a new Gallup poll.

The United States saw a sharp drop of 24 percentage points over the last four years, setting the country apart from other wealthy nations where most people on average still express trust in their systems.

The results come after a tumultuous period that included the overturning of the nationwide right to abortion, the indictment of former President Donald Trump and the subsequent withdrawal of federal charges, and his attacks on the integrity of the judicial system.

The drop wasn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum. Confidence dropped among people who disapproved of the country’s leadership during Joe Biden’s presidency and among those who approved, according to Gallup. The respondents weren’t asked about their party affiliations.

It’s become normal for people who disapprove of the country’s leadership to also lose at least some confidence in the court system. Still, the 17-point drop recorded among that group under Biden was precipitous, and the cases filed against Trump were likely factors, Gallup said.

Among those who did approve of the country’s leadership, there was an 18-point decline between 2023 and 2024, possibly reflecting dissatisfaction with court rulings favoring Trump, Gallup found. Confidence in the judicial system had been above 60% among that group during the first three years of Biden’s presidency but nosedived this year.

Trump had faced four criminal indictments this year, but only a hush-money case in New York ended with a trial and conviction before he won the presidential race.

Since then, special counsel Jack Smith has ended his two federal cases, which pertained to Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and allegations that he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. A separate state election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia, is largely on hold. Trump denies wrongdoing in all.

Other Gallup findings have shown that Democrats’ confidence in the Supreme Court dropped by 25 points between 2021 and 2022, the year the justices overturned constitutional protections for abortion. Their trust climbed a bit, to 34%, in 2023, but dropped again to 24% in 2024. The change comes after a Supreme Court opinion that Trump and other former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trust in the court among Republicans, by contrast, reached 71% in 2024.

The judicial system more broadly also lost public confidence more quickly than many other U.S. institutions over the last four years. Confidence in the federal government, for example, also declined to 26%. That was a 20-point drop ? not as steep as the decline in confidence in the courts.

The trust drop is also steep compared with other countries around the world. Only a handful of other countries have seen larger drops during a four-year period. They include a 46-point drop in Myanmar during the period that overlapped the return of military rule in 2021, a 35-point drop in Venezuela amid deep economic and political turmoil from 2012 to 2016 and a 28-point drop in Syria in the runup and early years of its civil war.

The survey was based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 U.S. adults between June 28 and August 1.

The Supreme Court ‘s decision could come Friday in the case about whether TikTok must shut down in a few days under a federal law that seeks to force its sale by the Chinese company that owns the social media platform used by 170 million people in the U.S.

The justices are weighing a free speech challenge to the law, which takes effect Sunday, against the national security concerns that prompted its enactment with broad bipartisan support last year. A lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, its Chinese owner, told the court last week that TikTok will “go dark” on Sunday unless the justices grant it a temporary reprieve or strike down the law.

During courtroom arguments, most of the justices seemed likely to uphold the law.

Alongside the ongoing court case, a potential lifeline for TikTok has emerged. President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported banning the app, is exploring options to “preserve” TikTok, his incoming national security adviser, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, said in a televised interview on Wednesday.

It’s not clear what authority Trump has to intervene, although he could direct the Justice Department not to enforce the law, which threatens sanctions against the technology companies that make the app available and host it. The Supreme Court indicated Thursday that the justices will issue at least one decision Friday, adhering to its custom of not saying which one. But it also departed from its usual practice in some respects, heightening the expectation that it’s the TikTok case that will be handed down.

Except for when the end of the term nears in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. The next scheduled court day is Tuesday.

And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic, when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom. They won’t be there Friday.

Any opinions will post on the court’s website beginning just after 10 a.m. EST Friday.

The Supreme Court turned back a push by the state of Utah to wrest control of vast areas of public land from the federal government, marking a small victory for land conservation advocates who worry that similar efforts may escalate in a Republican-controlled Washington.

The high court on Monday refused to let the Republican-controlled state file a lawsuit seeking to bring the land and its resources under state control. The decision came in a brief order in which the court did not explain its reasoning, as is typical. It marks the latest roadblock for states in a running feud with the U.S. government over who should control huge swaths of the West and the enormous oil and gas, timber, and other resources they contain.

Utah’s top state leaders said they have not ruled out taking their lawsuit to a lower court.

In the Western state known for its rugged mountains popular with skiers and red-rock vistas that draw throngs of tourists, federal agencies control almost 70% of the land. Utah argues that local control would be more responsive and allow the state access to revenue from taxes and development projects.

The complaint sought control of about half of federal land, which still amounts to an area nearly as large as South Carolina. The parcels are used for things like energy production, grazing, mining and recreation. Utah’s world-famous national parks and national monuments would have stayed in federal hands.

Monday’s decision by the high court comes as the newly Republican-controlled Congress adopted a rules package that includes language allowing lawmakers to more easily transfer or sell off public lands managed by federal agencies. The rules consider public lands to have no monetary value, meaning lawmakers will no longer need to account for lost revenue if they decide to give parcels to states or extractive industries.

While conservationists applauded the court’s rejection of what they called a land-grab lawsuit, many remained worried that the efforts will continue.

Public lands under state control could be vulnerable to privatization, degradation and oil drilling, said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

“If successful, Utah’s lawsuit would result in the sale of millions of acres of public lands in red-rock country to the highest bidder, an end to America’s system of federal public lands and the dismantling of the American West as we know it,” Bloch said.

Utah’s Republican Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis criticized the court’s decision and promised legislative action. Curtis, who campaigned on being a climate-conscious Republican, said the people of Utah should be entrusted to manage the land they have lived on for generations.

“Building roads, moving cattle and cleaning up campgrounds all require navigating a behemothic bureaucracy that’s stacked up against the average Utahn,” Curtis said.

In a joint statement with Utah’s Republican legislative leaders and attorney general, Gov. Spencer Cox said he was disappointed in the court’s decision to turn away the lawsuit.

“Utah remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah,” state leaders said. “We are also heartened to know the incoming administration shares our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management.”

While lawsuits typically start in federal district courts and eventually work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, disputes involving states can start at the nation’s highest court if the justices agree to hear them.

Utah leaders noted that the high court did not comment on the merits of their arguments or prevent them from filing the lawsuit in a federal district court. Conservation groups say they’ll remain ready to challenge any future lawsuits.

“This lawsuit is an assault on the country’s long-standing and successful history of safeguarding valuable and vulnerable landscapes in trust for all Americans,” said Chris Hill, who leads the Conservation Lands Foundation. “And while the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case is a reprieve, we fully expect this small group of anti-public lands politicians to continue to waste taxpayer dollars and shop their bad ideas.”

The federal Bureau of Land Management declined to comment.

President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing in his hush money case in New York.

Trump’s lawyers turned to the nation’s highest court on Wednesday after New York courts refused to postpone the sentencing by Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial and conviction last May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has denied wrongdoing.

The justices asked for a response from prosecutors by Thursday morning. Trump’s team sought an immediate stay of the scheduled sentencing, saying it would wrongly restrict him as he prepares to take office. While Merchan has indicated he will not impose jail time, fines or probation, Trump’s lawyers argued a felony conviction would still have intolerable side effects.

The sentencing should be delayed as he appeals the conviction to “prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” they argued.

The emergency motion is from lawyers John Sauer, Trump’s pick for solicitor general, who represents the government before the high court, and Todd Blanche, in line to be the second-ranking official at the Justice Department.

They also pointed to the Supreme Court ruling giving Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecutions over their actions in office, saying it supports their argument that his New York conviction should be overturned.

Their filing said the New York trial court “lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump — or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him— until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.”

The Republican president-elect’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, called for the case to be dismissed in a statement. Trump simultaneously filed an emergency appeal in front of New York’s highest court.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, meanwhile, said it will respond in court papers. Trump’s convictions arose from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He denies it.

The Supreme Court’s immunity opinion came in a separate election interference case against him, but Trump’s lawyers say it means some of the evidence used against him in his hush money trial should have been shielded by presidential immunity. That includes testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.

Merchan has disagreed, finding they would qualify as personal business. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision was largely about official acts of presidents while in office.