Exxon Takes California to Court, Calling Climate Law ‘Free Speech Violation’
California laws are “compelled speech” and are based on climate cultism and pseudoscience.
One of my biggest complaints over the past 15 years of advocacy for the application of real science to climate data analysis has been the wimpy response by our energy industry.
Our fossil fuel companies tried to find a compromise position with eco-activists, which was a fruitless and costly endeavor. Meanwhile, climate cultists in California enacted two laws (Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261) that require these corporations to publicly report comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions and detail climate-related financial risks, extending to not only direct emissions but also those from supply chains and product use.
As a result, while most of the nation is enjoying gasoline around $3.00/gallon, Californians are paying $4.54…which is likely to go higher as refineries in this state close.
Last week, President Donald Trump declared victory in the battle against climate hysteria. This occurred when one of its leading advocates, billionaire Bill Gates, pivoted away from carbon emissions reductions.
These moves, coupled with Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s advocacy for sensible energy policies and a new national climate assessment conducted by serious scientists, seemed to have emboldened at least one of the energy giants.
Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit late last week against the state of California, arguing that SB 253 and SB 261 violate the oil company’s free speech rights.
The two laws, passed in 2023 and known as the California Climate Accountability Package, would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas emissions created by the use of their products, along with the business risks that climate change represents for the companies.
Requiring companies to calculate the climate damage caused by people using their products is a major change. In the past, climate regulations have generally required companies to report their own corporate emissions, but not emissions caused by people using the products that they manufacture and sell.
For oil companies like Exxon, the new rules, which begin to take effect in 2026, mean calculating and then reporting the emissions caused by activities like the use of gas or diesel in cars and trucks. Transportation is one of the major contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which warm the world by acting as a blanket in the atmosphere, trapping the heat of the sun.
Exxon’s lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, argued that the laws would force the company to use flawed methodology to calculate these emissions and would misrepresent the role that Exxon and its products play in warming the world. The suit asked a judge to block the state from enforcing the laws against it.
Exxon seems to have a few regrets about not pushing back on the carbon-emissions narratives sooner.
Exxon Mobil contends that the legislative history shows that the bills seek to “place disproportionate blame on companies like ExxonMobil for being large and for the avowed purpose of spurring public opprobrium,” according to the lawsuit.
“California may believe that companies that meet the statutes’ revenue thresholds are uniquely responsible for climate change, but the 1st Amendment categorically bars it from forcing ExxonMobil to speak in service of that misguided viewpoint,” the complaint said.
Exxon asserts that the California rules force it to make guesses about future environmental impacts. PJ Media Tim O’Brien explains how this is compelled speech.
…The laws don’t simply mandate that the company disclose factual data on past activities and results, but rather that it must speculate in ways it cannot reasonably and responsibly do.
This is “compelled speech.” While the First Amendment protects the right to speak, it also protects the right not to have the government force you to speak, or to incorporate the government’s desired message. This is known as the “compelled speech doctrine.” While it is usually described as it pertains to individual rights, there is some history of commercial businesses running into this same issue.
What all of this amounts to is it seems that as industries go, California is attempting to “suicide” Big Oil, and it even wants to write the suicide note for the industry.
Exxon Mobil is suing California over state laws the company says violate its First Amendment rights by forcing it "to serve as a mouthpiece" for ideas it disagrees with, including that large companies are uniquely responsible for climate change. https://t.co/Ep1kA52VyO pic.twitter.com/Vuy12Jlcl8
— Law360 (@Law360) October 28, 2025
With the political winds shifting so dramatically, Exxon Mobil and sound science may have a chance to prevail.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Leftists love to hold someone responsible for other people’s behavior. Oil, gas, guns….
abortion…add that to the list
……. leftists always blame someone else for something, but never take into account the damage that leftists themselves do.
If Californians are so gung-ho about the supposed effects of CO2 on the climate, my first recommendation would be for the state to forbid the use of fossil fuels immediately, meaning no electric generation, no ground or air transportation, no oil refining, and no fossil fuel heating and cooking. My next recommendation is for everyone to stop exhaling. As for fossil fuel producers, my recommendation would be to shut down all refineries and move out of California.
For quite some time the single largest point source of CO2 in CA was LAX. It also happens that the single largest point source of tax revenue in CA is LAX. Thus the reluctance to actually do anything about CO2 emission, except tax it more.
So, this really not about CO2, it is about tax revenues.
I think it’s more of a return of bribe money to the politicians. No one wants to be hit with taxes, they threaten and people buy them off.
In the case where there are believers, probably more of someone using them to push communism.
Our products – though the introduction of atmospheric plant food – produce a greener, healthier, more vibrant place to live.
It still strikes me as the rational response for fossil fuel companies to reduce their footprint in California at all stages of production and distribution as far as they can and let California have what it says it wants.
Subotai Bahadur
How far can they run? Look at Venezuela and how they just took the property.
Now look at nyc, seattle and other schiff holes and who is winning the power?
No, it’s time the corporations stand up to the communist ideals before they too have their means of production taken away.
California would have to invoke eminent domain to take the property. The best thing the oil refiners can do is relocate to a more friendly state (i.e., Texas) and shut down operations in California.
It seems that under this legislation the oil companies would be forced to use specific methodologies in the calculations necessary to the production of the report. Of course, these methodologies would have been highly skewed to give results the State desires – showing Big Oil is a threat to the human race due to CO2 “pollution” and the resultant “climate change.”
Obviously, the State understood that if the oil companies were allowed to use more scientifically valid methodologies, instead of ending up with reports in which the oil companies condemn themselves, they would get reports denying climate doom. That would not do, so their methodologies had to be constrained to those approved by the State.
Leave a Comment