A federal judge in Honolulu on Wednesday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that sought to stop Hawaii from suing fossil fuel companies in state court over climate change.
U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor said the Justice Department lacked standing because its claims were too speculative. She also cited a “long-standing” policy against federal court interference in state court proceedings.
The ruling marked the second time in 2026 that federal courts blocked the Justice Department’s efforts to head off climate lawsuits in state courts. In January, another federal judge dismissed a similar case aimed at stopping Michigan from suing major oil companies.
The Justice Department sued Hawaii and Michigan in April 2025, before either state filed its planned case. The administration argued the lawsuits would threaten domestic energy production.
One day after the federal suit was filed, Hawaii sued BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies, alleging deceptive marketing practices used to sell products the companies knew would warm the planet.
Gillmor wrote that the Justice Department’s “attempt to predict the outcome of a yet-to-be-filed lawsuit and how it could possibly injure the federal government in the future is not a concrete injury-in-fact.” She said an injury-in-fact must be real and concrete, not abstract, and that Hawaii’s stated intent to sue private companies did not amount to harm to the United States.
She said the federal government’s theory depended on a chain of uncertain events, including the shape of Hawaii’s claims, whether the state would prevail, how companies would respond, and whether any response would harm U.S. interests, including commerce and future energy policy.
“The allegations of such an unpredictable chain of events are no more than conjecture at this time,” Gillmor wrote.
Gillmor also said federal courts generally do not interfere with state court litigation. “Both the states and the federal government are sovereign entities, and basic concerns of federalism counsel against interference by federal courts with the operation of state courts,” the opinion said.
She added that Hawaii’s later filing did not support the federal government’s arguments because courts evaluate complaints based on the facts that existed when they were filed. She also noted the federal government declined an opportunity to amend its complaint after Hawaii filed its state case.
Gillmor said that even if Hawaii’s lawsuit were considered, the United States still lacked standing because Hawaii’s case alleged advertising-related injuries from deceptive conduct, not an effort to regulate greenhouse gases or interstate pollution.