A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed years ago by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel that targeted oil and gas producers.
Michigan had sued BP, Chevron, Exxon and Shell — the four largest energy companies nationwide — claiming that they colluded to sabotage renewable energy such as solar panels and electric vehicles.
U.S. District Judge Jane M. Beckering ruled on Sept. 22 that Michigan lacked standing to sue under antitrust laws.
"Moreover, the distance is too great between the alleged conspiracy and Michigan’s and its residents’ overcharges to find that the conspiracy proximately caused the overcharges," the 25-page ruling said. "The Court therefore holds that Michigan lacks antitrust standing to pursue its federal antitrust claims."
Michigan sought antitrust remedies for harms that don't qualify as antitrust, Beckering wrote.
"To start, the 'chain of causation' between [Michigan’s injury] and the alleged restraint in the transportation and primary energy markets 'contains several somewhat vaguely defined links,'" Beckering wrote.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel lost another meritless, performative filing. In Michigan v. BP, a federal judge has dismissed the state's antitrust suit against fossil fuel companies alleging a conspiracy to suppress alternative energy sources to drive up prices for…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 24, 2026
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office said that it disagrees with the ruling and is reviewing its options.
The Dept of Justice welcomed the ruling in People of the State of Michigan vs. BP, P.L.C., et al.
“This dismissal should make states rethink the use of lawfare to enact climate change policy,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. “We are committed to upholding antitrust and environmental law. Michigan’s case would have accomplished neither. That is what we highlighted in our statement of interest.”
The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and Energy and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) had previously filed a statement of interest to inform the court of legal doctrines that limited the state’s claims.
“Last May, we filed a complaint against Michigan to prevent it from suing energy companies for climate change under state law theories that are preempted by federal law,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of ENRD. “After we filed our complaint, Michigan pivoted to the novel antitrust claims that the court dismissed yesterday. We are pleased that the district court has rejected another aggressively anti-energy lawsuit, and we are committed to protecting American energy from this sort of state overreach.”
The dismissed lawsuits follow similar dismissals nationwide, including in Delaware, New York, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
“Antitrust law protects competition and thereby consumers; it is not a tool to advance societal goals unrelated to competition,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General G. Charles Beller of the Antitrust Division. “The court’s dismissal of Michigan’s novel antitrust claims reiterates the bedrock principle that State plaintiffs, like other private parties, must establish antitrust standing. This standing doctrine ensures that the relief provided to private parties is appropriately tailored to redress harms to competition. On behalf of the American people, we are proud to have worked with ENRD to protect and defend the proper application of federal law.”
