This Article focuses on an area of rapidly evolving jurisprudence—climate liability litigation. It examines in depth the state attorney general’s complaint filed in Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. in 2018, alleging various state-law tort claims. It explores the intensely sustained legal battles taking place between states and fossil fuel companies over whether federal courts or state courts should have jurisdiction, which in many respects is the “ballgame issue” for both plaintiffs and defendants. Rhode Island’s carefully crafted complaint arguably provides a roadmap for other states, as it comprehensively weaves together the state’s public trust and public nuisance laws as well as the state’s environmental rights amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently ruled that the state was “alleging [under state law that] the oil companies produced and sold oil and gas products that were damaging the environment in Rhode Island and engaged in a misinformation campaign about the harmful effects on the earth’s climate,” and remanded the case back to state court for trial.

People, businesses, cities, and states are increasingly burdened by extreme weather events. Drought, heat, wildfires, precipitation, hurricanes, and tornadoes are becoming more intense. Most analysts point toward an emerging trend: as the earth warms, extreme weather events are becoming more costly and more deadly, though some raise lingering uncertainties about linking climate change to specific types of weather or specific events. On June 25, 2020, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) hosted an expert panel that explored extreme weather adaptation and resiliency efforts in the United States. Below, we present a transcript of the discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.