Fact Check: What the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act Would — and Wouldn’t — Do to State and Local Climate Lawsuits

What was claimed: A Fox News Digital article said Republican legislation called the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act would, if passed, “clear over a dozen lawsuits” brought by state and local governments against oil and gas companies. That language appears in Fox’s summary of the Republican bill and industry commentary. What the bill actually says: The Senate version (S.4340) introduced April 16, 2026, defines “climate suit” and “qualified liability action,” declares state “energy penalty laws” void, and contains an explicit mandatory-dismissal provision. Section 4(b) of the bill directs that “Any qualified liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the qualified liability action is brought or is currently pending.” The bill thus would, on its face, require courts to dismiss covered suits once the statute is law. (See the official bill text.) How many lawsuits would be affected: Fox’s statement that the law would “clear over a dozen lawsuits” is technically correct as a minimal formulation, but it understates the scale cited by legal trackers and mainstream reporting. Multiple authoritative trackers and reporting (Stateline, CPR News, coverage aggregators and legal trackers) describe the wave of litigation against fossil-fuel companies as “dozens” and in many accounts as roughly three dozen state/local/tribal suits that raise the same core preemption and state-law questions. In short: more than a dozen — commonly described as dozens — of state or local suits could be covered if the statutory definitions reach them. Conditional and legal limits the article omitted: Fox’s phrasing omits two material qualifiers. First, S.4340’s dismissal requirement would operate only if the bill becomes law — it is, as of April 2026, proposed legislation referred to the Judiciary Committee, not enacted law. Second, even if enacted, affected parties could mount constitutional or other challenges to the statute’s scope or its application; courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, continue to consider questions about federal preemption and jurisdiction in key climate cases (for example, the Suncor/Exxon v. Boulder County matter the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review). Those possibilities mean the practical effect could be litigated and may be narrower or delayed compared with the bill text. Narrow vs. broad coverage: The bill’s statutory definitions of “climate suit” and “energy penalty law” are broad (they encompass suits seeking damages, injunctive relief, abatement, restitution or other relief tied directly or indirectly to climate change, and they void state laws that impose compensatory obligations tied to climate harms). As a result, many state-law theories used in municipal and state suits (public nuisance, consumer-protection, trespass, unjust enrichment) would likely fall within the bill’s reach — which is why analysts and news outlets say a large swath of the pending litigation would be at risk if the law were enacted and upheld. Bottom line for readers: Fox’s central factual touchpoint — that the Cruz/Hageman-backed bill would wipe out pending climate suits — is supported by the bill text. But the article’s short phrasing understates the number of suits described in independent reporting and omits that the change would only take effect upon enactment and might itself be the subject of further litigation. A more complete description notes the bill’s explicit dismissal provision, that independent trackers and reporting describe “dozens” of similar state and local suits, and that the law’s real-world effect would depend on legislative success and subsequent court challenges.