Hawaii’s Lawsuit Against Oil Companies Alleges “Harm to Public Trust Resources”

As the federal government retreats from environmental protection, some states are working to fill that void, pursuing litigation to redress harms arising from climate change and other environmental damage.

Hawaii’s attorney general last month filed such a lawsuit against oil companies, including BP, Shell, and Exxon. The complaint includes eight separate causes of action, among them negligence, nuisance, trespass, and “harm to public trust resources.” 

Hawaii’s constitution enshrines what’s known as the public trust doctrine, declaring that “all public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.” The complaint alleges that, as trustee, the state has “a constitutional obligation to protect those resources, including water resources,” and that the defendants’ deception regarding fossil fuels has “harmed and threatened the State’s public trust resources and unreasonably interfered with the public’s use and enjoyment of public trust resources.”

Hawaii’s suit is part of a trend in environmental litigation. Over the past eight years, at least 10 states and a dozen more cities have filed complaints similar to Hawaii’s, claiming companies have harmed public trust resources. These suits target fossil fuel companies, plastic producers, and manufacturers of PFAS — so-called forever chemicals, specifically per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — on behalf of citizens. They typically rely on public nuisance, private nuisance, and deceptive trade practices, alleging that the companies knew their products caused harm and yet continued to mislead consumers about their safety. In doing so, the companies have impaired the use and enjoyment of resources common to everyone: air, water, and land.

In its November 2024 complaint  against major oil companies, for example, the Maine attorney general claims the fossil fuel defendants have “created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in creating” climate-related harms that “unreasonably endanger and impair the use and enjoyment of property owned by the State, held in trust by the State, or protected by the State pursuant to . . . public trust authority.”

While Maine’s public trust argument was made as part of a broader legal theory, Hawaii is not alone in framing public trust doctrine as a distinct legal basis for relief. Rhode Island’s 2018 complaint and New Jersey’s 2022 complaint both allege impairment of public trust resources as separate counts. New Jersey’s filing asserts that the defendants’ “tortious and deceptive conduct . . . has already significantly impaired, and will continue to significantly impair, public trust resources throughout New Jersey,” including loss of beaches and coastal wetlands, impairment of surface water supplies, reduced availability of drinking water due to increased temperatures and changing precipitation patterns, and worsened air quality. New Jersey’s complaint was dismissed in February 2025 because the court found the case was about interstate and international emissions and, therefore, was governed by federal law. Rhode Island’s remains pending.

The public trust doctrine provides that governments serve as trustees of natural resources “common to mankind,” protecting them on behalf of future generations. With origins in Roman law, the earliest iterations of the public trust in U.S. law protected “public values of fisheries, navigation, and commerce associated with waterways.” The first legal decision to tie public common resources — like waterways — to the public trust doctrine is a 1821 New Jersey Supreme Court case concerning rights to tidal waterways and ownership of submerged oyster beds. The U.S. Supreme Court has also embraced the doctrine, holding in 1892’s Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois that “the State holds the title to the lands under the navigable waters . . . in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties.”

Since then, the doctrine has evolved in both purpose and scope through common law, statutory law, and constitutional law, with considerable variation by state. Once primarily used to resolve disputes over ownership or access to waterways, the doctrine is now seen as imposing an affirmative duty on states to protect resources for the benefit of present and future citizens. The types of “resources” protected under the public trust have also expanded to include air and other public values.

Some state constitutions explicitly articulate this broader duty. Hawaii’s constitution contains sweeping language, defining public trust resources to include “land, water, air, minerals, and energy sources . . . held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.” Similarly, Pennsylvania’s constitution guarantees its citizens “a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment,” and provides that “as trustee of these resources, [Pennsylvania] shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.” Idaho, by contrast, limits its public trust obligations by statute to “navigable waters.” In some states, like New Jersey, the public trust doctrine is based solely in common law.

These variations in scope and purpose may help explain differences in how states incorporate public trust arguments into climate deception lawsuits. Whether treated as a standalone claim, as in Hawaii’s lawsuit, or part of a broader legal theory, as in Maine’s complaint, public trust-based litigation is now facing federal pushback. A day before the Hawaii lawsuit was filed, the Department of Justice sued the state, alleging that the state litigation and legislation interferes with the Trump administration’s national energy strategy. Citing an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in early 2025, the department alleges that state efforts to address climate change and climate deception claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act and infringe on the president’s foreign affairs powers. The same day, the Department of Justice filed a similar suit against Michigan over that state’s climate deception lawsuit and against Vermont and New York over their Climate Superfund Acts, enacted to recoup costs associated with climate-driven disasters such as flooding.

As federal resistance to efforts to fight climate change persists and states continue to invoke the public trust doctrine to confront climate harms, courts will be asked to clarify the doctrine’s scope and the boundaries of state authority.

Sarah J. Morath is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Affairs at Wake Forest University School of Law.

Suggested Citation: Sarah J. Morath, Hawaii’s Lawsuit Against Oil Companies Alleges “Harm to Public Trust Resources”, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Jun. 10, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/hawaiis-lawsuit-against-oil-companies-alleges-harm-public-trust-resources