Melissa “Missy” Sims is a lawyer with a long history of facing a strong fossil fuel interest. Now, she is part of a legal team, representing more than 30 municipalities in landmark lawsuits against ExxonMobil and more than a dozen other oil and gas companies. The lawsuit seeks damage related to the devastating effects of Hurricanes Maria and Irma in 2017 – according to recent science, storms are enhanced by warming oceans and increasing atmospheric moisture from warming pollution. (You may have seen news about the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where litigation has been dropped against oil companies, but 37 Puerto Rican municipalities are continuing the battle in separate lawsuits).
The companies were collectively responsible for 40% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions between 1965 and 2017, the case said. It further asserted that despite knowing the link between fossil fuel combustion and climate change, the defendants misled the public the risks posed to their products. According to the complaint, the misleading campaign killed nearly 3,000 people by Hurricane Maria and exacerbated Puerto Rico's vulnerability to extreme weather.
This is not Sims' first challenge to ExxonMobil. In 2006, she represented Depue Village, Illinois in a case involving Exxon and other toxic pollution related to the closure of zinc smelters. The case helped establish her career focused on keeping environmental polluters accountable.
Yale University’s Climate Connect talks with Sims about her work, including her use of the Blackmail and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) – a statute originally created to prosecute organized crime but is now applied to corporate fraud and environmental misconduct.
This interview has been edited to be clear and length.
Yale Climate Connection: Let's start with the basics. What is Rico and what does it have to do with environmental litigation?
Missy Sims: Rico is not a novel theory. The Supreme Court approved the 1970 [RICO] The statute in the groundbreaking Sedima in Sprl v. Imrex Co. clarifies and broadly affirms the applicability of RICO in civil cases, refusing to limit its use in organized crime efforts. The court ruled that plaintiffs do not need to show criminal convictions, and that mail and wire fraud can constitute predicate behavior [previous offenses]. This opens the door to widespread use of civil RICOs (particularly commercial fraud) and public health cases against tobacco and opioid companies.
RICOs require patterns of extortion activities in multiple individuals outside the organization, which must be based on two or more predicate crimes, which may include wire fraud or mail fraud. By legal definition, fraud is a false statement of knowledge of significant facts. If these false statements are repeated and financial damage is caused, it may continue.
For example, if a company and outside the company participates in promoting products in an environmentally responsible manner, but deliberately misleads the public, and someone relies on these statements to harm them, the activity may be part of a blackmail business. RICO was originally intended to target organized crime, but used it in a civic environment because victims suffered financial harm from coordinated fraud.
YCC: Does the damage under RICO have to be financial?
The Sims: Yes, they must be. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the RICO's claim that economic harm must be involved in Horn v. Horn in the medical marijuana company case. However, the court held that financial harm caused by personal injury may be eligible. For example, if a person suffers emotional distress from a fraudulent program and subsequently loses his job, the loss of income will be considered economic harm under the leadership of RICO. The harm cannot be entirely emotional or reputation – it must have a quantifiable financial component.
YCC: For example, will the entire economy of a town or municipality be harmed?
The Sims: sure. That’s how claims are constructed in national opioid litigation, and that’s how we plead for harm in climate change cases. Municipalities have suffered widespread economic losses – from infrastructure losses to public health expenditures – and we claim that the actions are both fraudulent and coordinated. This economic damage is exactly the harm Rico intends to solve.
YCC: What made you decide to apply RICO in a climate environment?
The Sims: I'm not the first to make such a connection. Almost 40 years of precedent make RICO a compelling choice. It provides the possibility of treble losses, attorney fees, and injunctive relief [a court order to not do or start to do something]. These remedies make it a particularly powerful tool in environmental litigation. Although some may apply it to climate fraud as novel, use in similar situations, such as tobacco and opioids, demonstrates its adaptability and relevance.
YCC: Do you hope it will be more difficult to win these cases in the current political climate?
The Sims: RICO is often used by companies and large defense companies. It is not limited to the plaintiffs' company. In fact, defense law firms, major companies, often deploy RICOs to competitors in commercial disputes. Therefore, I do not think there is a danger of repealing or unwelcoming. The law remains a powerful bipartisan tool, especially in federal courts.
YCC: Once the RICO case is filed, what will happen next?
The Sims: One of the direct problems is usually personal jurisdiction. RICO stipulates national jurisdiction, which is very advantageous. A personal jurisdiction requirement indicates that a company has a connection to a particular country – such as doing business or causing harm there. National jurisdiction applies to federal cases such as Rico, where the company's connection to the entire United States is sufficient. Why it matters: It allows all defendants to sue in one federal court without proof of local contact in each state.
Although the injury must be domestic, the act of causing the injury can occur internationally, which is especially important in climate litigation.
Defendants often try to transfer the case to a more favorable site – usually the location of their headquarters or where economic impact is exerted. This kind of forum shopping is common. In response, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contact with the selected jurisdiction.
There is a particularly illuminating case for the Seventh Circuit, Charles Curry The LLC believes that online sales products designed to attract a national audience can establish personal jurisdiction in any state where the harm occurs.
In the context of climate litigation, we can demonstrate that fossil fuel companies target coastal communities – knowing that these areas will be disproportionately affected by rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes and floods.
They have promoted fossil fuel use in coastal cities, built infrastructure in high-risk areas and lobbying local governments, despite the worst climate impacts that these areas face. Their own research shows that burning fossil fuels melt ice sheets, increase water in the ocean and atmosphere, and lead to more flooding and extreme rainfall in coastal areas. Instead of warning the public, they quietly prepared their assets and continued to expand in those vulnerable areas. This specific goal reinforces our jurisdictional argument.
YCC: So, they want to try it in a state based on it, because they want the judge and/or the jury to be more sympathetic?
The Sims: Companies often assume that familiarity with the local legal environment, as well as their economic footprint and historical presence in the region may be more favorable. They might think that being a major employer or taxpayer would create an environment where they can better understand their operations.
However, recent cases suggest that assumptions may no longer be true. In April 2025, a Louisiana jury awarded $744.6 million for its role in coastal land loss in Plaquemines Parish, which has operated for decades and maintained vital infrastructure and personnel. The results show that even in jurisdictions where companies have deep roots, juries are increasingly willing to hold them accountable for large-scale environmental damage.
YCC: Many of these companies operate in areas that are very susceptible to extreme weather.
The Sims: That's right. And now, in many of the same states, homeowners do not have access to affordable insurance coverage. Insurance companies are pulling out of markets they think are too risky, and the remaining few policies are often very expensive. As a result, public awareness of climate risks is rising. People no longer debate whether climate change exists. They are experiencing its effects directly.
YCC: Can you explain the difference between a benchmark trial and a jury trial?
The Sims: As a plaintiff’s attorney, I usually prefer a jury trial. The judges bring deep experience to these cases and often focus on the application of legal precision and established standards, especially with regard to compensation. By contrast, juries may be more suitable for the social and environmental consequences of corporate misconduct and may be more inclined to consider the full range of harm, including appropriate punitive damages. The jury’s verdict also conveyed a strong message to the company’s headquarters that the public, many of whom are shareholders, demanded change. Through this process, we have the opportunity to act as an agent for corporate responsibility and accountability.
YCC: Thank you for your time and experience.
The Sims: It's my pleasure. Thanks.
Repost our articles for free under the Creative Commons license, online or in print.
