Kansas is at the forefront of a national push to end “lawfare”—the tactic of using courts to impose policies the legislature rejects. New bills would block lawsuits targeting guns, oil, and more, while barring criminals from suing victims. Here’s what it means for consumers and businesses.
The Campaign to ‘End the Lawfare’
Kansas Supreme Court decisions. A national consumer advocacy group, the Alliance for Consumers Action Fund, has launched a targeted campaign—“End the Lawfare”—to support two Kansas bills aimed at curbing what it calls “woke lawfare.” These bills are part of a broader national debate over whether courts should be used to pass policies that legislatures reject.
During testimony before the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee, Alliance for Consumers Action Fund Executive Director O.H. Skinner framed the issue as a war on consumers and small businesses.
Two Key Bills in Play: SB 462 and SB 463
Senate Bill 462: The Public Nuisance Claim Limitation
Skinner says SB 462 would put strict new rules on public nuisance lawsuits—a type of claim traditionally used to stop pollution or public safety hazards. The bill would bar lawsuits targeting lawful, regulated products like firearms, automobiles, and energy development—industries he said activists target because they oppose them ideologically
- No public nuisance suits against lawful, government-approved products.
- No lawsuits targeting government-regulated conduct.
- Plaintiffs must prove direct causation under established legal standards, not just claim a general “harm.”
Skinner cited examples like suits against gun manufacturers and oil companies—lawsuits where activists hope to bypass Congress and state legislatures by winning court-ordered remedies instead.
“More often these days, public nuisance claims are a prime way that activists target licensed, regulated, lawful products like cars, soda bottles, firearms, or oil & gas, seeking to accomplish their ideological policy goals through the courtroom,” Skinner wrote in his testimony.
Senate Bill 463: The Criminal Conduct Injunction
SB 463 directly ties negligence claims to criminal behavior. Under the bill, a person engaged in criminal conduct—such as burglary, theft, or porch piracy—would be barred from later suing the property owner for injuries sustained during that crime.
Skinner used vivid examples to make the bill’s meaning clear:
- Burglars injured while breaking into a home could not file negligence claims against homeowners for conditions inside the house.
- “Porch pirates” who trip or fall while stealing packages could not sue homeowners for “negligent maintenance.”
Skinner framed the measure as a consumer protection bill: “When consumers cannot get what their family needs, when packages are stolen from front porches without consequence, and when the streets of our cities are not safe for people to shop for what they need, it is a consumer protection issue,” he said.
Why ‘Lawfare’ Matters for Consumers and Businesses
Skinner argued that “woke lawfare” threats go beyond Kansas. If allowed to spread, such lawsuits could lead to:
- Higher prices for regulated products like firearms, oil, and automobiles as businesses pass legal defense costs to consumers.
- Reduced product choice as companies exit markets or stop selling items that attract nuisance suits.
- Diminished public safety as criminals gain legal immunity for injuries sustained during their crimes.
- Eroded trust in courts as unelected judges, not legislators, become the final arbiters of controversial policies.
Support for the campaign includes a new website, digital ads, and a mobile billboard circulating near the Kansas State Capitol. The campaign’s goal is to mobilize consumer support as similar bills move in other states.
The Stakes: Kansas as a First Mover
Kansas is among the first states to weigh such wide-ranging limits on nuisance suits and criminal plaintiffs. If passed, the bills could set a precedent for other states—especially ones with similar consumer advocacy groups.
Skinner urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to act quickly: “Kansas can make clear that public policy is decided by laws, not lawsuits, and that consumers should be prioritized, not criminals and wrongdoers,” his testimony concluded.
For businesses and consumers, the outcome will determine whether courts become a competitive arena where activism replaces legislation—or whether legislatures and municipalities remain the primary architects of public policy.
For the fastest, most in-depth analysis of how lawfare impacts your industry and community, read more on onlytrustedinfo.com—where breaking news is never just a headline.
