A number of states are suing oil and gas companies for allegedly misleading the public about the effects of burning fossil fuels. The Supreme Court has recently decided not to hear a Republican-led challenge to these state climate suits. While the majority issued no written opinion on the matter, Justices Clarance Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented with Thomas writing that:
“The plaintiff States allege that the defendant States are attempting to ‘dictate interstate energy policy’ through the aggressive use of state-law tort suits… On the plaintiff States’ account, these suits seek to ‘impos[e] ruinous liability and coercive remedies on energy companies . . . based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects,’ for the purpose of placing a ‘global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry…’ The plaintiff States contend that this practice violates the horizontal separation of powers, the Federal Government’s exclusive authority over interstate emissions, and the Commerce Clause. I would grant the plaintiff States leave to proceed.”
This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has chosen not to get involved in climate litigation. Earlier this year the Court refused an interlocutory appeal from Sunoco, Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron, who argued that Hawaii courts lacked jurisdiction over climate litigation. Additionally, the court refused to intervene in five high-profile state climate cases in 2023. However, these challenges were not heard on procedural grounds and the Court’s refusal doesn’t give us much insight into how the Supreme Court thinks about climate change. For now, it appears that the Court does not want to intervene in state climate cases based on state law violations. We’ll see if that changes if one of the numerous state cases results in a large monetary judgment against the fossil fuels industry.
Our members can learn more about climate litigation here.
If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here for daily updates delivered right to you.
