The U.S. Supreme Court on March 10 turned away a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in 19 states seeking to halt lawsuits filed by five Democrat-led states against major energy companies.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s decision, indicating they would have granted the 19 states’ request to hear the case.
The five defendant states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—say oil companies have been misleading the public about the role that so-called fossil fuels play in the environment.
Those states claim that the companies have known for years about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the use of fossil fuels and have deceived the public about them. This alleged deception led consumers to use more of the fossil fuel products than they otherwise would have, which contributed to climate-related damages, they say.
“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us—covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said at the time.
“California taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for billions of dollars in damages—wildfires wiping out entire communities, toxic smoke clogging our air, deadly heat waves, record-breaking droughts parching our wells. With this lawsuit, California is taking action to hold big polluters accountable and deliver the justice our people deserve.”
The 19 plaintiff states counter by saying that by filing a multiplicity of lawsuits, the five Democrat states are attempting to enforce their laws beyond their borders and dictate a nationwide energy policy that will force up energy costs across the entire United States.
The Supreme Court denied the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in Alabama v. California in an unsigned order that did not explain why.
States do not have the authority to regulate interstate emissions, according to the motion filed by lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour.
“No State ‘can impose its own legislation’ or ‘enforce its own policy upon the other[s].’ Every State must ’stand on the same level with all the rest,'” it reads.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that such emissions are regulated exclusively by the federal government, he wrote.
Despite this, the defendant states “assert the power to dictate the future of the American energy industry.”
“They hope to do so not by influencing federal legislation or by petitioning federal agencies, but by imposing ruinous liability and coercive remedies on energy companies through state tort actions governed by state law in state court,” the motion said.
The motion accused the defendant states of wanting to impose “a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry.”
“Citing fears of a climate catastrophe, they seek massive penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief against energy producers based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects,” the motion said.
In the defendant states’ view, “a small gas station in rural Alabama could owe damages to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas,” according to the motion.
“If Defendant States are right about the substance and reach of state law, their actions imperil access to affordable energy everywhere and inculpate every State and indeed every person on the planet,” it reads.
“Consequently, Defendant States threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.”
For example, in one of the legal complaints filed by California, that state made it clear it was seeking relief solely for “injuries in California,” according to the brief filed by the five states’ counsel of record, California Deputy Solicitor General Julie Veroff.
Citing past Supreme Court rulings, Thomas wrote that the court’s “assumption that it has ‘discretion to decline review’ in suits between States is ‘suspect’ at best.”
The U.S. Constitution gave the court original jurisdiction “in mandatory terms,” the justice said.
“Given our ‘virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given’ to us, our jurisdiction in this context would seem to be compulsory,” he wrote.
Despite this, Thomas said, the Supreme Court routinely fails to invoke “its exclusive original jurisdiction in state-versus-state cases.”
“It has done so as part of a broader policy of making only ‘sparing use’ of our original jurisdiction, wherein we restrict our review to ‘appropriate’ cases,” he wrote.
“This discretionary approach is a modern invention that the Court has never persuasively justified.”
