- The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to intervene in a legal dispute over climate change involving nearly half of the nation’s states. This decision allows lawsuits from five Democratic-led states to proceed against major oil and gas companies in state courts despite attempts from 19 Republican-led states to block the litigation.
- The lawsuits accuse energy companies of misleading the public about the dangers of fossil fuels. They argue this deception led to increased fossil fuel use and environmental harm. Red states argued state courts should not regulate activities beyond their borders, warning of impacts on the national energy system.
- Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, criticizing the decision undermining the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in resolving state disputes.
Full Story
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a legal dispute involving nearly half of the nation’s states over climate change. The decision allows lawsuits brought by five Democratic-led states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island—to proceed against major oil and gas companies in state courts despite attempts from a group of Republican-led states to block the litigation.
What are these lawsuits claiming?
The lawsuits, filed between 2018 and 2023, accuse the energy companies of misleading the public about the dangers of fossil fuels despite allegedly knowing for decades that greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to climate change. The Democratic-led states claim that this deceptive marketing led consumers to use more fossil fuels, exacerbating environmental damage.
What was the argument from red states against the suits?
Meanwhile, Alabama and other 18 Republican-led states urged the Supreme Court to end these lawsuits. They argued that state courts should not be able to regulate activities beyond their borders, particularly those involving energy production governed by federal law. The red states warned that if the lawsuits succeed, they could have significant implications for the national energy system and the affordability of power.
“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,” the red states wrote. “Consequently, defendant states threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.”
How did the blue states respond to these accusations?
However, the blue states that brought these lawsuits forward counter that the legal actions do not infringe upon the rights of other states to pursue their own energy policies. They maintain that holding energy companies accountable for alleged misinformation is a matter of state jurisdiction.
“Accurately understood, the state enforcement actions that Alabama targets do not intrude on the sovereign prerogatives of Alabama or any other state,” the blue states wrote. “Even if each one of those actions succeeds, Alabama and other states will remain free to pursue their own energy policy goals.”
Was the Supreme Court decision unanimous?
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case. Thomas argued that doing so undermines the Constitution’s provision for resolving disputes between states.
“Our exclusive original jurisdiction over suits between states reflects a determination by the framers and by Congress about the need ‘to open and keep open the highest court of the nation’ for such suits, in recognition of the ‘rank and dignity of the states,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, this court has — essentially for policy reasons — assumed a power to summarily turn away suits between states.”
