The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not entertain an appeal from oil and gas corporations that sought to prevent legal claims aimed at holding them accountable for extensive financial damages linked to climate change.
This decision enables the city of Honolulu to move forward with its lawsuit against these companies. Ben Sullivan, the city’s chief resilience officer, described the ruling as a pivotal moment that would safeguard “taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct.”
Oil and gas firms have faced various lawsuits accusing them of misleading the public regarding the role fossil fuels play in driving climate change. States like California, Colorado, and New Jersey are pursuing substantial compensation, seeking billions to address impacts such as wildfires, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. These lawsuits are part of a broader trend of legal efforts across the United States and the globe that aim to spur climate action through judicial processes.
The oil and gas companies had brought their case to the Supreme Court after the highest court in Hawaii allowed the Honolulu lawsuit to advance. Noteworthy names among these companies include Sunoco, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and BP, many of which have their headquarters in Texas.
The industry contended that greenhouse gas emissions represent a national concern, arguing that matters of this nature should be settled in federal court, where they have successfully managed to dismiss similar suits in the past. In court documents, attorneys stated, “The stakes in this case could not be higher,” emphasizing that these legal actions pose a significant risk to an industry critical to the nation’s economy.
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, expressed that the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the Honolulu case could lead to an upsurge in lawsuits from activists seeking to essentially become the national regulators of energy. Adam White, a senior fellow at the institute, commented on the situation, hoping the Court would consider the issue in the future for the sake of constitutional accountability and public interest.
In these proceedings, the Biden administration weighed in at the Court’s request, advocating for the rejection of the case on the grounds that it is appropriate for the matter to be handled in state court at this stage, although it acknowledged the potential for the companies to ultimately win their case.
In contrast, the anticipated Trump administration is likely to adopt a significantly different stance on issues regarding environmental laws and energy production.
Honolulu has maintained that it has presented a robust case under state regulations concerning deceptive marketing practices, insisting that the matter should progress through state courts. Attorneys for the city have argued that “deceptive commercial practices fall squarely within the core interests and historic powers of the states.”
Environmental regulations have encountered challenges in front of the conservative-majority Supreme Court. Recently, in 2022, the justices curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s abilities to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power generation facilities, and they also blocked the agency’s air pollution mitigation “good neighbor” rule in June.
Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from the consideration of the appeal, not providing specific reasons, but disclosing that he holds stocks in several companies implicated in the lawsuits, as revealed in his latest financial report.
