Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a bid by Republican-led states to block lawsuits brought by a group of Democratic-led states that seek to hold oil and gas companies accountable for their fossil fuel products’ contributions to climate change.
The court’s decision to stay out of the dispute allows the five blue states to pursue lawsuits filed against the energy industry in their own courts. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s decision not to allow the red states to seek its intervention.
“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 in a dissent joined by Alito. “Yet, this court has — essentially for policy reasons — assumed a power to summarily turn away suits between states. The court today exercises that power to reject a suit involving nearly half the states in the nation, which alleges serious constitutional violations.”
The lawsuits
The novel suits were brought by California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island and seek to hold energy companies liable for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of their fossil-fuel products.
Filed between 2018 and 2023, the suits allege claims arising under state laws but broadly accuse the energy industry of knowing for decades that greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to climate change. The states claim that oil and gas companies engaged in deceptive marketing by misrepresenting the dangers of their fossil fuel products, which caused consumers to use more of them.
The oil and gas companies sought to move nearly all the cases to federal court, arguing that federal law governs interstate emissions, but the efforts were rejected by U.S. courts of appeals.
The cases are now proceeding in state courts and are in the early stages of litigation.
Oil and gas companies separately asked the Supreme Court to shut down a lawsuit brought by the city of Honolulu that is seeking to hold the industry liable for harms caused by the effects of climate change. But the high court in January said it would not consider the appeal from the 15 companies, including Sunono and Shell, which cleared the way for the cases to move forward in Hawaii state court.
Alabama and 18 other Republican-led states separately went to the Supreme Court and urged it to exercise its original jurisdiction over disputes between the states. They asked the high court to block the civil suits filed by the Democratic-led states and prevent other litigation seeking similar relief in the future.
The red states allege that the claims pending in state court seek to regulate activity outside of the blue states’ borders and involve an area governed by federal law.
They argued in a Supreme Court filing that the blue states are seeking “massive” penalties and relief against energy producers that are not based in their states. If the Democratic-led states succeed, they warned it would have sweeping impacts on the national energy system.
“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.”
But the attorneys general for the blue states told the court that their state-court actions seek to address local harms resulting from allegedly unlawful deceptive conduct by the oil and gas companies.
They argued that Alabama and the red states have not satisfied the standard governing the Supreme Court’s exercise of original 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.”
