The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined an appeal by energy companies to review Honolulu’s climate lawsuit that seeks billions of dollars from oil and gas companies for alleged damages of climate change, thus, allowing the case to move forward. So, what does this mean?
It’s important to remember that the court’s reticence to weigh in at this time is not an endorsement of climate litigation, and this issue could still return to the justices at a later point in the litigation.
As InsideEPA reports, a ClearView Energy Partners analysis indicates that the “Supreme Court may still yet be the final word on the merits of the climate liability cases several years from now.”
SCOTUS’ choice to not intervene at this juncture may be because they would prefer to weigh in after a trial court reaches a full judgement, rather than on an appeal of a motion to dismiss. And when that time comes, even as the Biden administration’s solicitor general recently admitted, the cases may run into serious obstacles:
“To be sure, petitioners may ultimately prevail on their contention that respondents’ claims are barred by the Constitution …” (emphasis added)
In the meantime, importantly, SCOTUS still has an opportunity ahead of them to decisively weigh in on the merits of climate litigation.
In Alabama v. California, a coalition of state attorneys general have asked the Court to block climate lawsuits brought by California and four other states, arguing that the cases raise “grave constitutional problems” as they would “affect energy and fuel consumption and production across the country.”
Should SCOTUS weigh in here, it could create a cleaner and more impactful ruling that would better set legal precedent on the merits of climate litigation at large. The case is scheduled to be discussed at SCOTUS’ January 17th conference.
The Court’s decision to intervene could set a precedent that either curtails or empowers states to influence national energy policies through litigation. The outcome will not only impact the oil and natural gas industry, but also shape the future of interstate regulatory dynamics.
Similarly, while the Trump administration won’t have an opportunity to weigh in on the Honolulu petition, there is a chance the incoming Department of Justice could still make its opinion known in the state vs. state dispute before SCOTUS decides whether to grant or deny the Bill of Complaint.
It’s no secret that incoming President Trump is vehemently opposed to climate litigation: he has not minced words when promising to “stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists” and has repeatedly emphasized how he will expand American oil and natural gas superiority.
This changing of the guards in Washington will mark a significant shift in the current federal approach to climate litigation, possibly resulting in renewed pressure in exposing the machinations behind the campaign, as well as future DOJ opinions urging courts to reject the movement.
Bottom Line: While the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant cert in Honolulu’s climate lawsuit is disappointing as it allows ad hoc and chaotic energy policy set by states, not Congress, to move forward, it is by no means the last opportunity.
And notably, when state courts have considered the merits of these lawsuits – they fail, as has been the case in New York, Baltimore, and Delaware. Time will tell if SCOTUS – or the incoming Trump administration – will make a more decisive opinion on the actual merits of climate litigation at large.
