The U.S. Supreme Court this morning opted out of providing guidance on whether climate lawsuits against energy companies should progress in federal court, thereby allowing them to continue on their paths to state courts across the country. Importantly, the plaintiffs in these cases face an uphill battle, as every climate suit that has been heard on the merits has been decisively rejected.
Bloomberg Government reported that a decision on the merits of the climate suits “is still a long way off,” and analysts from independent energy research firm ClearView Energy Partners pointed out that the future of climate litigation is hardly a straight line from here:
“Allowing the cases to play out in state court first does not preclude the energy companies winning on the merits… Nor does it prevent federal review of adverse state court rulings in the future on the question of federal preemption.”
And this isn’t the last opportunity for SCOTUS to get involved in these cases; the Court will have another bite at the apple as soon as next month when it considers a separate cert petition filed by the companies named in a climate lawsuit filed by the State of Delaware and the City of Hoboken, New Jersey.
On the Merits, Climate Litigation Has a Losing Track Record
It’s important to remember that this procedural development has nothing to do with the merits of climate lawsuits. And on that point, the litigation campaign has been a complete failure.
On the merits, New York continues to be the poster child for these flailing lawsuits. The New York attorney general’s case against ExxonMobil was decisively defeated in 2019, and in 2021, the 2nd Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of New York City’s public nuisance lawsuit, ending the case for good. The court ruled that lawsuits aren’t the proper tool for addressing climate change:
“The question before us is whether municipalities may utilize state tort law to hold multinational oil companies liable for the damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions. Given the nature of the harm and the existence of a complex web of federal and international environmental law regulating such emissions, we hold that the answer is ‘no.’” (Emphasis added)
And, though later overturned due to the jurisdictional conflict, lawsuits filed by San Francisco and Oakland were dismissed on the merits in 2018.
After these defeats, the plaintiffs and their supporters “retooled their strategy […] in part to maintain … lawsuits in state courts,” according to Reuters. The plaintiffs’ abuse of state courts was described as “lawfare” by expert environmental attorney C. Boyden Gray and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Jay Cameron, writing in Fox:
“These cases are undisguised ‘lawfare,’ which is a cynical ploy by environmental activists to achieve through courts what they cannot accomplish at the federal ballot box.” (Emphasis added)
Despite the obvious manipulation of the state judiciary, appellate judges and the Supreme Court are bound by precedent to evaluate jurisdiction by examining only the plaintiffs’ claims, and no additional context, like the City of Boulder’s stated goal to explore “use of the legal system in pushing for larger systems-level change.”
Bottom Line: Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court marks the end of a years-long procedural battle and allows lawsuits brought by Boulder and other states and municipalities to proceed in state court. But, to date, plaintiffs in climate lawsuits have lost every case that has been heard on the merits. While well-funded activists continue their campaign against American energy in the courtroom and in the media, domestic oil and natural gas companies are focused on providing safe, affordable energy while continuing invest in new technologies and efficient operations to reduce emissions.
