WASHINGTON- The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a major blow to the oil industry by refusing to block lawsuits from California and other Democratic states seeking billions of dollars in damages from the effects of climate change.
Without comment or dissent, the judges rejected appeals from Sunoco, Shell and other energy producers, which were closely watched.
In Sunoco vs. Honolulu, the oil industry urged judges to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter that falls solely under federal law, not suitable for state-by-state claims.
“The stakes could not be higher,” they told the court.
But none of the judges said they wanted to hear his claim, at least not now.
The decision paves the way for more than two dozen lawsuits filed by states and municipalities to move forward and try to prove their claim that major oil producers knew of the potential harm from burning fossil fuels but chose to hide it.
“Big oil companies continue to fight a losing battle to avoid being prosecuted for their climate lies,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. “With this latest denial, the fossil fuel industry's worst nightmare – having to face overwhelming evidence of its decades of calculated climate deception – is closer than ever to becoming a reality.”
Two years ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against five of the largest oil and gas companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP) and the American Petroleum Institute for what they described as a “decades-long campaign.” of deception” that created weather-related damage in California.
“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us, covering up the fact that they have long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are to our planet,” Newsom said in announcing the lawsuit.
In recent days, California officials have blamed climate change for the devastating weather conditions that contributed to deadly wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes and other structures, leading to what many experts expect will become the disaster. most expensive natural resource in the history of the United States.
California's lawsuit followed the pattern set by similar claims from the cities of Baltimore, New York, Chicago and San Francisco, as well as Democratic states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Minnesota.
These lawsuits argue that oil producers used deceptive marketing to hide the danger of burning fossil fuels. Under state law, companies can be held liable for failing to warn consumers about a known danger.
In June 2024, the court asked the Department of Justice to weigh in on the issue. In December, Biden administration lawyers urged the court to stay out of it for now because the lawsuits are at an early stage.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he was not involved in the decision to deny the appeals, presumably because he owns stock in companies affected by the dispute.
The climate change lawsuits were modeled after the successful massive lawsuits brought by states and others against the tobacco industry over cigarettes and the pharmaceutical industry over opioids.
Cigarettes and opioids were sold legally, but the lawsuits alleged that industry officials conspired to deceive the public and hide the true dangers of their highly profitable products.
Under state law, plaintiffs can seek damages for broad, open-ended claims, such as failing to warn of a danger, false advertising or creating a public nuisance. All three claims are cited in the California lawsuit. Federal law, by contrast, is typically limited to damage claims authorized by Congress.
If the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the oil industry's appeal in the Hawaii case, “it would have frozen the cases for a year or more and could have resulted in a mortal blow to all of them,” said Patrick Parenteau, a legal expert. environmental. at Vermont Law School.
Los Angeles attorney Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents Chevron, said the company “will continue to defend itself against meritless climate litigation under state law, which clashes with basic constitutional principles and undermines sound energy policy.”
Meanwhile, Alabama and 20 red states urged the court to dismiss these blue state lawsuits. They said liberal states and their judges should not have the power to set national policy in the energy industry. The court has not yet ruled on that claim.
The case dismissed Monday began five years ago when the city and county of Honolulu sued Sunoco and 14 other major oil and gas producers, alleging failure to warn and creating a nuisance.
Last year, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the industry's motion and refused to dismiss the lawsuit.
“Simply put, the plaintiffs say the issue is whether the defendants misled the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and their environmental impact. “We agree…This lawsuit does not seek to regulate emissions and does not seek damages for interstate emissions,” the state court said in a unanimous opinion. “Rather, plaintiffs' lawsuit clearly seeks to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil fuel products without prior notice and with the complicity of a sophisticated disinformation campaign.”
