R.I. judge orders Chevron to hand over documents in state climate change lawsuit
The Frank Licht Judicial Complex, which includes Providence County Superior Court, on Benefit Street in Providence. (Photo by Michael Salerno/Rhode Island Current)
The fate of Rhode Island's first-in-the-nation lawsuit against fossil fuel companies rests in one state judge's hands, following a two-hour hearing in Providence County Superior Court Tuesday morning.
Associate Justice William E. Carnes opted not to make an immediate ruling on Chevron Corporation's push to have the case tossed on alleged procedural violations, noting the 'sheer volume of materials' in the seven-year long case. While Carnes postponed a ruling, he noted several shortcomings in the arguments Chevron's lawyers presented, including the lack of local precedent for what the oil and gas company argues was a 'shotgun pleading' that relies on the same phrasing for each of the 21 companies named in the lawsuit.
Former Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin in the 2018 complaint sought damages from a host of multinational oil and gas companies, including Chevron, based on the grounds that for each, 'a substantial portion of fossil fuel products are or have been extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, promoted, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in Rhode Island.'
A series of appeals challenging a state court's authority regarding climate change impacts from national fossil fuel companies ended in April 2023 when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case and sent it back to Rhode Island.
On trial in landmark R.I. climate change lawsuit: the meaning of 'and/or'
Chevron's attorneys are now seeking to have the entire case tossed on the grounds that the state failed to investigate or prove that any fossil fuel extraction, refinement or production occurred in Rhode Island, violating a clause of state court civil procedure known as Rule 11.
'It's a ludicrous allegation that we were extracting fossil fuels in a state where fossil fuels were never extracted,' Gerald Petros, a Providence attorney representing Chevron, said during Tuesday's hearing.
But the state, which has brought in San Francisco law firm Sher Edling LLP to help its case, contended that the 'and/or' in the complaint covered its bases. Even if Chevron never produced or refined oil in Rhode Island, 18 years of business filings with the Rhode Island Department of State and records of local TV and print advertisements prove its local activity, according to exhibits included in court documents.
While the state's investigation has yielded some proof of Chevron's local activity, the company has refused to hand over private information relating to its business activity, sales and advertising in Rhode Island, making it impossible for the state to fully substantiate its claim, Matt Edling, partner at Sher Edling, said during the hearing.
'We know this evidence exists but we don't know the depth of it,' Edling said.
While Carnes delayed a ruling on Chevron's motion to toss the complaint under alleged procedural violations, he granted in part a request by the state to compel the oil and gas company to hand over documentation of its business activity. Carnes limited the scope of discovery to date back to the year named in the complaint — 1965 — rather than the earlier 1950 start date the state requested. Carnes also ruled that subsidiaries and affiliates of Chevron Corp. were not subject to the court-ordered document sharing based on a 2022 Rhode Island Supreme Court decision. And, as it relates to evidence of natural gas activities, Chevron only has to share records of business that affected consumers, according to Carnes' order.
Timothy Rondeau, a spokesperson for Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's office, issued a statement Tuesday in response to requests for comment.
'We appreciate the Court's thoughtful review in granting this order, and we look forward to securing relief on behalf of Rhode Islanders and the environment,' Rondeau said in an email.
Theodore Boutrous, a partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in California which is also representing Chevron, shared the exact same statement provided a day earlier when asked for comment on Carnes' order.
Chevron has 90 days to hand over the required evidence to the state. Another hearing on the case is scheduled for May 8, by which time Carnes said he expects to have issued an order on Chevron's Rule 11 motion.
In closing remarks, Carnes pledged to be fair to both sides and move as quickly as he could.
'I am going to try to keep a cool, clear head and try to keep as much acrimony out of this as possible,' he said. 'I know there's a lot of water to come over the dam.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
McKee staffs up for 2026 reelection campaign
Gov. Dan McKee has tapped two out-of-state political staffers to work for his 2026 reelection campaign. (Photo by Michael Salerno/Rhode Island Current) Fresh off new, unfavorable polling numbers on his job performance, Gov. Dan McKee has tapped out-of-state talent to aid in his 2026 reelection campaign, including a former staffer to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. Rob Silverstein, who most recently served as Hochul's policy director, and before that, as her deputy campaign manager, will now manage McKee's 2026 campaign. Neil Spencer will serve as his campaign finance director, following eight years with the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee. 'I'm excited to have a strong team of talented operatives to run my re-election campaign,' McKee said in a statement. 'Nobody will outwork us on the trail, and Rob and Neil embody that ethos. With their experiences on highly competitive races and excellent track records of success in state campaigns, I am confident that we are well-positioned to continue delivering results for Rhode Island for years to come.' The sitting governor is the only candidate to confirm their intent to run in the 2026 gubernatorial race, with a two-minute spot released on March 3. His 2022 Democratic primary rival, Helena Buonanno Foulkes, appears to be readying for a comeback challenge against McKee, having already begun growing her campaign war chest. Other rumored, but unconfirmed candidates include House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi and 2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Ashley Kalus, who bought a home in Providence this year, WPRI-TV 12 reported. McKee's new campaign hires were announced Monday, four days after a University of New Hampshire poll in which McKee scored a 19% approval rating among a survey of 653 Rhode Island residents. The dismal view of his job performance was accompanied by weak support for his reelection bid; just 11% of those surveyed thought the four-year incumbent deserved to win the 2026 race, compared with 74% who thought he did not deserve to win re-election. Even among his own party, fewer than one in five survey respondents supported McKee's reelection campaign, according to the UNH poll. Meanwhile, 39% of Democrats surveyed expressed support for Foulkes to run, while 32% backed former Gov. Gina Raimondo, who left during her second term as governor to become U.S. Commerce Secretary. Since leaving the federal administration in January, Raimondo has joined the Council on Foreign Relations in D.C. as a distinguished fellow and co-chair of a task force on economic security. She also expressed interest in a 2028 presidential run during an interview with David Axelrod in Chicago in April. Silverstein declined to comment on the UNH poll results in a brief interview Wednesday, referring to the governor's previous comments to other news outlets in which he shrugged off the survey as an 'outlying poll.' A New York native, Silverstein has nearly a decade of political experience in campaigns in local, state and federal races across the country. He earned high marks from Hochul for his work on her campaign and in elected office over the past four years. 'Rob Silverstein has been a key member of our team, bringing sharp political instincts, tireless commitment, and a deep understanding of what it takes to win tough races,' Hochul said in a statement. 'Rob has been instrumental in building a stronger Democratic Party in New York and played a critical role in our success flipping key House seats last year. Governor McKee is gaining a skilled and strategic leader, and I'm proud to call Rob a trusted former member of my team.' Like McKee, Hochul was thrust into the top state leadership role from lieutenant governor in 2021. Her ascension to the governor seat was prompted by the unexpected resignation of Andrew Cuomo. Silverstein has a bachelor's degree from Georgetown University and a master's degree in public administration from Columbia University. Spencer comes to Rhode Island from his native Florida, where he attended Florida State University for his bachelor's degree and a master's in the university's Applied American Politics and Policy program. During his eight years working for Florida House Democrats, he set multiple fundraising records, including $5 million raised in 2022 and more than $9 million raised in 2024. 'The institutional knowledge Neil built up with the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee allowed us to build momentum and set new fundraising records cycle after cycle, and Neil's strategic vision and dedication have made him one of the most successful finance directors in Florida legislative politics,' Florida House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell said in a statement. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Do Options Traders Know Something About Chevron Stock We Don't?
Investors in Chevron Corporation CVX need to pay close attention to the stock based on moves in the options market lately. That is because the June 20, 2025 $80 Call had some of the highest implied volatility of all equity options today. Implied volatility shows how much movement the market is expecting in the future. Options with high levels of implied volatility suggest that investors in the underlying stocks are expecting a big move in one direction or the other. It could also mean there is an event coming up soon that may cause a big rally or a huge sell-off. However, implied volatility is only one piece of the puzzle when putting together an options trading strategy. Clearly, options traders are pricing in a big move for Chevron shares, but what is the fundamental picture for the company? Currently, Chevron is a Zacks Rank #5 (Sell) in the Oil and Gas - Integrated – International industry that ranks in the Bottom 5% of our Zacks Industry Rank. Over the last 30 days, one analyst has increased the earnings estimates for the current quarter, while two have dropped their estimates. The net effect has taken our Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current quarter from $1.79 per share to $1.58 in that period. Given the way analysts feel about Chevron right now, this huge implied volatility could mean there's a trade developing. Oftentimes, options traders look for options with high levels of implied volatility to sell premium. This is a strategy many seasoned traders use because it captures decay. At expiration, the hope for these traders is that the underlying stock does not move as much as originally expected. Check out the simple yet high-powered approach that Zacks Executive VP Kevin Matras has used to close recent double and triple-digit winners. In addition to impressive profit potential, these trades can actually reduce your risk. Click to see the trades now >> Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Chevron Corporation (CVX) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump Attacked One of His Top Allies Out of the Blue. We Know Why.
Last week, President Donald Trump took many in the legal world by surprise when he attacked the chief architect of his first-term judicial nomination agenda, Leonard Leo, as a 'sleazebag' who 'probably hates America.' The tone was distinctly Trumpian, but the target was a bit of a shock. Back in 2016, Leo gave the new president-elect a slate of 21 Supreme Court candidates, all 'Federalist people.' Selection of the 234 judges appointed in Trump's first term was then 'in-sourced' to the Federalist Society, according to former White House counsel Don McGahn. Trump's outburst marks a dramatic jolt to the relationship between Trump and the Federalist Society, as well as for the conservative bench at large. It is not likely a rupture, but rather a signal that the society must bend the knee—as all others seeking federal benevolence must do—to keep its prized place. Like the traditional Republican elites Trump has left in the dust, the society needs to find a place among the ornaments on the presidential mantel, or else be cast into the dust. Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society has long exercised subtle, behind-the-scenes influence on Republican judicial picks. Its official line emphasizing 'originalism' and 'textualism' belies how predictably its picks track Republican views on regulation, presidential power, and religion. Such priorities reflect Leo's enduring closeness to traditional Republican elites such as Sen. Mitch McConnell. In 2016, it was Trump who benefited from the Federalist Society stamp of approval. A staggering 77 percent of Republican voters that year reported that Supreme Court appointments were 'very important' to them. The Federalist Society's process for credentialing nominees as clearly conservative helped Trump ostentatiously meet his campaign promise to appoint judges who would please these voters. And the bench he built didn't disappoint. Since 2020, a Supreme Court with three Trump appointees has advanced Republican priorities on affirmative action, abortion, and religious liberties. Perhaps even more significant have been its dramatic curbs on federal regulation in the form of 'the major questions doctrine' and end to so-called Chevron deference, not to mention its stratospheric advancement of executive power in Trump v. U.S. In 2025, the judicial and political terrain look different. Thanks in part to rulings like Trump v. U.S., the president is no longer the supplicant. Traditional Republican elites are now 'terrified' of an Elon Musk–funded primary instigated by the president. He is no longer in thrall to policy and personnel choices. Sen. McConnell, for example, has voted against numerous Trump Cabinet nominations—not, to be sure, with any effect. Other stalwarts within the party have bucked against the president's tariffs—again to no palpable result. It is thus not simply that the president and Republican elites have split on policy: The brute force of Trump's political power means that, for now at least, the president has the whip hand. This same pivot is playing out in the president's relation to the courts. For one thing, an administration that doesn't know the meaning of basic constitutional rights such as habeas corpus—even as it violates that right—is unlikely to be one that places great weight on fidelity to originalist constitutional values. For another, a White House that treats mandatory federal spending as a cudgel against ideological foes will surely view judicial nominations in the same transactional way—just another perk with which to punish enemies or reward friends. Today, courts rank among the hostile. Remember that the first Trump administration received bruising losses in cases concerning Deferred Action for Child Arrivals and a census question on citizenship. Even though Trump himself had appointed a full quarter of that bench by the end of his first term, the administration has faced a 'stunning' tally of court losses in recent weeks. Worse, decisions that once were Republican trophies wrought from an archconservative Supreme Court are now albatrosses weighing the Trump II project down. Take last month's ruling invalidating the April 2 tariffs. This unanimous three-judge ruling—joined by one Trump appointee—hinged upon the 'major questions doctrine' that is a cornerstone of the Roberts court's deregulatory policy agenda. Trump is here being bitten by the beast he bred. And unlike traditional Republican elites, Trump now is not pursuing a policy agenda in which the federal courts could be useful aides. The White House has shown that it believes itself capable of redefining citizenship, geography, and even biology by fiat. It hardly needs hand-holding by black-robed jurists. Like Congress, the hope is that the courts can also be relegated to mere accoutrement. In attacking Leo, Trump is thus simply making plain this new alignment of power. Like other parts of the Republican establishment, he is saying, Leo and the Federalist Society have a role to play only if they are unswervingly loyal not to the Constitution, but to Trump's own project. Moreover, the president has made it clear what he demands from judges: As his post on Leo explained, he believes that the only reason a judge would rule against his policies is bad faith. So what he wants are men—like his recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit nominee Emil Bove—of dubious ethics but unswerving and uncaveated loyalty to the president. It will now be up to the Federalist Society to decide whether they will bend the knee, following the example of other Republican elites, to say nothing of law firms and universities. While it might seem that fealty to 'original public meaning' and to history would make this an insuperably difficult ask, it is a mistake to think that the legal conservative movement cannot adapt. Several prominent judges appointed by Trump, for example, have already pivoted from 'originalism' to a vague 'common good' conservativism. (If this sounds harmless, just take a second to reflect on who is implicitly getting to define the common good.) Even those who want to keep their originalist credentials are likely to find new play of the joints of their 'theory.' Witness, for example, the flip-flops of some judges and scholars on the long-settled question of birthright citizenship, including at least one prominent conservative appellate judge said to be auditioning for a Trump appointment to the Supreme Court. Even on the ground, the young men (and a few women) who swell the Federalist Society's ranks in law schools are reportedly champing at the bit to embrace the Trumpian project. So there's no reason to think the Federalist Society won't take the hint. Once, the society styled itself a guardian of the original Constitution. Tomorrow, they may serve a different master as they screen candidates to serve in the judicial Praetorian Guard that this president so keenly desires.
