California fire victims could recover damages from oil companies under proposed law
SACRAMENTO — A newly proposed California state law would create a new pathway for victims of wildfires and insurance companies to sue oil companies over climate change.
Democratic State Senator Scott Weiner introduced the bill, directly linking the wildfires to climate change caused by oil companies, as part of the statewide response to the Los Angeles-area wildfires.
"Absolutely catastrophic wildfires happening in the middle of winter," Weiner said. "For insurance companies, they're going to have to, if this bill passes, they're going to have to take a very hard look at seeking compensation from the oil companies."
Republican State Senator Roger Niello is opposed to the bill.
"It will be an invitation for lawsuits," Niello said. "This furthers the narrative, the false narrative that this is all about climate change. It is of course much more complicated than that."
Niello said forest management and cuts to fire departments should also be considered for their roles in California wildfire disasters.
Western States Petroleum Association CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd issued a statement that said:
"The announcement of today's proposal is the latest installment of an ongoing effort to scapegoat our industry — and the thousands of hardworking women and men who keep California running."
Jamie Court with Consumer Watchdog said the bill would create a new payer in the aftermath of wildfire disaster: oil companies.
"It's probably going to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court," Court said. "It's no different than tobacco companies. Tobacco companies hid the dangers of tobacco and they were ultimately held liable for billions of dollars in health care costs. It's the same theory."
As rebuilding in Southern California begins, this proposed law would have oil companies pay part of the price.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
David Hogg won't run again after DNC votes to redo vice chair elections
David Hogg will not seek reelection to his Democratic National Committee leadership position after the party announced Wednesday that members had voted to redo the vice chair contests he and Malcolm Kenyatta won in February. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,' Hogg said in a statement. Hogg's decision not to run again ends a monthslong intraparty fight between the young gun control advocate and much of the national committee that has distracted from the party's efforts to rebuild after devastating 2024 election losses. The outgoing vice chair has accused party leaders of attempting to oust him from his position over frustration with his plan to primary 'ineffective' Democratic incumbents in safe seats through his PAC Leaders We Deserve. DNC members have argued that Hogg has mischaracterized the vote. The initial challenge to how the committee handled the February 1 vote for two vice chair positions was made in late February, months before Hogg announced his primary initiative. Still, members' feelings toward Hogg and his ongoing, public dispute with party leaders loomed large over the vote. The proposal to hold a new election passed 75% to 25% with 89% of DNC members participating. DNC chairman Ken Martin praised Hogg for his work on the committee. 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair,' Martin said in a statement. 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map.' Had Hogg run again, he would have faced Kenyatta in an election for a position which, under the DNC's gender parity rules, must go to a man. 'I'm grateful to the overwhelming support I've received in this reelection from DNC members and I look forward to getting back to work electing Democrats up and down the ballot,' Kenyatta said in a statement. 'I wish David the best.' Voting for the other vice chair seat will run from Sunday morning through Tuesday afternoon. Three female candidates who were in the running in February will be eligible: Kalyn Free, an Oklahoma Democratic activist who filed the challenge, as well as Kansas state party chair Jeanna Repass and Washington state party chair Shasti Conrad. Separately, the DNC is also weighing a new proposal put forth by Martin that would officially require elected party leaders to stay neutral in primaries. The DNC is expected to vote on that measure at an August meeting. This story has been updated with additional details. CNN's Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Controversial housing bill heads to governor's desk
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) —The 2025 session of Connecticut's state legislature has been over for more than a week, but a major piece of housing legislation passed by majority Democrats continues to cause controversy — and a chorus of calls for Gov. Ned Lamont to veto it. Connecticut House passes housing bill after 11-hour debate The legislation, formally known as House Bill 5002, is the latest in a series of Democratic-led efforts to implement statewide policies that spur the development of more housing. Proponents of statewide housing reform have cited research showing Connecticut's housing stock is short by as many as 100,000 units. Lawmakers clash over proposed affordable housing bill 'We know how imperative it is that we get more housing in the state,' Gov. Lamont said on Tuesday. But as the governor and others look for ways to use public policy to encourage more development, they've encountered resistance from leaders on both sides of the aisle who say provisions of H.B. 5002 encroach on the authorities of local zoning boards. Governor's Hartford residence to open for annual open house day Three provisions in particular have drawn the ire of defenders of local control of zoning. First, the bill establishes a baseline for the amount of units, including affordable units, each municipality in Connecticut must plan for. Municipalities that hit the goals outlined in the bill will be prioritized for certain state grants. Local leaders and legislators who oppose the bill have characterized that provision as a mandate. 'It absolutely is a mandate,' State Rep. Joe Zullo, a leading Republican opponent to 5002, said. 'It allocates to every town a certain amount of housing they have to build no matter what.' Supporters of 5002 push back on this characterization of the legislation. On the affordable housing metrics, they say the bill seeks to set objective standards while providing measured incentives to communities that comply. 'Gasoline on the flames:' Lamont, Tong, Bysiewicz respond to Trump administration's use of National Guard in California 'Any time you want to have a policy outcome, there needs to be an accountability measure and that's what we're talking about here,' State Rep. Jason Rojas, the Democratic house majority leader, said of the concept in an interview conducted before the final passage of the bill. 'We can call it a stick, I call it accountability. We expect every other area of government to be accountable for something. Towns should be accountable, too.' Another provision of 5002 takes aim at minimum parking requirements often imposed by municipalities on small towns. The third provision seeks to bypass planning and zoning hearings for the approval of conversions of certain commercial properties into residential units. These measures have also drawn considerable criticism. In both instances, advocates say the bill seeks to remove onerous barriers, while opponents charge that local control of development is being deeply eroded. H. B. 5002 passed through the legislature over the objections of every Republican and a relatively small but significant vocal faction of Democrats, mostly from the state's suburbs. Now the bill is passed and on the governor's desk awaiting action, Lamont is faced with the decision to either veto or sign it. He has signaled that if he signs it, he would only do so after an agreement had been made with legislative leaders to make revisions before the bill goes into effect in October. 'I think they went too far in some areas of the bill and that's what we look to change,' Lamont said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
