Supreme Court Rejects an Effort to Block States From Suing Oil Giants
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an argument that aimed to restrict states from suing oil companies for financial damage related to climate change.
The argument was brought to the high court by 19 Republican attorneys general, representing states including Alabama and West Virginia, who were trying to prevent other states, led by Democrats, from pursuing lawsuits against the oil industry. Those states include California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
Those Democratic-led states have sued major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public for decades about the effects of their greenhouse gas emissions. The cases include a 2023 lawsuit filed by California's attorney general against five of the world's largest oil and gas companies, including BP and Exxon Mobil, and the American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying group that represents fossil fuel interests.
'This was never anything more than an attempt to run interference, help the defendants in our cases avoid accountability, and play politics with the Constitution,' said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in a statement. He filed his state's deception suit in 2020.
Now, with the Supreme Court's official rejection, those cases can proceed.
There are dozens of pending cases designed to force fossil fuel companies to pay monetary damages related to climate change, according to Michael Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
In January, the Supreme Court signaled it might not agree with the effort by Republican attorneys general to block lawsuits like these, when the justices denied an oil-industry request to review a Hawai'i Supreme Court decision that allows the state's climate deception lawsuit to go to trial.
Supporters of the effort have argued that the state cases are unconstitutional and could affect interstate commerce. 'Each individual state cannot set its own priorities to which commercial activities it will encourage or discourage,' said Donald Kochan, a law professor for the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
For example, Mr. Kochan said, if one state wanted to encourage fossil-fuel production, its ability to do so could be affected if oil and gas prices rose because of the liability risk from the other states' lawsuits.
Legal experts have called the Republican-led effort in the Supreme Court unusual because it took aim at state claims before they had been addressed by state courts. Mr. Gerrard said in an email that, because of this, it would have been 'surprising' for the nation's highest court to hear the arguments since it could open a Pandora's box for requests to prematurely end other kinds of litigation.
'The Supreme Court is saying it's not going to interfere,' he said, 'at least for now.'
The lawsuits are separate from, but related to, a group of new climate 'superfund' laws that also aim to require polluters to account for the effect of their greenhouse gas emissions on their city, county, or state. They are called superfund laws because they are loosely modeled on the longstanding Superfund program to clean up toxic waste sites.
The first climate superfund law went into effect in Vermont last summer, followed by New York's version in December. Both have faced legal challenges. A coalition of 22 states, led by West Virginia, sued New York for passing its law in February.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Homan warns California officials can be arrested if they disrupt ICE raids
Border czar Tom Homan on Sunday warned California officials could face arrest and prosecution if they 'cross the line' following President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles to quell ongoing immigration protests. Trump ordered at least 2,000 National Guard members to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents after two days of clashes with demonstrators, despite state and city leaders saying they had not asked for assistance. Homan said Trump's order was not only to protect law enforcement officers but also to 'protect this community.' 'The rhetoric is so high against ICE officers in this city that it's a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt,' Homan told NBC News's Jacob Soboroff in an interview slated for broadcast Sunday night. 'We've got help coming, and we're going to do our job, and we're going to continue doing that job.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats, have criticized Trump's decision to call in the National Guard, warning it only risks escalating tensions. Both also pointed out on Sunday that Trump had posted about the National Guard's 'great job' before any troops had arrived in L.A. When Soboroff asked if Homan's past threats to arrest anyone who stood in the way of Trump's enforcement operations were directed at Newsom and Bass, Homan clarified he would 'say that about anybody.' 'It's a felony to knowingly conceal and harbor an illegal alien,' Homan said. 'It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job.' Homan said he didn't think Bass had 'crossed the line yet,' but added 'we will ask DOJ to prosecute' if needed. 'What we're saying is we're not going to tolerate people attacking our officers,' he added. On Sunday morning, Newsom, in a post on X, claimed the federal government is 'taking over the California National Guard' because 'they want a spectacle.' 'Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully,' he added. In the NBC News interview, Homan bashed Newsom's comments and called him 'an embarrassment for the state.' 'I have absolutely no respect for this governor,' Homan said. 'Criminal aliens are walking in this state every day because of his government policy. I don't care what the governor thinks of me. I'm not running a popularity contest.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
DNC chair, almost crying, claims David Hogg is making it impossible to lead party: ‘No one knows who the hell I am'
DNC Chair Ken Martin vented about party Vice Chairman and Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg to the point of near tears in a recent call with top Dem brass, saying, 'No one knows who the hell I am. 'I'll be very honest with you: For the first time in my 100 days on this job, the other night I said to myself for the first time, 'I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,' ' Martin bluntly admitted in leaked audio of the May 15 Zoom meeting, which was obtained by Politico, Martin, who was elected boss of the Democratic National Committee in February, bemoaned the shadow that Hogg cast over him by igniting a firestorm within the party over his plans to fund primary challenges against incumbent Dems. Advertisement 'No one knows who the hell I am, right?' Martin said during the call, in which he singled out Hogg, who was in the meeting. 'I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to put ourselves in a position to win,' the chairman said. 'I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to,' he said, directly addressing Hogg. 'So it's really frustrating.' Advertisement 3 Ken Martin didn't mince words about his frustrations with DNC Vice Chair David Hogg in leaked audio. AP 3 Hogg has been working to fund Democratic primaries against safe DEM incumbents despite his role as a party's vice chair. Getty Images for Fast Company Toward the end of the leaked audio, Martin's voice grew softer, and he paused at least twice, appearing to be on the verge of choking up. The DNC boss told Hogg, 'I deeply respect you' and 'was looking forward to working with you' while griping about the dilemma that the 25-year-old school mass-shooting survivor created. Advertisement Martin, referring to the state of the DNC, said, 'It has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again.' About 10 people were reportedly on the call. The Post reached out to the DNC and Hogg for comment. Hogg later posted text messages with the Politico reporter who broke the story as evidence that he didn't leak the audio. Advertisement Martin was meanwhile adamant that 'I'm not going anywhere' after the leaked audio surfaced. 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats,' he said in a statement obtained by Politico. 'As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. 'That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Hogg announced in April that his 'Leaders We Deserve' group would shell out about $20 million to meddle in Democratic primaries located in safe districts to edge out what it considers complacent incumbents in favor of ones who are more feisty. 3 Hogg has argued that the party needs to become more combative. Getty Images Last month, Hogg's group made its first endorsement, backing Illinois state Sen. Robert Peters (D) for the seat held by US Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), in Illinois' 2nd Congressional District. Kelly is running to replace retiring Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in 2026. Many Democrats are incensed that Hogg is attempting to retain his role as a vice chair at the DNC and intervene in primaries at the same time. Hogg is one of three vice chairs. As with the Republican National Committee, the DNC provides candidates with resources and strategic assistance and is generally expected to be neutral in party primaries. Advertisement 'Our job is to be neutral arbiters,' Martin previously said in another leaked April call. 'We can't be both the referee and also the player at the same time.' Martin had pressured Hogg to either sign a neutrality pledge or step down from his highly coveted perch. Last month, around the time of the leaked Martin Zoom call, the DNC Credentials Committee heard complaints that Hogg and fellow Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta were improperly elected to their positions in February. The complaint was furnished by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who pointed to committee rules calling for the party to have as close to gender parity as possible. She argued that the election of Hogg and Kenyatta flouted those rules. Advertisement The DNC subpanel recommended that the party hold new elections for the vice chair positions to rectify that issue. All of that controversy has clouded the DNC's efforts to go on the offensive against Republicans and President Trump amid deep soul-searching within the party over what went awry during the 2024 presidential election.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Southern Baptists to vote on effort to overturn same-sex marriage
Conservative Christian activists hope to build on their movement's success in overturning Roe v. Wade, the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, in 2022, and to apply the legal and political strategies that proved effective for that victory. Public support for legal same-sex marriage remains high, with more than two-thirds of American adults supporting it. As with abortion, activists hope to gain political power despite their minority viewpoints. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Christians are called to play the long game,' said Andrew T. Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky who wrote the resolution. He leads the Southern Baptist Convention's resolution committee, which coordinates proposals from Baptists around the country to be put for a vote at the annual meeting. Related : Advertisement 'There are burgeoning embryonic efforts being discussed at the legal-strategy level on how to begin to challenge Obergefell,' he said. 'How do we take the lessons from Roe that took 50 years? What is the legal strategy to overturn Obergefell at some point in the future?' Advertisement Activists are aware that their mission may take years. But the resolution calling for this concrete action shows 'a deepening of Southern Baptist thinking on this issue' and a recognition of the need for a long-term strategy similar to the one that ended a constitutional right to abortion, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He said 'there's a great deal of engagement' on this issue between Southern Baptist leaders and lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group that worked to overturn Roe. 'As in Roe, it is not just a matter of arguing for or against abortion,' he said. 'It is also the larger pattern in terms of constitutional interpretation.' Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated outside the US Supreme Court following the ruling on same-sex marriage, on June 26, 2015. DOUG MILLS/NYT The Southern Baptist resolution, titled 'On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,' reflects a movement within conservative Christianity to see that laws align with their set of Biblical values and a political commitment to pursue those goals. The resolution calls for overturning not just Obergefell, but also any laws and policies 'that defy God's design for marriage and family,' potentially including the Respect for Marriage Act, a law that former President Joe Biden signed in 2022 mandating federal recognition for same-sex marriages. The resolution also specifically calls for the restriction of commercial surrogacy. Related : Lawmakers have a duty 'to pass laws that reflect the truth of creation,' it says, 'and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' The measure also reflects an alignment with other Republican goals, and calls for laws that would 'strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in female athletic competition.' Advertisement Couples waited to apply for marriage licenses at Cambridge City Hall on May 17, 2004. RUTH FREMSON/NYT To go into effect, the resolution needs to pass by simple majority vote. Organizers say it is widely expected to pass. Passing the measure could be used as evidence to prove to politicians that culturally unpopular positions have support. Public opinion on same-sex marriage shifted drastically over the past 30 years toward overwhelming support. Last summer during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump had the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman removed from the Republican Party platform. 'It now seems the case in many sectors of American society that same-sex marriage is just as American as baseball and apple pie,' Walker acknowledged. 'I understand the political will is probably minute or minuscule.' Related : Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have suggested that the court should reconsider Obergefell, which was decided by a 5-4 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, now a swing vote, issued a strong dissent in the Obergefell ruling. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe, Thomas directly argued that the rationale the court used to negate a right to abortion should be used to overturn cases that established rights to same-sex marriage, consensual same-sex relations and contraception. Next month Mathew Staver, a Southern Baptist and the chair of the Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case about Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015. That request will directly ask the court to overturn Obergefell, he said. Staver has been trying for two decades to use the courts to stop same-sex marriage, ever since states began to legalize it in 2004. Advertisement Earlier this year his group worked with legislators in Idaho on the language of a resolution that passed the Idaho House of Representatives calling on the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. Republican lawmakers, at times drawing on certain Christian principles, introduced similar measures calling for Obergefell's reversal in states like Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, and partially passed them in North Dakota and Idaho. 'That begins to show a sentiment from legislative officials, and it just begins to build a momentum,' Staver said. And while efforts like the SBC measure and the resolutions in the states have been largely independent of each other, he said, 'that momentum results in more coordination' between ideologically aligned groups, which was effective in overturning Roe. The Southern Baptist Convention, a largely conservative network of churches, has taken a rightward turn in recent years, particularly on issues of marriage, family and sex. It has also struggled following revelations of widespread sexual abuse of women and children, and the mishandling of those allegations over decades. The annual meeting is often regarded as a bellwether for broader evangelical sentiment on various political and cultural issues, even though it technically represents the views of only the 10,000 or so members who typically attend and vote, not of all 13 million members. Last year, Southern Baptists voted to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization, passing a resolution that Walker and Mohler proposed as part of a push to advance the 'fetal personhood' movement. The vote greatly worried many other evangelicals who rely on fertility treatments to have children and who believe IVF is life-promoting. Advertisement In 2023, Southern Baptists decided to expel several churches with female pastors, including one of the denomination's largest and most prominent congregations. An attempt to further expand restrictions on women in church leadership gained traction in 2023 but did not pass a second required vote in 2024. That effort is expected to be revived this week. This article originally appeared in
