Superior Court judge rejects Chevron's motion to dismiss landmark climate change lawsuit
The Chevron logo is displayed at a Chevron gas station on May 22, 2023 in Burbank, Calif. A Rhode Island Superior Court judge on April 22 rejected Chevron's attempt to gut the state's complaint against Chevron and 20 other oil and gas companies named in a 2018 lawsuit brought by Rhode Island's attorney general on alleged procedural violations. (Photo by)
Rhode Island's first-in-the-nation state lawsuit against fossil fuel companies continues into its seventh year after surviving an attempt by one of the defendants to gut the state's case on alleged procedural violations.
Rhode Island Associate Justice William E. Carnes in an April 22 decision rejected all of the arguments made by Chevron Corporation.
Chevron was one of 21 oil and gas companies sued for its role in exacerbating climate change in a landmark state climate change lawsuit brought by then-Attorney General Peter Kilmartin in 2018. The complaint seeks damages from fossil fuel companies on the assertion that for each company, '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.'
After years of appeals, concluding after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case in April 2023, Chevron returned to state court seeking to have a portion of the case thrown out. The company contended 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.
Attorneys for both sides made their case before Carnes in an April 16 hearing in Providence County Superior Court.
Carnes in his 15-page decision concluded there was no evidence of improper actions by the state — at least, not enough to meet the 'high bar' of imposing penalties for Rule 11 violations.
'The Court must balance competing concerns when evaluating whether to issue sanctions because sanctions 'can haunt an attorney throughout his or her career' with 'ramifications [that] go far beyond the particular case,'' Carnes wrote, quoting from a 2017 state Supreme Court decision reversing a lower court's sanctions against an attorney in the case.
Carnes' rejection of Chevron's pleadings does not signal an outcome on the overall decision in the case, including potentially awarding damages from fossil fuel companies. The next hearing in the case is slated for May 8, according to the public court docket.
Timothy Rondeau, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General, praised Carnes' decision.
'We are grateful for Judge Carnes' careful consideration, evaluation, and ultimate conclusion that the State acted properly,' Rondeau said in a statement Thursday. 'We look forward to continuing to fight on behalf of Rhode Islanders and for environmental justice.'
While legal precedent demands a specific standard to penalize attorneys for procedural violations, there is no formal court ruling or history on the use of 'and/or,' another key part of Chevron's legal arguments. Attorneys for Chevron insisted the state's use of 'and/or' in its original complaint meant it must prove that all of listed fossil fuel activities — manufacturing, refinement, sales and more — were performed by each company in Rhode Island. Attorneys for the state countered that the 'and/or' caveat meant at least one, but not all, of the listed activities, could be proven.
Carnes' conclusion?
'Rhode Island has not formally adopted any legal precedent around the use of 'and/or,' and, even if Rhode Island courts had done so, the State's Complaint is not improper because the contested allegations are well grounded in fact based on the State's interpretation of paragraph 21(g) and Chevron's filings with the State of Rhode Island,' he wrote.
He also pushed back against Chevron's citations from the websites of the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources and the U.S. Department of Energy, both of which said there is no oil production or refinement in Rhode Island. Carnes' noted that the federal information was outdated — based on data from 2011 to 2014 — while the state website information does not specify if petroleum-based fuels were ever produced in Rhode Island, simply that they are not locally produced at present.
Other exhibits filed by attorneys for the state, including business filings with the Rhode Island Department of State, suggest Chevron and its subsidiaries have done sales business in Rhode Island as recently as 2024.
'It cannot be fairly said that the allegations which Chevron has moved to strike have no relation to the controversy because the State provided evidence that Chevron may have had Rhode Island manufacturing, refining, and other raw material activities,' Carnes wrote.
Carnes on April 16 ordered Chevron to hand over additional documentation regarding its business activity in Rhode Island. The company has 90 days to turn over evidence to the state for its case.
Judges in four other states, including New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and New York have tossed similar state, county or city-level challenges against fossil fuel companies. But dozens more remain under consideration in state-level courts across the country, including in Massachusetts.
And in March, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the bid led by Republican state attorneys general that would have blocked these lawsuits from proceeding.
Theodore Boutrous, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in California representing Chevron, pointed to the dismissals in other state courts in a response Thursday to Carnes' decision.
'As the New Jersey Superior Court held in dismissing New Jersey's similar state lawsuit, 'the leading and most persuasive case supporting dismissal is the Second Circuit decision in City of New York,'' Boutrous said in an emailed statement. 'There, the federal appeals court rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
3 hours ago
- Business Wire
Global Short Sellers Circle Live Nation, Marriott, Kering, and ANTA Sports as Recession Fears Rise
NEW YORK & LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The increased risks of a potential recession have continued to gain momentum over the last several months, and short sellers have taken note, according to the latest Hazeltree May 2025 Shortside Crowdedness Report. Major consumer brands, including half of the top-10 most crowded shorts in the Americas, were identified by , a leader in active treasury and intelligent operations technology for the alternative asset industry, alongside notable companies such as Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Chevron Corporation, Marriott International, Inc., Charter Communications, and Dell Technologies Inc. Overseas, luxury goods fashion conglomerates Kering S.A. and LVMH were among the most crowded shorts in EMEA, with a score of 99, followed by consumer lifestyle sporting goods and leisure lifestyle brands ANTA Sports Products Limited and Oriental Land Co., Ltd., which ranked among the top crowded shorts in APAC. The report is a monthly listing of the top 10 most crowded shorted securities in the Americas, EMEA, and APAC regions, categorized by large-, mid-, and small-cap ranges. Hazeltree compiles data from its proprietary securities finance platform data, which tracks approximately 15,000 global equities across the Americas, EMEA, and APAC. The data, available to select clients, is aggregated and anonymized from the contributing Hazeltree community, which comprises approximately 700 asset management funds. The firm assigns securities a Hazeltree Crowdedness Score, a key metric that grades securities on a scale of 1 to 99, with 99 representing the highest concentration of shorting activity. This scoring highlights securities most targeted by investors and reflects key supply-demand dynamics. 'We witnessed an extension of consumer spending taking root across the globe as major lifestyle brands shot to the top of Hazeltree's most crowded shorts across companies focused on entertainment, energy, fashion, travel, electronics, and more,' said Tim Smith, Managing Director of Data Insights at Hazeltree. 'In the Americas, we also noticed large-cap stocks turning back toward tech, with five out of the most crowded shorts from four in April. Mid-cap company MARA Holdings, Inc. - the digital asset crypto mining company - also is a noteworthy standout and had an unusually high institutional supply utilization at 72.48% with the increasing investing fervor around Bitcoin.' Highlights from the May 2025 report include: Americas In the large-cap category, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Chevron Corporation were the most crowded securities with a score of 99. Super Micro Computer, Inc. became the second most crowded security with a score of 97 and held the highest institutional supply utilization figure (48.24%) for the sixth straight month. In the mid-cap category, Albemarle Corporation is the most crowded security for the second time in 2025 with a Hazeltree Crowdedness Score of 99, while MARA Holdings, Inc. held the highest institutional supply utilization figure (72.48%). In the small-cap category, Kohl's Corporation was the most crowded security with a score of 99. PureCycle Technologies, Inc. had the highest institutional supply utilization (83.49%). EMEA In the large-cap category, Kering S.A. rejoined LVMH as the most crowded securities with a score of 99 and BE Semiconductor Industries N.V. had the highest institutional supply utilization (32.68%). In the mid-cap category, Davide Campari-Milano N.V. was the most crowded security (99) and had the highest institutional supply utilization (55.94%). In the small-cap category, WH Smith PLC, SSP Group plc, CVS Group plc, Senior PLC, and Basic-Fit N.V. were the most crowded securities, achieving a score of 99. Basic-Fit N.V. also topped institutional supply utilization (88.70%) for the second straight month. APAC In the large-cap category, Fujikura Ltd. ascended to the top with a score of 99. Quanta Computer Inc. had the highest institutional supply utilization (22.24%). In the mid-cap category, Mercari, Inc. reappeared for the second month, joined by Ibiden Co., Ltd. and WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd., as the most crowded securities with a score of 99. WuXi AppTec also held the highest institutional supply utilization for the last three months (42.66%). In the small-cap category, Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. and Ganfeng Lithium Group Co Ltd were the most crowded securities (99). Ganfeng had the highest institutional supply utilization (52.07%). To view Hazeltree's May 2025 Shortside Crowdedness Report and past reports, click here. Note to editors: If you are a member of the media/press and would like to be included on the distribution list for this report, please contact btanner@ Hazeltree Shortside Crowdedness Report Methodology The Shortside Crowdedness Report tracks shorting activity in three different metrics: Hazeltree Crowdedness Score: This score represents securities that are being shorted by the highest percentage of funds in Hazeltree's community in a pre-defined category. The securities are graded on a scale of 1-99, with 99 representing the security that the highest percentage of funds are shorting. Institutional Supply Utilization: This figure represents the percentage of the institutional investors' supply of a particular security that is being lent out. The institutional supply utilization rate is an indicator of how 'hot' a security is in terms of the supply-demand dynamic. It is possible to see 100% utilization of a security's availability, making it difficult to establish new short positions. Hazeltree Community Borrow Fee: This figure is the average weighted fee for what funds in the Hazeltree community are paying to borrow a security. The fee is represented as the annualized cost calculated as a percentage of the price of the security. About Hazeltree Hazeltree is a leader in active treasury and intelligent operations technology. Purpose-built for the alternative asset management ecosystem, Hazeltree's modular platform aggregates internal and external data, providing a comprehensive view of operations and counterparty relationships while proactively highlighting opportunities to extract more value from every transaction. Hazeltree is headquartered in New York with offices in London, Bournemouth, and Hong Kong. For more information, please visit
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.
