Latest news with #SherEdling
Forbes
28-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Lawfare Campaign Targeting Big Oil Comes To Charleston
Aerial view of historic Charleston, South Carolina. (Photo by: Visions of America/Joseph ... More Sohm/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) Another key hearing related to a foundering anti-oil and gas lawfare effort is scheduled to take place in Charleston, South Carolina starting on Thursday, May 29. The case, brought by the City of Charleston, represented by the Sher Edling firm headquartered in San Francisco, is the latest attempt by a state or local government entity to hold oil companies liable for ill-defined impacts related to climate change. Thus far, this lawfare campaign involving Sher Edling and other law firms recruiting government entities to essentially serve as sponsors of the lawsuit filings has seen little success, as most cases have been dismissed in the courts. Indeed, in 10 global emissions tort cases to reach the merits in which Chevron has been named as a defendant, 9 have been tossed, with only the case brought by the city and county of Honolulu proceeding on the merits in state court under Hawaii state law. Three additional such cases were voluntarily dismissed by the named plaintiffs when it became apparent they would not prevail. The City of Charleston case involves Chevron, along with most other 'big oil' companies doing business in the United States, a true scattergun approach. The city claims it has somehow been damaged to the tune of billions of dollars on allegations that the companies have sought to hide the climate impacts from emissions resulting from the refining and usage of the products they produce. As they have done in every other case brought and dismissed by various states and cities which have been recruited for this lawfare campaign, lawyers for the defendants argue that this case must also be dismissed because it is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and provisions in the federal Clean Air Act barring lawsuits that seek relief for injuries allegedly caused by out-of-state and international greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government has long held primacy over the regulation of air emissions as a matter of both legal principle and simple common sense. If state and even local governments were allowed to enforce regulatory schemes of their own, it would become near impossible for any company whose products and enterprise results in such emissions to conduct business in the United States. While the Charleston case was making its way through the courts, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14260, which seeks to restrict the ability of states and local governments to participate in this sort of lawfare campaign enhances the urgency for the judge to rule in the case. In response, Circuit Judge Roger M. Young, Sr. requested both sides to present arguments in advance of Thursday's hearing. The two sides responded with a joint filing filed in early May. Lawyers for the City of Charleston urged Judge Young to essentially ignore the presidential order, saying that the constitutionality of their case is up to the courts to decide. "The city submits that any deference to this executive order, especially given its forward-looking intent, threatens the core import of judicial review," they write. "Neither this executive order nor the executive branch possess constitutional authority to dictate to this court or the judicial system how to rule in pending cases." In that joint filing, the lawyers for the defendants said the Trump order only serves to make their case stronger, reinforcing their arguments that such claims are preempted by both the U.S. Constitution and federal law and must be dismissed. They further argue that the order 'also reflects the consistent position of the federal government, across multiple administrations, that lawsuits such as Plaintiff's that seek relief for harms allegedly caused by global climate change are precluded and preempted.' In something of a twist, the defendants are also able to point to an amicus brief filed in the case by the Attorney General of South Carolina, Alan Wilson, who weighed in in support of their position. 'As the courts in both the City of New York and the City Council of Baltimore also recognized,' Wilson writes, 'Congress's enactment of the Clean Air Act does not change the fact that our federal structure and commitment to the equality of the States requires federal law to apply to claims over global climate change and preclude the application of state laws in such cases.' Wilson goes onto conclude, 'that structural feature requires the Court to dismiss plaintiff's claims as preempted,' adding, 'To rule otherwise would be an affront to the dignity of all states and would violate the Constitution.' Noting that "Virtually identical lawsuits — brought by the same plaintiffs' attorneys — have been dismissed by multiple federal and state courts across the country,' Chevron attorney Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said in a statement that, "These claims based on interstate and international emissions are precluded and preempted by federal law and must be dismissed under clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent." At the end of the day, a clear court consensus appears to have coalesced related to this lawfare campaign, which has now involved years of hearings and filings in many separate jurisdictions, forcing the defendants to waste thousands of man hours and millions of dollars in defending themselves. The executive order issued by President Trump was an attempt to memorialize that consensus which has ruled in all but the case in Honolulu - which is still ongoing - and speed the end of this wasteful exercise. Perhaps Judge Young will bring an end to this madness, at least in South Carolina. Such a judgment could help to prevent more cases from popping up in other jurisdictions governed by public officials willing to lend their state's or city's name this lawfare campaign.
E&E News
05-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Puerto Rico drops $1B climate lawsuit as Trump targets state cases
Puerto Rico has withdrawn its $1 billion climate lawsuit against the oil and gas industry, days after the Trump administration sued two states in an effort to block climate litigation. In a notice filed Friday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, the government said it 'voluntarily dismisses this entire case.' It did not elaborate. The filing, which was signed by the government's local counsel and California-based Sher Edling, a law firm that represents a number of communities that have filed similar lawsuits, said it would dismiss the case 'without prejudice' — allowing for it to be refiled. Advertisement The government did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Sher Edling said the firm serves 'under the direction and control, and at the pleasure of, our clients in all of our representations.'
The Guardian
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Puerto Rico drops climate lawsuit after DoJ sues states to block threats to big oil
Puerto Rico has voluntarily dismissed its 2024 climate lawsuit against big oil, a Friday legal filing shows, just two days after the US justice department sued two states over planned litigation against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis. Puerto Rico's lawsuit, filed in July, alleged that the oil and gas giants had misled the public about the climate dangers associated with their products. It came as part of a wave of litigation filed by dozens of US states, cities and municipalities in recent years. Donald Trump's administration has pledged to put an end to these cases, which he has called 'frivolous' and claimed are unconstitutional. In court filings on Wednesday, his justice department claimed the Clean Air Act 'displaces' states' ability to regulate greenhouse gas outside their borders. The agency specifically targeted Michigan, whose Democratic attorney general last year tapped private law firms to work on such a case, and Hawaii, whose Democratic governor filed its suit on Thursday. Officials from both states condemned the justice department's filings. Friday's filing from Puerto Rico did not list a reason for the lawsuit's dismissal. The Guardian has contacted the territory's attorney general's office for comment and asked whether it was related to the Trump administration's moves on Wednesday. Reached for comment, John Lamson, a spokesperson for the San Francisco-based law firm Sher Edling, which filed the 2024 suit on behalf of Puerto Rico said: 'We serve under the direction and control, and at the pleasure, of our clients in all of our representations.' Puerto Rico in November elected Republican governor Jenniffer González-Colón, a Trump ally. In February, González-Colón tapped Janet Parra-Mercado as the territory's new attorney general. Climate-accountability litigation has also faced recent attacks in the media. Last month, an oilfield services executive published an op-ed in Forbes saying the Puerto Rico lawsuit 'may derail' efforts to improve grid reliability. Groups tied to far-right legal architect Leonard Leo have also campaigned against the lawsuits. In December, a California-based trade association of commercial fishers voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit accusing big oil of climate deception. In two earlier lawsuits, thirty-seven Puerto Rico municipalities and the capital city of San Juan accused fossil fuel companies of conspiring to deceive the public about the climate crisis, seeking to hold them accountable for the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - DC's baseless lawsuit against energy producers must be dismissed
The District of Columbia has joined a growing trend of progressive states, cities and municipalities across the country litigating the alleged impacts of global carbon emissions in state courts. Bottom line: The lawsuits seek to extract payment from America's energy producers purportedly to offset often amorphous climate adaptation programs — but in many cases more likely just to offset debts from poorly managed budgets. On Thursday, March 20, and after years of procedural wrangling, the District of Columbia Superior Court heard arguments from energy producers regarding why it should dismiss the District's meritless lawsuit — which names Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell Oil and Chevron among its defendants. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by San Francisco-based law firm Sher Edling, allege that the energy industry has caused global warming, resulting in rising sea levels, flooding and 'longer-lasting and more severe storms.' The suit also alleges that infrastructure damage either has or may result at some future point. Further, it says the defendants defrauded consumers by promoting their environmentally sensitive innovations and by not sharing information about climate change. In other words, the plaintiffs argue that but for the defendants' lawful marketing efforts, consumers would not have bought or consumed fossil fuels. Around the country, energy companies are litigating approximately thirty such suits. This 'flood the zone' litigation strategy is not about advancing claims moored in traditional or accepted standards for liability. It is about leverage. The cases are designed to pressure the defendants to settle with terms requiring fundamental changes to industry practices — such as bans on drilling or requirements to subsidize less reliable wind and solar power — as well as damages awards the plaintiffs will use for anything from Green New Deal-type spending to backfilling steep municipal budget deficits. The companies must successfully defend all of these baseless lawsuits; losing even a handful would be catastrophic to the energy sector. But that appears to be the top goal of Sher Edling and those who fund them. While the law firm has yet to win any of the more than 25 such lawfare cases on a contingency basis, it can afford to keep going. That's because its efforts are being underwritten to the tune of millions of dollars a year from climate activist organizations. A Republican staff report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability revealed that, in 2022, sources such as the Resources Legacy Fund, New Venture Fund and the Tides Foundation supported the firm's efforts. The novel litigation theories being advanced in these cases are riddled with legal problems. Chief among the flaws in the District of Columbia's lawsuit, along with the over two dozen identical lawsuits, is the plaintiffs' attempt to get state or D.C. courts to set national climate policy by way of judicial decree rather than careful legislation deliberation. Courts are neither permitted nor suited to accomplish the careful balancing and policymaking involved. Thankfully, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the Clean Air Act, that authority is reserved for Congress. Thus, city, state and local law is preempted by federal law — it is void and unenforceable. Time and time again, when state or federal courts have confronted the preemption issues, they have found these cases barred. Just last month, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd dismissed a nearly identical case with prejudice, stating that 'plaintiffs' claims are preempted because federal common law governs this dispute.' He added that 'Fundamental principles of federalism in the United States Constitution are clear that state law cannot operate in areas of 'uniquely federal interests,' and 'such a uniquely federal area is interstate air pollution.' The Sher Edling-managed case for San Francisco and Oakland was likewise dismissed in 2018 by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed New York City's climate change lawsuit in 2021 because 'judicial caution and foreign policy concerns' suggest such claims should not proceed absent clear congressional direction. The Second Circuit held that 'To permit this suit to proceed under state law would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.' Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown dismissed that city's case in July, noting that Congress never intended adjudication of climate suits in individual state courts.. By similarly finding preemption in the District of Columbia case and granting the recently heard motion to dismiss, the District of Columbia Superior Court can preserve the will of Congress expressed, and its sphere of authority exerted, in its Clean Air Act. Suing energy companies has become a cottage industry for activists hoping to cripple America's energy industry and trial lawyers chasing a get-rich-quick scheme. These are ridiculous attempts to assign a small number of energy producers sole responsibility for a complex worldwide concern and the alleged climate change damages associated with it. But what ultimately matters most is that the law is not on their side. The D.C. Superior Court has a chance to once again make that clear. Donald J. Kochan is a professor of law and executive director of the Law & Economics Center at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
DC's baseless lawsuit against energy producers must be dismissed
The District of Columbia has joined a growing trend of progressive states, cities and municipalities across the country litigating the alleged impacts of global carbon emissions in state courts. Bottom line: The lawsuits seek to extract payment from America's energy producers purportedly to offset often amorphous climate adaptation programs — but in many cases more likely just to offset debts from poorly managed budgets. On Thursday, March 20, and after years of procedural wrangling, the District of Columbia Superior Court heard arguments from energy producers regarding why it should dismiss the District's meritless lawsuit — which names Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell Oil and Chevron among its defendants. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by San Francisco-based law firm Sher Edling, allege that the energy industry has caused global warming, resulting in rising sea levels, flooding and 'longer-lasting and more severe storms.' The suit also alleges that infrastructure damage either has or may result at some future point. Further, it says the defendants defrauded consumers by promoting their environmentally sensitive innovations and by not sharing information about climate change. In other words, the plaintiffs argue that but for the defendants' lawful marketing efforts, consumers would not have bought or consumed fossil fuels. Around the country, energy companies are litigating approximately thirty such suits. This 'flood the zone' litigation strategy is not about advancing claims moored in traditional or accepted standards for liability. It is about leverage. The cases are designed to pressure the defendants to settle with terms requiring fundamental changes to industry practices — such as bans on drilling or requirements to subsidize less reliable wind and solar power — as well as damages awards the plaintiffs will use for anything from Green New Deal-type spending to backfilling steep municipal budget deficits. The companies must successfully defend all of these baseless lawsuits; losing even a handful would be catastrophic to the energy sector. But that appears to be the top goal of Sher Edling and those who fund them. While the law firm has yet to win any of the more than 25 such lawfare cases on a contingency basis, it can afford to keep going. That's because its efforts are being underwritten to the tune of millions of dollars a year from climate activist organizations. A Republican staff report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability revealed that, in 2022, sources such as the Resources Legacy Fund, New Venture Fund and the Tides Foundation supported the firm's efforts. The novel litigation theories being advanced in these cases are riddled with legal problems. Chief among the flaws in the District of Columbia's lawsuit, along with the over two dozen identical lawsuits, is the plaintiffs' attempt to get state or D.C. courts to set national climate policy by way of judicial decree rather than careful legislation deliberation. Courts are neither permitted nor suited to accomplish the careful balancing and policymaking involved. Thankfully, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the Clean Air Act, that authority is reserved for Congress. Thus, city, state and local law is preempted by federal law — it is void and unenforceable. Time and time again, when state or federal courts have confronted the preemption issues, they have found these cases barred. Just last month, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd dismissed a nearly identical case with prejudice, stating that 'plaintiffs' claims are preempted because federal common law governs this dispute.' He added that 'Fundamental principles of federalism in the United States Constitution are clear that state law cannot operate in areas of 'uniquely federal interests,' and 'such a uniquely federal area is interstate air pollution.' The Sher Edling-managed case for San Francisco and Oakland was likewise dismissed in 2018 by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed New York City's climate change lawsuit in 2021 because 'judicial caution and foreign policy concerns' suggest such claims should not proceed absent clear congressional direction. The Second Circuit held that 'To permit this suit to proceed under state law would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.' Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown dismissed that city's case in July, noting that Congress never intended adjudication of climate suits in individual state courts.. By similarly finding preemption in the District of Columbia case and granting the recently heard motion to dismiss, the District of Columbia Superior Court can preserve the will of Congress expressed, and its sphere of authority exerted, in its Clean Air Act. Suing energy companies has become a cottage industry for activists hoping to cripple America's energy industry and trial lawyers chasing a get-rich-quick scheme. These are ridiculous attempts to assign a small number of energy producers sole responsibility for a complex worldwide concern and the alleged climate change damages associated with it. But what ultimately matters most is that the law is not on their side. The D.C. Superior Court has a chance to once again make that clear.
