The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear any arguments aimed at restricting states from sueing states for financial damages related to climate change.
The argument was brought in the High Court by 19 Republican Attorney Generals representing states, including Alabama and West Virginia, who were trying to prevent other states led by Democrats. These states include California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island.
These democratically-led states have sued major fossil fuel companies that have allegedly deceived the public for decades over the effects of greenhouse emissions. The case includes a 2023 lawsuit filed by the California 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 representing the interests of fossil fuels.
“This was nothing more than an attempt to carry out interference, to help the accused avoid accountability and to help them politicize in the constitution,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said in a statement. He filed a state deception lawsuit in 2020.
Now, these cases can proceed with the official denial of the Supreme Court.
There are dozens of pending cases designed to force fossil fuel companies to pay financial damages related to climate change, according to Michael Gerrard, director of the Savin Climate Change Law Center at Columbia University.
In January, the Supreme Court rejected the oil industry's request to consider Hawaii's Supreme Court decision to allow the state's climate deception case to go to trial, indicating that the Republican attorney general may not agree to efforts to block such cases.
Advocates of the effort argue that state cases are unconstitutional and could affect interstate commerce. “They're doing this,” said Donald Kochan, a law professor at the Antoninscalia School of Law at George Mason University.
For example, Kochan said that if a state wants to encourage fossil fuel production, its ability to do so could be affected if oil and gas prices rise due to liability risks from lawsuits in other states.
Legal experts have extraordinarily called Republican-led efforts in the Supreme Court as they aimed at the state's claim before being addressed by the state court. Gerrard said in an email that listening to the argument was “surprising” for the national Supreme Court, as this allows Pandora's box to be opened for requests to end other types of lawsuits prematurely.
“The Supreme Court says it won't interfere,” he said, “at least for now.”
The lawsuit is separate but related to the new climate “superfund” law group that aims to require polluters to explain the impact that greenhouse gas emissions have on cities, counties or states. They are called the Super Fund Act because they roughly model long-standing Super Fund programs to clean up toxic waste sites.
The first Climate Superfund Act came into effect in Vermont last summer, followed by a New York version in December. Both face legal challenges. A coalition of 22 states led by West Virginia sued New York for passing the law in February.
