The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals from fossil fuel companies, allowing climate change lawsuits to proceed in state courts.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court rejects oil and gas companies’ appeals, enabling climate change lawsuits to continue in state courts
- States seek billions in damages for climate-related impacts like wildfires and rising sea levels
- Lawsuits claim the oil and gas industry misled the public about fossil fuels’ impact on climate change
- Biden administration advised keeping the case in state court, opposing the companies’ appeal
- Decision could lead to more local climate change regulations and liability assignments
Supreme Court’s Decision Opens Door for State-Level Climate Litigation
The U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant decision by refusing to hear appeals from oil and gas companies, allowing climate change-related lawsuits to proceed in state courts. This move marks a pivotal moment in environmental litigation, potentially exposing major fossil fuel companies to billions of dollars in damages for their alleged role in climate change.
States including California, Colorado, and New Jersey are at the forefront of these legal actions, seeking compensation for climate-related impacts such as wildfires and rising sea levels. The lawsuits claim that the oil and gas industry deliberately misled the public about the impact of fossil fuels on climate change.
Fossil fuel industry made full-court press to get Supreme Court to take this case as an effort to block the 28 cases pending against them, mostly by states and cities, for climate damages. No dissents from cert denial. https://t.co/mDuLc9R3Zk
— Michael Gerrard (@MichaelGerrard) January 13, 2025
Industry Response and Legal Implications
The oil and gas industry has argued that greenhouse gas emissions are a national issue and should be handled in federal court. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow these cases to proceed in state courts has significant implications for the industry.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” attorneys representing multiple companies said.
They added that these lawsuits “present a serious threat to one of the nation’s most vital industries.”
The companies involved in these lawsuits include major players such as Sunoco, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and BP. The potential financial impact on these corporations could be substantial, possibly leading to more legal actions against them in the future.
Government Stance and Broader Implications
The Biden administration’s position on this matter is noteworthy. They advised the Supreme Court to keep the case in state court, opposing the companies’ appeal. This stance aligns with the administration’s broader climate change agenda and efforts to hold corporations accountable for environmental impacts.
“This landmark legislation shifts the cost of climate adaptation from everyday New Yorkers to the fossil fuel companies most responsible for the pollution. By creating a Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program, this law ensures that these companies contribute to the funding of critical infrastructure investments, such as coastal protection and flood mitigation systems, to enhance the climate resilience of communities across the state,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s office stated.
The Supreme Court’s decision may lead to more local climate change regulations and liability assignments. This could potentially reshape the landscape of environmental responsibility and corporate accountability in the United States.
Criticism and Future Outlook
Critics argue that these lawsuits distort constitutional federalism and state tort law. Adam White, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, expressed concern about the implications of the Court’s decision.
“For years, state and local activists have tried to make themselves the nation’s energy regulators, through state tort litigation. It distorts constitutional federalism and state tort law alike,” White said. “While the Court denied cert in this particular case, cases like this will only continue to proliferate as more and more state officials try to make themselves national energy policy czars.”
As the legal landscape evolves, the impact of these climate change lawsuits on the energy industry and environmental policy remains to be seen. The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant step in the ongoing debate over corporate responsibility for climate change, potentially setting the stage for a new era of environmental litigation at the state level.
