Supreme Court seeks Biden administration’s views in major climate change lawsuits

washington — The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Biden administration to share its views in two cases involving the city of Honolulu’s efforts to hold major oil and gas companies responsible for the impacts of climate change.

The one-line order of the court invites the attorney general to file a brief in two appeals of a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling brought by the energy industry. Minister Samuel Alito did not participate in the consideration of the cases. Although he did not provide an explanation, it is likely that Alito owned shares of ConocoPhillips, one of the companies named in the lawsuits.

The legal battle brought by Honolulu and carried out in Hawaii state court is similar to others brought against the country’s largest energy companies by state and local governments in their courts. Honolulu claims the oil and gas industry engaged in a deceptive campaign and misled the public about the dangers of its fossil fuel products and environmental impacts.

A group of 15 energy companies asked the Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that allowed the lawsuit brought by Honolulu as well as its Water Supply Board to proceed. The lawsuit was filed in Hawaii state court in March 2020, and Honolulu created several claims under state law, including creating a public nuisance and failing to warn the public about the risks posed by its fossil fuel products.

The city has accused the oil and gas industry of contributing to global climate change, which has caused a range of damage, including flooding, erosion and more frequent and intense extreme weather events. These changes, they said, led to property damage and a drop in tax revenues as a result of less tourism.

The energy companies tried unsuccessfully to have the case transferred to federal court, after which a state court denied their efforts to dismiss the case, claiming that claims raised by Honolulu under state law were nullified by the law. federal government and the Clean Air Act.

The oil and gas industry has argued that greenhouse gas emissions “flow from billions of daily choices, over more than a century, by governments, companies and individuals about what types of fuels to use and how to use them.” Honolulu, the companies said, was seeking compensation for the “cumulative effect of global emissions driving global climate change.”

The Hawaii Supreme Court finally allowed the process to continue. The state’s highest court ruled that the Clean Air Act superseded federal common law governing lawsuits seeking compensation for interstate pollution. It also rejected the oil companies’ argument that Honolulu was trying to regulate emissions through its process, concluding that the city wanted instead to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil fuel products “without warning and encouraged by a sophisticated campaign of disinformation.”

“Plaintiffs’ state tort law claims do not seek to regulate emissions and therefore there is no ‘actual conflict’ between Hawaii tort law and the [Clean Air Act],” the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled. “These claims potentially regulate marketing conduct, while the CAA regulates pollution.”

The oil companies then asked the Supreme Court to intervene and urged it to block the Honolulu lawsuit from moving forward. Regulation of interstate pollution is a federal area governed by federal law, energy industry lawyers argued.

“Rarely does a case of such extraordinary importance to one of the country’s most vital industries come before this court,” lawyers for the companies said in a statement. archiving. “Energy companies that produce, sell and trade fossil fuels face numerous lawsuits in state courts across the country, demanding billions of dollars in compensation for injuries allegedly caused by global climate change.”

The oil and gas companies argued that the case raises a “recurrent issue of extraordinary importance to the energy industry,” an issue they urged the Supreme Court to address.

“In these cases, state and local governments are trying to assert control over the nation’s energy policies by holding energy companies accountable for global conduct in ways that completely conflict with the federal government’s policies and priorities,” they said. “It disrespects this court’s precedents and the basic principles of federalism, and the court should put an end to it.”

Honolulu lawyers said in a archiving that the case seeks to hold the oil and gas industry liable under Hawaiian law for “deliberately concealing and misrepresenting the impacts of its fossil fuel products on climate change.”

Its process, the city continued, does not interfere with the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Honolulu legal team accused the oil and gas companies of advancing a theory in the case that “improperly attempts to cloak the long-standing federal common law of interstate pollution in constitutional garb, with no basis in the text or history of the Constitution.”