Supreme Court weighs climate-change cases
Big Oil argues that lawsuits from state, city belong in federal court
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments from oil companies Tuesday that state and municipal lawsuits seeking damages for the costs of climate change belong in federal and not state courts.
While justices won’t decide the merits of the climate lawsuits — at least not for now — a decision favoring oil companies would effectively block efforts to sue them under state and local nuisance laws.
It also would leave with the Supreme Court the ultimate question of whether oil companies and other polluters can be held liable for greenhouse gas emissions that have been a constant of human society for centuries.
The arguments stem from a 2018 lawsuit in Maryland state court by Baltimore city officials who argued that oil companies including BP, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell should be held liable for selling oil and natural gas despite evidence that greenhouse gas emissions were warming the planet dan
gerously.
The oil companies attempted to have the case moved to federal court, arguing they had sold fossil fuels at the direction of the federal government. But their request was denied in by U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollande, an Obama appointee, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In March, the oil companies filed a request with the Supreme Court, arguing the Fourth Circuit had not correctly considered the case and the justices should make clear the scores of ongoing climate suits in state courts around the country belong in federal court.
Such a decision effectively would halt efforts to hold companies liable for greenhouse gas emissions, after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2011 that federal pollution laws prohibit such litigation in the federal court system.
Sara Gross, a Baltimore city attorney, called on the Supreme Court to reject the oil companies’ appeal .
“It is time for the case to start moving,” she said. “In the 2 1⁄2 years since we filed this case in Maryland state court, defendants have done everything they can to delay and avoid accountability for their decades of deception about climate change.”
The stakes are high for polluting industries, from airlines to farms, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers joining the oil companies in the case.
They argue that climate change is a “critical issue,” but it was up to government to make policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not the courts.
“This litigation is a counterproductive distraction,” said Phil Goldberg, an attorney representing the National Association of Manufacturers. “It’s not about casting blame. It’s a shared responsibility, and we cannot sue our way out of climate change.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case required at least four justices to sign off. But with Justice Samuel Alito recusing himself from the case — due to stock holdings in Phillips 66 and Conoco Phillips — only eight justices will decide the case.