(Article from Climate Change Alert, February 2025)
Alabama v. California, No. 158 (U.S.)
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently evaluating whether to hear a suit brought by a coalition of attorney generals in 19 states, led by the Alabama Attorney General, challenging the ability of other states to pursue climate change claims against fossil fuel companies. The case arises from a unique procedural posture: co-Plaintiffs went directly to the U.S. Supreme Court without litigating their claims before a trial or intervening appellate court.
The defendant states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—are actively pursuing climate change claims against defendants in the fossil fuel industry, as discussed in further detail below in this Alert. The Alabama Attorney General and co-Plaintiffs argue that these state-initiated climate change suits should be enjoined because federal law, and in particular the Clean Air Act, precludes state-law claims related to injuries from climate change. The Alabama Attorney General also raises separation of powers and Commerce Clause claims, arguing that the Defendants states should not be permitted through litigation to “set emissions policy well beyond their borders.”
The Alabama certiorari petition generated substantial interest from amici, with dozens of interested parties filing briefs advocating for and against the Supreme Court’s review. At the U.S. Supreme Court’s request, the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office filed an amicus curiae brief on December 10, 2024. The U.S. Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court not to hear the cases, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene. The Clean Air Act does not preempt the underlying climate change suits, in the U.S. Solicitor General’s view, because the Clean Air Act regulates pollution only, not deception and misstatements underlying the allegations in the climate change suits.
We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to decide early this year whether it will accept certiorari in Alabama. It is also possible that the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office may amend its submissions to argue in favor of review and preemption under the new presidential administration.
Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Nos. 23-947; 23-952 (U.S.)
On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a climate suit brought by the City and County of Honolulu filing suit against fossil fuel companies including Sunoco, Aloha Petroleum Ltd., ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BHP Group. The City and County’s First Amended Complaint sought relief for climate change harms under theories of failure to warn, negligence, and trespass, and sought compensatory damages and equitable relief. The district court denied Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss on multiple grounds, concluding that (1) specific jurisdiction in Hawaii is proper because Defendants are alleged to have engaged in tortious acts in Hawaii and have extensive contacts in Hawaii; and (2) federal common law does not preempt Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Preemption does not apply, the district court concluded, because the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law without reaching the same subject now at issue in the Plaintiff’s claims, which challenge the promotion and sale of fossil-fuel products. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed on all grounds.
Defendants sought certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to decide whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries caused by climate change. By declining certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court left in place the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling affirming denial of the motions to dismiss. The case should therefore return to the trial court for discovery and further litigation.