WASHINGTON — In a major setback for the oil industry, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to block a lawsuit from California and other blue states seeking billions of dollars in damages for the effects of climate change.
Without comment or dissent, the justices dismissed appeals from closely watched Sunoco, Shell and other energy producers.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he was not involved in the ruling, likely because he owns stock in companies affected by the dispute.
In Sunoco v. Honolulu, energy producers asked the judge to intervene in these state lawsuits and argue that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter of federal law and not suitable for state-by-state claims. He asked for a ruling that it was not a problem.
The decision could move some two dozen states and local governments to vindicate claims that major oil producers knew of the potential harm from burning fossil fuels but chose to cover it up. It means having sex.
Two years ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Atty. General Rob Bonta has accused five major oil and gas companies – Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP – and the American Petroleum Institute in San Francisco for what they called a “decades-long campaign.” The lawsuit was filed in county superior court. The “deception” that led to climate-related damage in California.
“For more than 50 years, big oil companies have been lying to us and hiding the fact that they have always known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are to our planet,” Newsom said. He said this when announcing the lawsuit.
The California lawsuit follows a pattern set by about two dozen similar claims from the cities of Baltimore, New York, and San Francisco, and from states centered on Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
These lawsuits allege that oil producers used deceptive marketing to hide the dangers of burning fossil fuels. Under state law, companies can be held liable if they fail to warn consumers about known risks.
Lawyers for the Biden administration last month asked the court to stand aside for now, saying the case was in its early stages.
The climate lawsuit follows successful large-scale lawsuits brought by states and others against the tobacco industry over cigarettes and the pharmaceutical industry over opioids.
Although cigarettes and opioids were sold legally, the lawsuit alleges that industry players conspired to mislead the public and conceal the true dangers of the highly profitable products.
Under state law, plaintiffs can seek damages for broad and open-ended claims, including failure to warn of danger, false advertising and creating a public nuisance. All three claims are cited in the California lawsuit. In contrast, federal law is typically limited to damages claims authorized by Congress.
Meanwhile, Alabama and 20 other red states asked the court to throw out the blue states’ lawsuit. They argued that liberal states and their judges should not have the power to determine national policy toward the energy industry. The court has not yet ruled on that claim.
Monday’s case began five years ago, when the city and county of Honolulu sued Sunoco and 14 other major oil and gas producers for failing to warn and causing a nuisance.
The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the industry’s claims last year and refused to dismiss the lawsuit.
“Simply put, the question is whether the defendants misled the public about the dangers and environmental impacts of fossil fuels, the plaintiffs say. We agree… “It does not seek damages for interstate emissions,” the state court said in a unanimous opinion. “Rather, Plaintiffs’ complaint clearly seeks to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil fuel products without warning and instigated by sophisticated disinformation campaigns.”
The judges said they would not hear the Sunoco vs. Honolulu and Shell vs. Honolulu games.
