Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits Against Oil and Gas Companies to Proceed

The Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed appeals by oil and gas companies seeking to stop lawsuits against them aiming to force them to pay damages relating to climate change. The justices ruled in the case that permits lawsuits brought by several states and municipalities— Justice Kavanaugh—continue to go ahead in state courts. This decision comes with the backdrop of over 230 lawsuits filed since the Paris Agreement in 2015, and two-thirds of them having been filed in just the last three years alone. Analyzing scores of news articles about this major Supreme Court ruling was part of the research for this story.

The lawsuits say the companies misled the public about the role of fossil fuels in climate change, an alleged deception that has imposed massive costs on governments from events like wildfires, sea-level rise and intense storms. The cases are part of a growing trend in which legal action is used to try to deal with climate change through the courts.

While a few sources did not mention individual companies, several were found throughout the research material. These include:

• Sunoco
• Shell
• Chevron
• ExxonMobil
• BP
• ConocoPhillips

Many of the companies are based in Texas. The companies have argued that emissions are a national issue and should be heard in federal court, where they have won previous dismissals of similar lawsuits. They say the lawsuits are a serious threat to a crucial industry. The suits break down into three general categories:

• Compensation for climate damages (38 percent of cases)
• Misleading advertising claims (16 percent)
• Emissions reduction (12 percent)

Potential Implications and Reactions

The decision by the Supreme Court has significant implications for future climate change litigation. In allowing these cases to move forward in state courts, the decision does leave the companies more exposed to liability and increases the likelihood of additional lawsuits. This is a tactical shift in climate change litigation, where plaintiffs have increasingly targeted state courts because of perceived benefits.

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, feared the decision could “empower activists to become the nation’s energy regulators by using litigation.” Adam White, a senior fellow at the institute, said he hoped the Supreme Court would eventually take up the issue to put an end to such lawsuits and ensure constitutional accountability.

The Biden administration, which had asked the court to turn away the appeal, defended keeping the lawsuits in state court. But with the incoming Trump administration likely to take a different view on environmental law and energy production, the future of climate change litigation is uncertain.

The ruling was met with applause from the other side, by those who want to hold the industry accountable for its role in climate change. According to Ben Sullivan, Honolulu’s chief resilience officer, it was a necessary step to protect taxpayers and communities from the costs of the climate crisis.

Expert Opinions

While specific expert opinions were scant in the research material, some sources suggested the ruling is a huge victory for climate change activists and can prove to be an avenue leading to increased accountability against fossil fuel companies. This new era of legal battles waged in the courts of states instead of the federal ones may prove to bring more favorable judgments toward those parties seeking accountability from companies for their contributions to climate change. Others expressed concerns about fairness to the companies and the prospect of costly and prolonged litigation.

Conclusion

The refusal of the Supreme Court to entertain appeals by oil and gas companies marks a significant turn in climate change litigation. By permitting such lawsuits in state courts, the decision could allow for closer inspection of the industry’s role in climate change and may eventually pave the way toward accountability. With the fluid political environment and potential future litigation, however, it still remains to be seen how this order will stand in the longer term. Incendiary reactions were elicited from the decision—the very complexity of the climate change legal and political questions brings forth acuteness. Certainly, that change will stick as a determinant factor in handling the issue through the U.S. system. The landmark ruling could signal a turning point in the fight against climate change, potentially forcing industries to reckon with their environmental impact and paving the way for more aggressive climate action in the years to come.

Related YouTube video resources: