WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court dealt the oil industry a major setback Monday by refusing to block lawsuits from California and other blue states seeking billions of dollars in damages for the effects of climate change.
Without comment or dissent, the justices rejected closely watched appeals from Sunoco, Shell and other energy producers.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he did not participate in the decision, presumably because he owns stock in companies affected by the dispute.
In Sunoco v. Honolulu, the energy producers asked the justices to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a subject of federal law and not amenable to lawsuits by individual states.
The decision means about two dozen states and localities can prove their claims that major oil producers knew about the potential harms of burning fossil fuels but chose to hide them.
Two years ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against five of the largest oil and gas companies – Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP – and the American Petroleum Institute over what they called a “decade-long campaign.” of deception” that caused climate-related damage in California.
“For more than 50 years, the oil company has been lying to us – covering up the fact that it has long known how dangerous the fossil fuels it produces are to our planet.” Newsom said in announcing the lawsuit.
California's lawsuit followed the pattern of about two dozen similar lawsuits filed by the cities of Baltimore, New York and San Francisco, as well as the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
These lawsuits argue that oil producers used deceptive marketing measures to hide the danger of burning fossil fuels. Under state law, companies can be held liable if they fail to warn consumers of a known danger.
Last month, lawyers for the Biden administration asked the court to step aside for now because the lawsuits are still in their early stages.
The climate lawsuits were modeled on the successful mass lawsuits that states and others had filed against the tobacco industry over cigarettes and the pharmaceutical industry over opioids.
Cigarettes and opioids were sold legally, but the lawsuits alleged that industry officials conspired to deceive the public and hide the true dangers of their highly profitable products.
Under state law, plaintiffs can seek damages for broad and open-ended claims, such as failure to warn of a danger, false advertising or creation of a public nuisance. All three claims are cited in California's lawsuit. In contrast, federal law is typically limited to damages authorized by Congress.
Meanwhile, Alabama and 20 red states asked the court to dismiss those lawsuits from blue states. They said liberal states and their judges should not have the power to set the country's energy policy. The court has not yet decided on this claim.
The case began five years ago Monday when the city and county of Honolulu sued Sunoco and 14 other major oil and gas producers for failing to warn and causing nuisances.
The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the industry's request last year and refused to dismiss the lawsuit.
“Put simply, plaintiffs say the issue is whether defendants misled the public about the dangers and impacts of fossil fuels. “We agree… This lawsuit does not seek to regulate emissions and does not seek damages for interstate emissions,” the said the state court said in a unanimous opinion. “Rather, plaintiffs’ complaint clearly seeks to challenge the advertising and sale of fossil fuel products without warning and aided by a sophisticated disinformation campaign.”
The justices said they would not hear Sunoco v. Honolulu or Shell v. Honolulu.