Supreme Court denies oil industry plea to block climate lawsuits filed by California, other blue states
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to the oil industry Monday, refusing to block lawsuits from California and other blue states that seek billions of dollars in damages for the effects of climate change.
Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down closely watched appeals from Sunoco, Shell and other energy producers.
In Sunoco vs. Honolulu, the oil industry urged the justices to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter for federal law only, not one suited to state-by-state claims.
“The stakes could not be higher,” they told the court.
But none of the justices said they wanted to hear their claim, at least not now.
The decision clears the way for more than two dozen suits filed by states and municipalities to move forward and try to prove their claim that the major oil producers knew of the potential damage of burning fossil fuels but chose to conceal it.
“Big Oil companies keep fighting a losing battle to avoid standing trial for their climate lies,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. “With this latest denial, the fossil fuel industry’s worst nightmare — having to face the overwhelming evidence of their decades of calculated climate deception — is closer than ever to becoming a reality.”
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 for what they described as a “decades-long campaign of deception” that created climate-related harms in California.
“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us — covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” Newsom said in announcing the suit.
In recent days, California officials have blamed climate change for the devastating weather conditions that contributed to the deadly wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes and other structures, leading to what many experts expect to become the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.
California’s suit followed the pattern set by similar claims from the cities of Baltimore, New York, Chicago and San Francisco as well as blue states including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Minnesota.
These suits argue that the oil producers used deceptive marketing to hide the danger of burning fossil fuels. Under state law, companies can be held liable for failing to warn consumers of a known danger.
In June 2024, the court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on the issue. In December, lawyers for the Biden administration urged the court to stand aside for now because the suits are at an early stage.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he took no part in the decision to deny the appeals, presumably because he owns stock in companies affected by the dispute.
Supreme Court will consider whether oil industry may sue to challenge California’s plan to require ‘zero emissions’ for new vehicles by 2035.
The climate change lawsuits were patterned after the successful mass lawsuits filed by states and others against the tobacco industry over cigarettes and the pharmaceutical industry over opioids.
Cigarettes and opioids were sold legally, but the suits 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 a failure to warn of a danger, false advertising or creating a public nuisance. All three claims are cited in California’s lawsuit. Federal law, by contrast, is usually limited to damage claims that are authorized by Congress.
Had the Supreme Court agreed to hear the oil industry’s appeal in the Hawaii case, it “would have frozen the cases for a year or more and could have resulted in a death blow for all of them,” said Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law expert at the Vermont Law School.
Los Angeles lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents Chevron, said the company “will continue to defend against meritless state law climate litigation, which clashes with basic constitutional principles, undermines sound energy policy.”
Meanwhile, Alabama and 20 red states urged the court to throw out these blue-state lawsuits. They said liberal states and their judges should not have the power to set the nation’s policy on the energy industry. The court has not ruled on that claim yet.
The case dismissed Monday began five years ago when the city and county of Honolulu sued Sunoco and 14 other major oil and gas producers, alleging a failure to warn and creating a nuisance.
The Hawaii Supreme Court last year rejected the industry’s motion and refused to dismiss the suit.
“Simply put, the plaintiffs say the issue is whether defendants misled the public about fossil fuels’ dangers and environmental impact. We agree .... This suit does not seek to regulate emissions and 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 abetted by a sophisticated disinformation campaign.”
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
