The Supreme Court launched its new term Monday with a blockbuster oral argument over whether federal or state laws and courts should handle civil lawsuits against energy companies for alleged climate change harms. Eight justices debated for nearly two hours on a key gateway over environmental liability — who decides and where. It was unclear after the public session how the court might rule.
Absent was Justice Samuel Alito, who recused last week after calls to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies, but not the two at the center of Monday's appeal. Local and state governments seek civil damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it is necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels, and severe storms worsened by fossil fuel pollution. SUPREME COURT CAN RESTORE SANITY AND STOP THE LEFT’S RADICAL CLIMATE AGENDA Colorado's highest court let the case brought by Boulder County proceed.
SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH CHEVRON, OIL COMPANIES IN LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS The companies — backed by the Trump administration — counter emissions are a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out. The justices will also decide whether they have jurisdiction to hear this dispute, or whether it belongs in state courts. SUPREME COURT CLIMATE SHOWDOWN JOLTED BY ALITO'S LAST-MINUTE DECISION Chief Justice John Roberts could be the deciding vote.
He asked tough questions of both sides and his vote could produce a 4-4 tie with Alito not participating. That would mean the specific lawsuit moves ahead in state courts. He said the court in the past has allowed similar claims to be decided outside the federal venue.
WAVE OF OVERLOOKED 'LEFT-WING' LAWSUITS COULD COME WITH AN UNEXPECTED PRICE TAG FOR AMERICANS "There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of the state has broad effects among other states, and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation," said Roberts. "I guess I'm not quite sure what makes this situation different from all those other ones, where we've allowed them to proceed in state court." Justice Elena Kagan compared the climate change lawsuits to previous claims against tobacco and opioid companies brought by states on behalf of their citizens. THE SUPREME COURT IS BACK.
THESE FIVE CASES COULD RESHAPE AMERICAN LIFE "This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm," said Kagan. "Where does this principle come from, that states can't regulate in the air and water space?" But Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to speak for many of his conservative colleagues, on the implications for multi-jurisdictional lawsuits to play out, potentially for decades. " It is going to bankrupt – if there are enough of these [lawsuits] — bankrupt these various defendants and certainly other defendants out there.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
