SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
In this pre-pandemic photo, climate activists protest outside the New York State Supreme Court on October 22, 2019 on the first day of a trial at which ExxonMobil was charged with misleading investors about the financial risks of climate change. (Photo: Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)
Climate Campaigners Welcome SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Big Oil's Appeal of California Lawsuits
The justices' punting of Chevron v. Oakland means cities' historic litigation will proceed in lower courts.
Jun 14, 2021
Climate campaigners on Monday welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal by oil and gas companies including BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil seeking to shift a lawsuit from state to federal court, a move that means litigation filed by states and cities against fossil fuel corporations will continue to play out in lower courts.
"Appeals courts have overwhelmingly agreed that climate liability lawsuits filed in state courts belong in state courts." --Richard Wiles, Center for Climate Integrity
The decision represents "a blow to Big Oil's efforts to escape accountability," tweeted the Center for Climate Integrity.
The justices denied a writ of certiorari in Chevron v. Oakland, the oil giant's response to landmark lawsuits by numerous California counties and cities alleging fossil fuel companies including Chevron, Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell are responsible for subjecting their residents to adverse effects of climate change, including sea-level rise, flooding, wildfires, heatwaves, and extreme weather events.
"Big Oil and Gas companies keep trying to evade responsibility for their role in the climate crisis so they can stick taxpayers with the bill for the massive damages their products cause," Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement welcoming the decision. "Appeals courts have overwhelmingly agreed that climate liability lawsuits filed in state courts belong in state courts."
Furthermore, the plaintiffs accused fossil fuel corporations of waging a decades-long campaign of denial and deception about the harms some of them knew for decades that their products caused.
The oil companies wanted the case moved from state to federal court where, according to Bloomberg Law, they tend to secure more favorable outcomes.
\u201c#SCOTUS won\u2019t hear environmental case No 20-1089 Chevron v. Oakland alleging global climate change is \u201cpublic nuisance.\u201d The issue for the Justices was a procedural one re: removal of case from state to federal court and plaintiffs\u2019 ability to appeal that removal.\u201d— Kimberly Robinson (@Kimberly Robinson) 1623677518
The Bay Area cities of Oakland and San Francisco in 2017 were the first U.S. municipalities to sue Big Oil seeking to hold fossil fuel polluters accountable for driving the climate emergency. Since then, at least 26 state and local governments have filed similar lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations, according to the Center for Climate Integrity, which filed amicus briefs in some of the cases.
In May 2020, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in two separate rulings overturned a federal district court's ruling dismissing the Oakland and San Francisco lawsuits, sending the cases back to lower courts for further consideration. The panel also ruled that day that climate damage lawsuits filed by half a dozen other California counties and cities should continue in state courts.
"The Supreme Court did the right thing by letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand," Wiles said. "Oakland, San Francisco, and the more than 20 other states and communities seeking to hold Big Oil accountable deserve their day in court."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Climate campaigners on Monday welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal by oil and gas companies including BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil seeking to shift a lawsuit from state to federal court, a move that means litigation filed by states and cities against fossil fuel corporations will continue to play out in lower courts.
"Appeals courts have overwhelmingly agreed that climate liability lawsuits filed in state courts belong in state courts." --Richard Wiles, Center for Climate Integrity
The decision represents "a blow to Big Oil's efforts to escape accountability," tweeted the Center for Climate Integrity.
The justices denied a writ of certiorari in Chevron v. Oakland, the oil giant's response to landmark lawsuits by numerous California counties and cities alleging fossil fuel companies including Chevron, Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell are responsible for subjecting their residents to adverse effects of climate change, including sea-level rise, flooding, wildfires, heatwaves, and extreme weather events.
"Big Oil and Gas companies keep trying to evade responsibility for their role in the climate crisis so they can stick taxpayers with the bill for the massive damages their products cause," Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement welcoming the decision. "Appeals courts have overwhelmingly agreed that climate liability lawsuits filed in state courts belong in state courts."
Furthermore, the plaintiffs accused fossil fuel corporations of waging a decades-long campaign of denial and deception about the harms some of them knew for decades that their products caused.
The oil companies wanted the case moved from state to federal court where, according to Bloomberg Law, they tend to secure more favorable outcomes.
\u201c#SCOTUS won\u2019t hear environmental case No 20-1089 Chevron v. Oakland alleging global climate change is \u201cpublic nuisance.\u201d The issue for the Justices was a procedural one re: removal of case from state to federal court and plaintiffs\u2019 ability to appeal that removal.\u201d— Kimberly Robinson (@Kimberly Robinson) 1623677518
The Bay Area cities of Oakland and San Francisco in 2017 were the first U.S. municipalities to sue Big Oil seeking to hold fossil fuel polluters accountable for driving the climate emergency. Since then, at least 26 state and local governments have filed similar lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations, according to the Center for Climate Integrity, which filed amicus briefs in some of the cases.
In May 2020, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in two separate rulings overturned a federal district court's ruling dismissing the Oakland and San Francisco lawsuits, sending the cases back to lower courts for further consideration. The panel also ruled that day that climate damage lawsuits filed by half a dozen other California counties and cities should continue in state courts.
"The Supreme Court did the right thing by letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand," Wiles said. "Oakland, San Francisco, and the more than 20 other states and communities seeking to hold Big Oil accountable deserve their day in court."
Climate campaigners on Monday welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal by oil and gas companies including BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil seeking to shift a lawsuit from state to federal court, a move that means litigation filed by states and cities against fossil fuel corporations will continue to play out in lower courts.
"Appeals courts have overwhelmingly agreed that climate liability lawsuits filed in state courts belong in state courts." --Richard Wiles, Center for Climate Integrity
The decision represents "a blow to Big Oil's efforts to escape accountability," tweeted the Center for Climate Integrity.
The justices denied a writ of certiorari in Chevron v. Oakland, the oil giant's response to landmark lawsuits by numerous California counties and cities alleging fossil fuel companies including Chevron, Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell are responsible for subjecting their residents to adverse effects of climate change, including sea-level rise, flooding, wildfires, heatwaves, and extreme weather events.
"Big Oil and Gas companies keep trying to evade responsibility for their role in the climate crisis so they can stick taxpayers with the bill for the massive damages their products cause," Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement welcoming the decision. "Appeals courts have overwhelmingly agreed that climate liability lawsuits filed in state courts belong in state courts."
Furthermore, the plaintiffs accused fossil fuel corporations of waging a decades-long campaign of denial and deception about the harms some of them knew for decades that their products caused.
The oil companies wanted the case moved from state to federal court where, according to Bloomberg Law, they tend to secure more favorable outcomes.
\u201c#SCOTUS won\u2019t hear environmental case No 20-1089 Chevron v. Oakland alleging global climate change is \u201cpublic nuisance.\u201d The issue for the Justices was a procedural one re: removal of case from state to federal court and plaintiffs\u2019 ability to appeal that removal.\u201d— Kimberly Robinson (@Kimberly Robinson) 1623677518
The Bay Area cities of Oakland and San Francisco in 2017 were the first U.S. municipalities to sue Big Oil seeking to hold fossil fuel polluters accountable for driving the climate emergency. Since then, at least 26 state and local governments have filed similar lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations, according to the Center for Climate Integrity, which filed amicus briefs in some of the cases.
In May 2020, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in two separate rulings overturned a federal district court's ruling dismissing the Oakland and San Francisco lawsuits, sending the cases back to lower courts for further consideration. The panel also ruled that day that climate damage lawsuits filed by half a dozen other California counties and cities should continue in state courts.
"The Supreme Court did the right thing by letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand," Wiles said. "Oakland, San Francisco, and the more than 20 other states and communities seeking to hold Big Oil accountable deserve their day in court."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.