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
Pump jacks operate at the Belridge Oil Field and hydraulic fracturing site in Kern County, San Joaquin Valley, California. (Photo: Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
'Another Loss For Big Oil': CA Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Giants Head to State Court
"This ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products' role in fueling the climate crisis," said one advocate.
Apr 19, 2022
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that climate lawsuits filed by a half-dozen California municipalities seeking to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marked the third time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected industry attempts to shift jurisdiction over climate liability lawsuits from state courts to federal court.
"It's time to make polluters pay."
As a result of the panel's decision, the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, and the cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz moved one step closer to putting major oil, gas, and coal companies--including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell--on trial for deceiving the public about their role in worsening the greenhouse gas emissions that underlie soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, and increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather disasters.
Earth Rights International praised the ruling, calling it "another loss for Big Oil" and "another win for the communities fighting for climate justice."
The Center for Climate Integrity echoed that message, adding that "it's time to make polluters pay."
"This is another big, but not surprising, loss for the oil and gas majors," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. "Three federal appeals courts have now agreed that their arguments to escape accountability in state court do not pass muster."
In February, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit handed down a similar ruling in a climate accountability lawsuit filed in Colorado state court by the city and county of Boulder along with San Miguel County.
It marked the first decision on this issue since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in BP v. Baltimore. Without addressing the merits of the climate lawsuit filed in Maryland state court, the high court last year ordered an expanded review of the fossil fuel industry's arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the City of Baltimore's climate lawsuit belongs in state court--becoming the second federal appeals court to reject Big Oil's effort to move liability suits filed against them in state court to federal court, where polluting corporations believe they will be more likely to escape accountability.
These recent rulings by federal appeals courts affirm lower court decisions. According to the Center for Climate Integrity, at least 10 federal district courts have ruled that climate liability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court--a consensus that, as one judge put it, gives industry executives "a batting average of .000."
Four other federal circuit courts across the country are now considering similar requests for federal jurisdiction advanced by fossil fuel corporations. But as the Center for Climate Integrity has pointed out, "judges aren't buying Big Oil's favorite legal argument" for moving climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington have filed lawsuits to hold oil, gas, and coal companies accountable for misleading the public about their contributions to the planetary emergency.
Referring to Tuesday's decision by the Ninth Circuit, Wiles stressed that "this ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products' role in fueling the climate crisis."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that climate lawsuits filed by a half-dozen California municipalities seeking to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marked the third time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected industry attempts to shift jurisdiction over climate liability lawsuits from state courts to federal court.
"It's time to make polluters pay."
As a result of the panel's decision, the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, and the cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz moved one step closer to putting major oil, gas, and coal companies--including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell--on trial for deceiving the public about their role in worsening the greenhouse gas emissions that underlie soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, and increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather disasters.
Earth Rights International praised the ruling, calling it "another loss for Big Oil" and "another win for the communities fighting for climate justice."
The Center for Climate Integrity echoed that message, adding that "it's time to make polluters pay."
"This is another big, but not surprising, loss for the oil and gas majors," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. "Three federal appeals courts have now agreed that their arguments to escape accountability in state court do not pass muster."
In February, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit handed down a similar ruling in a climate accountability lawsuit filed in Colorado state court by the city and county of Boulder along with San Miguel County.
It marked the first decision on this issue since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in BP v. Baltimore. Without addressing the merits of the climate lawsuit filed in Maryland state court, the high court last year ordered an expanded review of the fossil fuel industry's arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the City of Baltimore's climate lawsuit belongs in state court--becoming the second federal appeals court to reject Big Oil's effort to move liability suits filed against them in state court to federal court, where polluting corporations believe they will be more likely to escape accountability.
These recent rulings by federal appeals courts affirm lower court decisions. According to the Center for Climate Integrity, at least 10 federal district courts have ruled that climate liability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court--a consensus that, as one judge put it, gives industry executives "a batting average of .000."
Four other federal circuit courts across the country are now considering similar requests for federal jurisdiction advanced by fossil fuel corporations. But as the Center for Climate Integrity has pointed out, "judges aren't buying Big Oil's favorite legal argument" for moving climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington have filed lawsuits to hold oil, gas, and coal companies accountable for misleading the public about their contributions to the planetary emergency.
Referring to Tuesday's decision by the Ninth Circuit, Wiles stressed that "this ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products' role in fueling the climate crisis."
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that climate lawsuits filed by a half-dozen California municipalities seeking to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marked the third time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected industry attempts to shift jurisdiction over climate liability lawsuits from state courts to federal court.
"It's time to make polluters pay."
As a result of the panel's decision, the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, and the cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz moved one step closer to putting major oil, gas, and coal companies--including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell--on trial for deceiving the public about their role in worsening the greenhouse gas emissions that underlie soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, and increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather disasters.
Earth Rights International praised the ruling, calling it "another loss for Big Oil" and "another win for the communities fighting for climate justice."
The Center for Climate Integrity echoed that message, adding that "it's time to make polluters pay."
"This is another big, but not surprising, loss for the oil and gas majors," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement. "Three federal appeals courts have now agreed that their arguments to escape accountability in state court do not pass muster."
In February, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit handed down a similar ruling in a climate accountability lawsuit filed in Colorado state court by the city and county of Boulder along with San Miguel County.
It marked the first decision on this issue since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in BP v. Baltimore. Without addressing the merits of the climate lawsuit filed in Maryland state court, the high court last year ordered an expanded review of the fossil fuel industry's arguments for federal jurisdiction.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the City of Baltimore's climate lawsuit belongs in state court--becoming the second federal appeals court to reject Big Oil's effort to move liability suits filed against them in state court to federal court, where polluting corporations believe they will be more likely to escape accountability.
These recent rulings by federal appeals courts affirm lower court decisions. According to the Center for Climate Integrity, at least 10 federal district courts have ruled that climate liability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court--a consensus that, as one judge put it, gives industry executives "a batting average of .000."
Four other federal circuit courts across the country are now considering similar requests for federal jurisdiction advanced by fossil fuel corporations. But as the Center for Climate Integrity has pointed out, "judges aren't buying Big Oil's favorite legal argument" for moving climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington have filed lawsuits to hold oil, gas, and coal companies accountable for misleading the public about their contributions to the planetary emergency.
Referring to Tuesday's decision by the Ninth Circuit, Wiles stressed that "this ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products' role in fueling the climate crisis."
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.