Earlier this week, the Supreme Court signaled interest in picking up a case from the state of Hawaii against several oil companies to hold them liable for climate change, with some Democrats suggesting that the court is “captured” for the oil industry.
On Monday, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department to consider a petition to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of Honolulu against several major oil companies, including Exxon, Chevron, and Sunoco. The suit claims that the companies’ products cause greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, and does not adequately warn consumers about the risks to the planet associated with their use.
Honolulu has employed laws such as public nuisance and trespass measures to punish the companies and has said they should pay billions to the state to help mitigate the effects of climate change, including weather events, rising sea levels, heat waves, and flooding.
While there was no deadline for the solicitor general’s input in the Supreme Court’s request, the request alone indicates that the court wants to hear the case in the future.
The companies initially attempted to appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court, arguing that federal law prevents one state from shaping energy policies at a federal level. However, the court ruled that the case should advance to trial, with one justice claiming, “the Aloha Spirit inspires constitutional interpretation.”
“It is important for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review,” said Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, lawyer for the Chevron Corporation, in a statement to Fox News. “The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision flatly contradicts U.S. Supreme Court precedent and federal circuit court decisions, including the Second Circuit which held in dismissing New York City’s similar lawsuit, ‘such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law.’”
“These meritless state and local lawsuits violate the federal constitution and interfere with federal energy policy,” he added.
Several prominent liberals have already begun criticizing the court, despite no decision having been made.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, posted on X against the Supreme Court, writing, “this captured Court’s delays of and interference in fossil fuel emissions regulations have already saved the polluters hundreds of billions — way more than they spent to capture it. But there is no end to fossil fuel polluters’ greed and entitlement.”
Whitehouse has been a frequent critic of the Supreme Court, frequently making lengthy tweet threads about the conservative justices on the court, in particular Clarence Thomas.
“The major fossil fuel corporations raked in more than $100 billion in profits combined last year, and they are desperate to escape efforts to hold oil corporations accountable in a court of law for leaving communities like Honolulu to pay an ever greater price for climate damages caused by their products,” said Lisa Graves, the executive director at the watchdog group True North Research, in a statement to Rolling Stone. “And now their efforts to evade legal accountability are being aided by … the very same groups that helped the majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court get their seats on the bench.”
Fox News had previously reported that the case has been pushed by liberal dark money groups and legal partners, and suggested that Democratic influence may have been present in the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to send the case to trial as well.
Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, in his opinion rejecting the energy companies’ arguments, wrote, “Defendants knew of the dangers of using their fossil fuel products, ‘knowingly concealed and misrepresented the climate impacts of their fossil fuel products,’ and engaged in ‘sophisticated disinformation campaigns to cast doubt on the science, causes, and effects of global warming,’ causing increased fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, which then caused property and infrastructure damage in Honolulu.”
However, Fox News reported last year that Recktenwald had quietly disclosed that he presented for a course in collaboration with the Environmental Law Institute, a small judicial advocacy organization, funded largely by far-left nonprofits.
The course, known as the Climate Judiciary Project, is designed to “educate” judges across the country on how to handle any litigation regarding climate change that comes before them.
“As the body of climate litigation grows, judges must consider complex scientific and legal questions, many of which are developing rapidly,” CJP states on its website. “To address these issues, the Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute is collaborating with leading national judicial education institutions to meet judges’ need for basic familiarity with climate science methods and concepts.”
“Left-wing dark money groups such as the Climate Judiciary Project are indoctrinating judges all across the country with their far-left climate change propaganda,” said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, in a statement to Fox News. “The possibility that the Supreme Court would hear this case is a nightmare for these groups, because this Court cares about constitutional tenets like federalism rather than left-wing policy goals.”
Several Republican leaders also warned about public nuisance litigation, which has been used previously to push far-left cases that would have no standing otherwise. O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, has been one of the loudest voices in fighting this new phenomenon, saying in March 2023, “activists have found a way to use the court system as a weapon to force companies and consumers to comply with a progressive worldview without legislative oversight or public scrutiny.”
“We have been raising awareness about the dangers of public nuisance litigation for well over a year,” Skinner told Fox News in relation to this newest case. “These cases represent a coordinated, dark-money-fueled threat to everyday consumers. The cases, commentators, law firms, and state court judges are all funded, supported, and trained by left-wing dark money.”
“And these cases find support in the halls of Congress from hypocrites like Sheldon Whitehouse, who bemoan dark money while filing legal briefs supporting liberal dark-money-backed public nuisance cases. Whitehouse’s true goal, and that of most nuisance suits, is to remove products and services from the market that do not align with the progressive agenda,” he said.
The post Supreme Court Indicates Interest In Picking Up Climate Change Case In A Potential ‘Nightmare’ For Democrats appeared first on Resist the Mainstream.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: John Symank
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://resistthemainstream.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.