Newest appointment to the Supreme Court today, T Spritzler Esq said at his first press conference, "Hawaii should go f-ck themselves. What a bunch of whining little bitches. Why don't you pansies go sue China? They produce all the pollution. Stop wasting my time fool!"
Lord Voldemort tweeted..."I made another great choice".
The Supreme Court’s Climate Stakes
Can Honolulu punish companies for CO2 produced in Texas?
By The Editorial Board, WSJ
Jan. 8, 2025 5:37 pm ET
It’s a bedrock constitutional principle that states can’t regulate activity outside their borders. Many are nonetheless trying to punish fossil-fuel producers for their global CO2 emissions, which has resulted in a lower-court clash that the Supreme Court will need to resolve—and better now than later.
The Justices on Friday are expected to consider whether to hear an appeal (Sunoco v. Honolulu) by fossil-fuel producers to a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that said they could be sued for climate change. Honolulu claims emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels cause global warming. Ergo the companies must pay the city damages for local climate effects.
In 2011 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed similar claims by states in federal court (AEP v. Connecticut) on grounds that the Clean Air Act pre-empts federal torts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in the ruling that “it is primarily the office of Congress, not the federal courts, to prescribe national policy in areas of special federal interest.”
Liberal states and cities have nonetheless sought to end-run the High Court decision by suing in state courts. Honolulu and others argue that fossil-fuel emissions are a public nuisance. They also say the companies misled the public about their climate impact, which supposedly caused people to buy more oil and gas.
Such logic is preposterous, not least because the defendants account for less than 15% of global emissions. It’s also impossible to discern the climate impact of a company’s global emissions, let alone the supposed resulting harm to localities like Honolulu. In any case, fossil fuels have been consumed for decades because they are a necessity of modern life.
Yet the Hawaii Supreme Court refused to dismiss Honolulu’s lawsuit. The state Justices held that the lawsuit could proceed because it supposedly only “seeks to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil-fuel products without warning.” But no matter how it dresses up its claims, Honolulu is seeking to dun companies for their global emissions.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a similar lawsuit by New York City, reasoning that it could not use “artful pleading” to disguise its aim to regulate global emissions. “Global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy,” Judge Richard Sullivan stressed.
The clash between the Second Circuit and Hawaii court rulings cries out for U.S. Supreme Court review. The Biden Solicitor General tells Justices that the Sunoco case isn’t ripe since the Hawaii Supreme Court hasn’t issued a final ruling on the merits. But the judges have shown their cards, and even the SG expressed doubt that the companies would prevail in state court.
“Petitioners could instead succeed, in substantial part, on federal grounds under the Constitution,” the SG writes. So why not cut to the chase and let the companies argue their constitutional claims now? Dozens of similar cases are percolating in state courts, so the constitutional conflict will continue to fester if Justices punt.
In a separate case, 19 mostly Republican-led states have asked the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction over a lawsuit against five states that have sued fossil-fuel producers. The GOP states make a compelling argument that costly litigation by their sister states undermines their sovereign policies to promote fossil-fuel production within their own borders.
“Allowing one State to impose its vision of the public welfare on the rest of the nation via state-law tort suits thus runs directly afoul of our federal system,” former Attorney General Bill Barr rightly notes in a friend-of-court brief. Justices are often reluctant to wade into disputes between states or review state court decisions, but the constitutional stakes here couldn’t be greater.
The Constitution guarantees equal sovereignty among the states. If Honolulu and California can punish companies for emissions from oil produced in Texas and burned in China, there’s no limit to states’ power to tax and regulate beyond their borders.
Comments