Current:Home > BackThe Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Climate Change. Is it Ready to Decide Which Courts Have Jurisdiction?-LoTradeCoin
The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Climate Change. Is it Ready to Decide Which Courts Have Jurisdiction?
View Date:2024-12-23 22:20:38
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wasted no time cutting to the chase during a hearing Tuesday in a climate change case in which the City of Baltimore is seeking potentially billions in damages from the fossil fuel industry related to climate-induced extreme weather and sea level rise.
Although the narrow issue before the court pertained to a procedural ruling by a lower court, the justice wanted to know, far more broadly, whether the case was best suited for federal or state courts.
Kavanaugh’s question came during a hearing to resolve whether the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had erred in affirming a federal district judge’s opinion to send Baltimore’s suit against 26 fossil fuel companies back to state court to decide whether the industry should compensate the city for damages from intensified hurricanes, increased flooding and rising sea levels.
But lurking behind that technical issue was the larger question of whether the Baltimore case—and nearly two dozen similar climate cases across the country—should be heard under product liability, deceptive advertising and nuisance statues in the state courts, or whether the federal courts are the proper venue to consider the global issue of climate change.
Since the localities began filing their climate suits in 2017, they have, for the most part, seen state courts as the appropriate jurisdiction for awarding compensation for damages suffered by public lands, buildings, infrastructure like roads and bridges, and for the cost of mitigation. Industry has known for decades, the localities contend, that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases that warm the planet, with catastrophic results.
Oil and gas companies, on the other hand, have wanted the cases argued before federal courts, where they had prevailed in earlier lawsuits that focused not on physical damages caused by extreme weather, but on considerations related to greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act.
Ultimately, the fossil fuel industry is hoping the Supreme Court, now with three appointees of President Donald Trump and a 6-3 conservative majority, will agree with its overarching argument that a global issue like climate change cannot be litigated in the courts and that, in any event, oil and gas companies should not be penalized for lawfully providing the fuel necessary to power the nation’s economy.
Kavanaugh, of the Trump appointees, aimed his focus there on Tuesday. “Why do you want to be in federal court rather than state court,” Kavanaugh asked an attorney representing the industry. He later posed a similar question to the attorney representing the city of Baltimore, only asking why he wanted the case heard in state court.
Industry attorney Kannon Shanmugam told the justices that state court is no place to resolve the worldwide issue of climate change because a myriad of different state laws and statutes could be applied. He argued for having the case heard in federal court to “assure the orderly adjudication of these cases.”
“The commonsense conclusion [is] that federal law governs claims alleging injury caused by worldwide greenhouse gas emissions,” he later said.
But Vic Sher, an attorney representing Baltimore, said the claims are best resolved by “traditional state remedies” because they more specifically address the misconduct being alleged.
Baltimore filed suit in 2018 in state court. But the oil and gas defendants then moved to have the matter transferred to federal court, citing considerations related to inter-state air pollution—an issue never raised by Baltimore.
After a federal district judge agreed to Baltimore’s objections and sent the matter back to state court in Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred, the oil and gas industry asked for Tuesday’s hearing before the Supreme Court.
Once the high court agreed to review the narrow question ruled on by the Fourth Circuit, the oil and gas industry sought in subsequent motions to have the justices expand their purview and more expansively consider the state vs. federal court issue.
Although Kavanaugh addressed the jurisdiction question head-on, the court overall appeared more focused on the narrow question of how much leeway lower courts have in determining what rules should be applied to decide how the Baltimore case proceeds.
“There is zero appetite to go beyond the narrow procedural issue that the court agreed to hear,” John Masslon, an attorney for the Washington Legal Foundation, an organization that filed a friend of the court brief supporting the industry, said in an interview after the hearing.
How the court rules on this question is certain to reverberate in a series of nationwide climate change cases, and will provide the first indication of the conservative court’s attitude toward climate litigation and other environmental cases more generally. The list of jurisdictions filing climate suits now includes the states of Rhode Island, Minnesota, Connecticut, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.
“The Justices know that their ruling in this case may have tremendous influence on the course of pending and future climate change suits brought by state and local governments,” Larry Ebner, an attorney for the Atlantic Legal Foundation, which also filed a pro-industry amicus brief, said in an interview.
If the industry prevails, the Supreme Court’s opinion could open the door for future cases to be tried in federal court under statutes more favorable to industry.
A ruling in favor of Baltimore opens the way for the other climate case to proceed in state court. It’s widely acknowledged that having the cases tried in state courts under local laws—such as those pertaining to product liability, deceptive advertising and unfair trade practices—gives the advantage to the cities, counties and states suing the industry.
It could be months before the court renders a decision on the procedural question that could lead to a determination on whether the cases belong in state or federal court.
“I think this is a close call,” Kavanaugh said at one point during the hearing.
It’s always difficult to draw too many conclusions from questions the justices pose during oral arguments, said Richard Frank, director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center at the University of California, Davis.
But the skepticism shown by some of the questions suggest the court is not inclined to give the industry the “home run” it is seeking by opening the door to federal court trials, he said.
A transcript of the hearing is available on the Supreme Court website.
veryGood! (8868)
Related
- Voyager 2 is the only craft to visit Uranus. Its findings may have misled us for 40 years.
- Officials: Man from viral court hearing didn't follow process. He says paperwork never came
- Migrants are rattled and unsure as deportations begin under new rule halting asylum
- An Iowa man is accused of killing 3 people with a metal pipe
- Unexpected pairing: New documentary tells a heartwarming story between Vietnam enemies
- Trump outpaces Biden and RFK Jr. on TikTok in race for young voters
- D-Day paratroopers honored by thousands, including CBS News' Charlie D'Agata, reenacting a leap into Normandy
- AI ‘gold rush’ for chatbot training data could run out of human-written text
- All Social Security retirees should do this by Nov. 20
- Israeli settlers in the West Bank were hit with international sanctions. It only emboldened them
Ranking
- Minnesota county to pay $3.4M to end lawsuit over detainee’s death
- A new ‘Hunger Games’ book — and movie — is coming
- Why Teen Mom's Leah Messer Was Hesitant to Support Her Dad Through His Detox Journey
- In the UK’s top baseball league, crowds are small, babysitters are key and the Mets are a dynasty
- Target will be closed on Thanksgiving: Here’s when stores open on Black Friday
- Charges against warden and guards at Wisconsin’s Shawshank-like prison renew calls to close it
- Chiefs backup lineman taken to hospital after cardiac event during team meeting, AP source says
- 8 dead, dozens hospitalized after drinking bootleg alcohol in Morocco
Recommendation
-
Ryan Reynolds Clarifies Taylor Swift’s Role as Godmother to His Kids With Blake Lively
-
Man in Mexico died of a bird flu strain that hadn’t been confirmed before in a human, WHO says
-
The backlog of Honolulu building permits is taking a toll on city revenue
-
Records expunged for St. Louis couple who waved guns at protesters. They want their guns back
-
Burger King's 'Million Dollar Whopper' finalists: How to try and vote on your favorite
-
Trump ally Steve Bannon must surrender to prison by July 1 to start contempt sentence, judge says
-
'My heart stopped': Watch as giraffe picks up Texas toddler during trip to wildlife center
-
Little relief: Mortgage rates ease, pulling the average rate on a 30-year home loan to just below 7%