Supreme Court gives oil and gas companies partial win in climate litigation

The US Supreme Court ruled May 17 that a legal fight over who can be blamed for climate change must remain in federal courts at least a while longer, until the arguments raised by oil and gas companies for federal jurisdiction are fully considered by an appellate court.

The ruling does not guarantee the case will stay in federal court, given that the next jurisdiction decision by an appeals court remains to be made. Nor does it assure companies that if the case remains in federal court they will win on the merits—on the question of liability for global warming and the honesty of their assertions on the subject.

But lawsuits over greenhouse gas emissions have popped up around the country, and the oil and gas industry would prefer to see them play out in federal courts, where the industry has indicated it is more comfortable with elements of federal law and court precedents.

Plaintiffs have in many cases preferred state laws, though that strategy has not necessarily worked well for them. The New York attorney general’s suit against Exxon Mobil Corp. notably failed in December 2019 when a state judge found the state’s charges baseless.

In the latest decision, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1, with Justice Samuel Alito recusing himself and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, that the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was wrong in reviewing only one of several company arguments.

The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit ruling and remanded the case for the appellate court to review a variety of other arguments the oil and gas companies had made for staying in federal courts. The case is BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

Interstate pollution, state fight

To deal with alleged harms to Baltimore caused by climate-altering gases, Baltimore officials seek damages from oil and gas companies through Maryland courts.

The companies’ argument in turning to the Supreme Court was the notion that interstate pollution is not appropriate for state courts.

The companies in their petition to the court summarized their argument for keeping the case in federal arguments by arguing that the Supreme Court “has long made clear that, as a matter of constitutional structure, claims seeking redress for interstate pollution are governed exclusively by federal common law, not state law.”

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the companies said federal law is appropriate where “the interstate or international nature of the controversy makes it inappropriate for state law to control,” notably including interstate pollution.

The companies that brought the case to the Supreme Court are BP PLC, Chevron Corp., CITGO Petroleum Corp., CNX Resources Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., CONSOL Energy Inc., Crown Central LLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hess Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corp., Phillips 66 Co., and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, plus various subsidiaries of those 12 companies.