The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court Takes a Pass on Minnesota Climate Change Case
Only one justice indicated any interest in premature consideration of state-law climate change lawsuits.
Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Petroleum Institute v. Minnesota, in which energy companies were seeking to remove state-law claims against energy companies from state to federal court. Thus climate change is not returning to the Supreme Court (at least not yet).
For reasons I explained last month (and reiterated here), the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was totally warranted. The energy companies' arguments are largely based upon the claim that climate-change-based tort claims necessarily implicate federal law, and are ultimately preempted. As I have explained at length, and has been recognized by virtually every circuit court judge to hear such claims (most recently by a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit), that is just not so. And absent a circuit split, there was simply no reason to take this case (though other climate-related cases may find themselves on the Court's orders docket in due course).
As noted on the orders list, one justice -- Justice Kavanaugh -- would have granted the petition for certiorari. As I have noted before, Justice Kavanaugh has repeatedly indicated an interest in hearing cases that did not interest his colleagues.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Professor Adler's observation is supported by a second denial of cert this morning:
It’s not clear to me that that’s the case. The Supreme Court refused to hear Alaska’s original jurisdiction filing and sent it back to start its case the usual way by filing in District Court. That doesn’t represent a comment on the legal merits of the case. Moreover, a suit against the EPA is obviously a case arising under federal law, independent of its legal merits.
So I see the two decisions as totally separate.
Before the inevitable (and unilluminating) arguments about climate change, or even the underlying merits of the individual state lawsuits, I'm just going to reiterate what I stated before-
As a matter of law and procedure, this seems completely unexceptional. These lawsuits may or may not be a good idea, they may or may not be legally meritorious, but in terms of removal ... that's a big nope.
Just because the energy companies really really want the cases to be in federal court doesn't mean that they should be. These are state law claims, and they are not preempted. That should be the end of this discussion.
Maybe. But federal preemption for me but not for thee is a thing. Just ask the abortion debaters the past 50 years, or sanctuary cities, or get that barbed wire out of the Rio Grande.
Do you have an actual ... you know ... substantive argument or discussion?
This is about the standard for removal, and it's not met. It's as cut and dry as you are going to get. They pled state claims. It belongs in state court. Given that there isn't complete preemption (there isn't), then it's pretty simple. CivPro101.
When Congress authorizes federal preemption for my claim but not for thine, that’s just the breaks, dude. If Congress is being unfair, take it up with them.
So exactly how does a US state issue orders to the whole world about "global" climate change?
The claim seems to be that those specific companies made deceptive claims (presumably minimizing climate change or something) and that those deceptive claims cost the citizens of Minnesota mucho dollars, and the state wants restitution.
It will be interesting to see the damages quantified. It's not immediately obvious whether a state with Minnesota's climate is helped or hurt by the warming to date.
I would presume that the damages incurred due to climate change would be offset by the benefits of using fossil fuels. Such as staying warm during the winter and not freezing to death. fossil fuels, wood burning stoves, fireplaces have been the only practical method of generating warmth , electricity of most of the 19th, and 20th centuries.
Well, woodburning stoves aren't really a climate change issue. The carbon in the tree came from atmospheric CO2, and it will return to CO2 fairly soon, one way or the other.
But yes, I agree. I don't quite get the logic of the suit. I wonder if the defendants get to say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if these organizations had been publishing PSAs all along saying the end is nigh, would you have turned down your thermostats?". Because we know a lot of environmental types (Sierra Club. Audubon, ...) and generally speaking they talk a lot about the environment, but don't turn down their thermostats. They do tend to buy a Prius, but they keep the F-250 for towing the fifth wheel. And take vacations to Patagonia and the Galapagos. Which are wonderful places, but...
The dairy industry has been claiming milk is healthy since forever. Now we have learned those bovines are emitting green house gasses by the ton. The list of productive industries to be fleeced is long.
So, to minimize the risk of future liability, the companies should stop shipping fuel to MN?
I bet that would get federal in a big hurry.
My only knowledge of the case is from the AG's press release back in ??March??. But it sounded like the complaint wasn't that the companies sold fossil fuels, it was they were denying, or at least not enthusiastic enough about condemning fossil fuels. For example, API (American Petroleum Institute) is one of the defendants, and I don't think they sell any petroleum. So maybe it's fine to sell fossil fuels, as long as you make a point of saying how bad they are.
(but I haven't read the actual complaint)
Using fossil fuels is insurrection, rebellion, and treason all rolled into one, and the need to keep those adherents from voting in elections, and off ballots for elected office, should be the next proposed amendment to the Constitution. Herd all users into concentration camps or better yet DC jails without bail, without charges, and let no one be allowed to defend those so incarcerated without threatening them with disbarment or the like.
Sssh, there, there, it's okay.