Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court denies oil industry plea to block climate lawsuits filed by California, other blue states
Los Angeles Times ^ | Jan. 13, 2025 7:27 AM PT | David G. Savage

Posted on 01/13/2025 12:14:13 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to the oil industry on Monday, refusing to block lawsuits from California and other blue states that seek billions of dollars in damages for the impact of climate change.

Without a comment or dissent, the justices turned down closely watched appeals from Sunoco, Shell and other energy producers.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he took no part in the decision, presumably because he owns stock in companies affected by the dispute.

In Sunoco vs. Honolulu, the energy producers urged the justices to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter for federal law, not one suited to state-by-state claims.

The decision means about two dozen states and municipalities may move forward to prove their claims that the major oil producers knew of the potential damage of burning fossil fuels but chose to conceal it. Two years ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against five of the largest oil and gas companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP — and the American Petroleum Institute for what they described as a “decades-long campaign of deception” that created climate-related harms in California.

“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us — covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” Newsom said in announcing the suit.

California’s suit followed the pattern set by about two dozen similar claims from the cities of Baltimore, New York and San Francisco, and states led by Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

These suits argue that the oil producers used deceptive marketing to hide the danger of...

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blackrobedtraitors; climatechange; climatechangefraud; climatehoax; davidgsavage; gavinnewsom; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; judicialsedition; supremefart; thesupremefart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last
Reminds me of the city that sued Ford because one of their Crown Victoria police cruisers was involved in some kind of mishap, then was outraged when Ford would not sell them any more Crown Victoria police cruisers.
1 posted on 01/13/2025 12:14:13 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Having a SCOTUS make decisions like these worries me with regards to how the leftists, with the courts’ help, will stifle Trump for as long as they can, at least until 2026 when they will take back the House and the Senate.


2 posted on 01/13/2025 12:16:33 PM PST by CatOwner (Don't expect anyone, even conservatives, to have your back when the SHTF in 2021 and beyond.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Considering our entire economy is based on oil, this will end well. /s


3 posted on 01/13/2025 12:16:37 PM PST by mykroar ("It's Not the Nature of the Evidence; It's the Seriousness of the Charge." - El Rushbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

A Subprime Court....


4 posted on 01/13/2025 12:16:58 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar
Considering our entire economy is based on oil, this will end well. /s

The end of "fossil" fuels is the end of food.

5 posted on 01/13/2025 12:18:14 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thingy isabout censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

We are going to be using oil for centuries. We have to stop these lawsuits. It is like NY and DC declaring war on Trump.


6 posted on 01/13/2025 12:18:37 PM PST by mfish13 (Elections have Consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The Supremacist Court sucks. Really sucks.


7 posted on 01/13/2025 12:18:49 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Florida Felons "convicted" in New Yawk Kangaroo Courts by bozos make the best presidents!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to the oil industry on Monday

B'rer Rabbit laughs all the way to the bank.

Exxon/Mobil aspires to operate the largest lithium extraction operation in North America.

8 posted on 01/13/2025 12:19:49 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Don’t care much about this.

You can sue these companies into bankruptcy and it won’t change the absolute requirement for oil. Oil workers may find rifles held to their heads to do their work and make oil flow regardless of profit.

But yes, this would end. The people with the rifles would disappear.

When that oil field is empty. They would move on to one that is full.

Point being — it’s air. You HAVE to have it. If something like numbers on a screen about money prevent you from having it, you will just change the numbers by keypress, or trigger pull.


9 posted on 01/13/2025 12:20:37 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

But, but, but what about earthquakes? Isn’t there some company we can sue? /s


10 posted on 01/13/2025 12:21:59 PM PST by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Maybe some Trump-led federal agency can institute a lawfare fee levied against offending states and municipalities and lawfirms. $100M per case per day, say.


11 posted on 01/13/2025 12:22:48 PM PST by rightwingcrazy (;-,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Great... we already have the excuse for the next round of forest fire disasters... “We can’t put out the fires because the fire truck batteries are dead.”


12 posted on 01/13/2025 12:22:55 PM PST by BuchananBrigadeTrumpFan (If in doubt, it's probably sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This is infuriating and utterly insane...”the major oil producers knew of the potential damage of burning fossil fuels but chose to conceal it.”

WHAT “potential damage”? What models were used? Were the enormous KNOWN and QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS of burning fossil fuels counted against the “potential” damage?

Of course the oil companies studied this and of course they concluded that there MIGHT be some damage. What company does NOT weigh all business risks?

There are many models showing there is NO damage to the earth by burning fossil fuels. Did the fossil fuel company reports also show that there is PROBABLY going to be NO DAMAGE from burning their fuels?


13 posted on 01/13/2025 12:23:07 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom (They were the FA-est of times, they were the FO-est of times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatOwner

yep! and continue the March to communism. remember what Comrade Lenin said...”The goal of socialism IS Communism”! don’t forget it.


14 posted on 01/13/2025 12:23:24 PM PST by Qwapisking (Q: know the difference between a petulant 6 y.o. and a liberal? A:age. L.Star )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
I can perhaps understand that the SC would declare this as an issue of fact, and therefore subject to the factfinding of a trial court, but the Supreme Court needs to start enforcing Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires: Rule 1. Scope and Purpose These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

Consistent with this, the SC should require the consolidation of all of these claims into one case before one federal court since it clearly involves a federal issue, e.g. interstate commerce. No courts pay any attention to this rule whatsoever, yet it is the first rule.

15 posted on 01/13/2025 12:24:19 PM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

In Sunoco vs. Honolulu, the energy producers urged the justices to intervene in these state cases and rule that because climate change is a global phenomenon, it is a matter for federal law, not one suited to state-by-state claims.


wrong argument, but maybe easier.

Lets hear the facts in the case with an honest jury, the issue is climate change.

there are other court cases proving it wrong.

BUT YOUR POINT IS VERY VALID.


16 posted on 01/13/2025 12:25:29 PM PST by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued, but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qwapisking; CatOwner

We are so screwed.


17 posted on 01/13/2025 12:25:34 PM PST by Lazamataz (The BEST birthday present I ever got WAS DONALD TRUMP WINNING IN 2024!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The end of "fossil" fuels is the end of food.

We're all gonna die!!!!

18 posted on 01/13/2025 12:26:21 PM PST by Lazamataz (The BEST birthday present I ever got WAS DONALD TRUMP WINNING IN 2024!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This was NOT a decision on whether those state lawsuits are valid. It was a decision on whether these cases should leapfrog the entire process of trial and appeals and go directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court almost never does that for rather obvious reasons.


19 posted on 01/13/2025 12:26:57 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owen
You can sue these companies into bankruptcy and it won’t change the absolute requirement for oil. Oil workers may find rifles held to their heads to do their work and make oil flow regardless of profit.

Doesn't matter what the demand is if there is no supply.

You don't just stick a straw into the ground and extract oil.

And you don't just stick a rifle in a petroleum engineer's face and demand oil. There is an entire supply chain of personnel, supplies and equipment required to build, maintain and operate oil wells.

20 posted on 01/13/2025 12:28:39 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thingy isabout censorship is █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████. FJB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson