Supreme Court turns down Big Oil, again
An order rejecting oil companies’ request to stop a case filed by Honolulu means climate deception lawsuits "can move more quickly to trial," according to one law professor.
The Supreme Court this morning denied oil majors’ petition to review a Hawai`i Supreme Court decision rejecting the companies’ efforts to stop a climate lawsuit filed against them by the City and County of Honolulu, putting the case back on track to become the first of its kind to reach a jury trial.
The one-line order denying the petition is a major blow to fossil fuel defendants battling cases brought by state and local governments across the country. The lawsuits argue ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and other oil and gas companies spent decades deceiving the public about the dangers their products would cause in order to stall action to address the climate crisis. Many of those cases, like Honolulu’s, are seeking to recover some of the skyrocketing costs of adapting to and rebuilding after worsening climate disasters, including wildfires, heat waves, hurricanes, and floods.
If the Supreme Court had agreed to hear Big Oil’s argument, it likely would have created major hurdles and delays for communities fighting to go to trial. “That sound you hear is a huge exhale from the plaintiffs’ side of these cases,” said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and senior fellow at Vermont Law School. “A grant of review would have frozen the cases for a year or more and could have resulted in a death blow ruling. Now they can move more quickly to trial.”
The Hawai`i Supreme Court had thrown out oil companies’ motions to dismiss Honolulu’s case, positioning it to be one of the first climate deception lawsuits to reach trial and, as a case that could help determine who pays for the costs of climate disasters wrecking havoc on communities, “the most important climate case in the United States,” according to former Hawai‘i Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilson. The defendants, including Exxon, Shell, Sunoco, and others, had asked the Supreme Court to consider its arguments to dismiss the case, primarily arguing that it was preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.
In a December brief encouraging the justices to toss Big Oil’s petition, the Department of Justice sided with the Hawai`i Supreme Court on the grounds that “the Clean Air Act does not categorically preempt [Honolulu’s] claims,” which “target only the [fossil fuel] products’ deceptive marketing.” In other words, the lawsuit isn’t trying to set limits on Big Oil’s emissions — it’s seeking to make them help pay for climate damages Honolulu says these companies knowingly caused and lied about.
The Supreme Court’s order today “should not be surprising given the Court’s long-standing respect for federalism,” said Robert Percival, a law professor and director of the University of Maryland’s environmental law program. “These are state tort cases that the Supreme Court has no business getting involved in despite the oil companies’ desperate attempts to get the Court to quash all climate litigation.”
The companies’ petition was bolstered by an “unprecedented” pressure campaign, run by initiatives of far-right billionaire Leonard Leo that are possibly tied to defendant Chevron (according to reporting by the Guardian), urging the justices to take up the industry’s request. Another petition to the Supreme Court by Republican state attorneys general, which asks the justices to intervene in states’ climate deception cases against Big Oil under different grounds, is still pending.
The denial is the fourth time since 2023 that the justices have rejected an appeal from Big Oil in similar cases, though it is the first time on the question of whether federal law preempts the state law under which the climate deception lawsuits are brought. Fossil fuel defendants spent years trying to move cases like Honolulu’s, which were filed in state court under state law, to federal court – and despite being repeatedly denied, the companies continued to seek review from the Supreme Court. Parenteau cautioned that “this is not the last word from the Supreme Court on the preemption issue that is at the heart of the oil companies’ argument.”
The Supreme Court’s order is likely to have implications for climate deception lawsuits across the country. The same preemption issue Big Oil raised in Honolulu will be the subject of arguments heard by the Colorado Supreme Court next month in oil companies’ appeal of a lawsuit brought by the City and County of Boulder. Fossil fuel defendants’ motions to dismiss another lawsuit brought by Maui County, where more than 100 people were killed in the devastating 2023 wildfires on Lahaina, have been on hold pending the decision in Honolulu.
In light of the Supreme Court’s order, Honolulu’s case can now move into full discovery, a pre-trial stage where both parties can seek additional evidence that would be relevant to the case. A consumer protection lawsuit that Massachusetts brought against Exxon is currently in discovery.
“This is a significant day for the people of Honolulu and the rule of law,” Ben Sullivan, executive director and chief resilience officer at the City and County of Honolulu's Office of Climate Change, Sustainability, and Resiliency, said in a statement. “This landmark decision upholds our right to enforce Hawai`i laws in Hawai`i courts, ensuring the protection of Hawai`i taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct.”
The order comes as communities across Los Angeles County still face raging wildfires that have taken more than 20 lives, destroyed countless homes and entire neighborhoods, and are estimated to become one of the costliest climate disasters in U.S. history. The state of California has its own climate deception lawsuit against Big Oil seeking to recover climate costs.
The Supreme Court’s order “will allow the cases to build a powerful record of evidence on the damages caused by [oil companies’] deception,” said Parenteau. “Imagine how a jury in Los Angeles might view that evidence today.”