The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Exxon Climate Investigation / Exxon’s First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge’s Skepticism
Exxon’s First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge’s Skepticism

Exxon’s First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge’s Skepticism

November 30, 2017 Filed Under: Exxon Climate Investigation, Liability Litigation

print
By Karen Savage

Exxon’s quest to convince a federal judge that two state attorneys general are stifling their right to free speech is proving to be no easy task.

In a hearing Thursday in New York, U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni said the oil giant’s rationale involved “wild leaps of logic” in claiming New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey are infringing on the company’s First Amendment rights by pursuing climate fraud investigations.

The exchange took place during a nearly two-hour hearing on a motion filed by the attorneys general seeking to dismiss the case, which was first filed by Exxon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in June 2016, but has since been transferred to New York.

The suit alleges that investigations by Healey and Schneiderman into possible climate change-related deception are an abuse of their political positions and are in violation of the oil giant’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights.

Thursday’s hearing focused on abstention doctrine, in which a court can refuse to hear a case that parallels a case in another court—in this instance, whether the New York case was duplicating a similar case filed by Exxon in Massachusetts and whether it could result in conflicting rulings.

Exxon filed a separate case against Healy in Massachusetts in 2016, alleging that her investigation is politically motivated and violates its First Amendment rights.

In January, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Heidi E. Brieger ruled in favor of Healey, rejecting Exxon’s allegation that Healey’s request was overbroad, arbitrary and burdensome. Brieger pointed out that “zealously” pursuing defendants does not make Healey’s actions improper.

Exxon appealed Brieger’s decision and the appeal is scheduled to be heard on Dec. 5 before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Exxon attorney Justin Anderson told Caproni that evidence suggests the investigations were motivated by activists, including those associated with the Rockefeller Family Fund.

Caproni scoffed at the suggestion, suggesting that Exxon should then sue the Rockefellers.

“Ironic,” said Caproni, who pointed out that it was Rockefellers who originally founded Standard Oil, a predecessor of Exxon.

“Disturbing,” said Anderson.

“Fascinating,” said Caproni.

“Could be both,” said Anderson, adding that he wondered what happened to make them jump on the climate change bandwagon.

“They care whether subsequent Rockefellers can breathe,” said Caproni.

Attorney Melissa Hoffer, representing Healey’s office, said the investigation is not politically motivated or driven by activists and told Caproni that the New York case should be dismissed because the case in Massachusetts is scheduled to be heard by the state’s highest court and is more advanced than the New York case.

Anderson argued that the New York case is necessary to rule on the company’s constitutional claims under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that won’t be covered by the Massachusetts court.

Anderson told the judge that the two attorneys general were attempting to prevent Exxon from exercising its First Amendment right to free speech and said that Healey and Schneiderman were attempting to silence those who disagree with their opinions, specifically the causes, impacts, remedies and severity of climate change.

Caproni wasn’t convinced, telling Anderson that Healey and Schneiderman don’t care about Exxon’s opinion, they care about Exxon’s disclosure.

“You don’t have the right to lie in your SEC filings,” said Caproni, who added that while Exxon can’t be penalized for its opinion, it can be penalized for lying.

Caproni ordered the attorneys general to submit a brief on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. She also wants each side to share with her the same evidence they provided the Texas judge. The case is expected to continue into next year.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Exxon Climate Investigation, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Drain the Swamp? Trump admin flooded with Koch Bros cronies - Red, Green, and Blue says:
    December 1, 2017 at 10:44 am

    […] First Amendment claim by Exxon in climate fraud case draws judge’s skepticism. “You don’t … […]

  2. Links 12/3/17 – Daily Economic Buzz says:
    December 3, 2017 at 7:14 am

    […] Exxon’s First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge’s Skepticism Climate Liability News […]

  3. Links 12/3/17 | naked capitalism | Me Stock Broker says:
    December 3, 2017 at 7:23 am

    […] Exxon’s First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge’s Skepticism Climate Liability News […]

  4. Links 12/3/17 | naked capitalism – Courtier en Bourse says:
    December 3, 2017 at 7:28 am

    […] Le premier amendement d'Exxon dans une affaire de fraude climatique attire le scepticisme du ju… Actualités en matière de responsabilité climatique […]

  5. Exon tries to shake Mass. climate probe: We do not sell gas there says:
    December 5, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    […] Exxon's First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge's Skepticism […]

  6. Federal judge rejects Exxon challenge to two state climate fraud probes says:
    March 29, 2018 at 11:51 pm

    […] the suit, Exxon claimed the investigations are an abuse of the AGs’ political positions and violated the oil giant’s […]

  7. Exxon will continue to fight climate probes by state attorneys general says:
    April 23, 2018 at 12:33 pm

    […] opened investigations into possible climate change-related deception by the company. The company alleges that the inquiries are an abuse of the AG’s political positions and violate the oil giant’s […]

  8. Massachusetts appears ready to file climate fraud suit vs. Exxon says:
    October 21, 2019 at 2:27 pm

    […] has tried for years to shake the investigation, contending that Healey lacks jurisdiction, is violating its […]

  9. Mass. Amends Complaint, Says Exxon Continues Deception Amid Pandemic - The Climate Docket says:
    June 17, 2020 at 2:57 pm

    […] has tried for years to sidestep both AG’s investigations and subsequent lawsuits. It alleged in 2018 that Healey and then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had abused their power by […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • U.S. Government Knew Climate Risks in 1970s, Energy Advisory Group Documents Show
  • Oil Company Will Pay $100 Million for Damaging Louisiana Coast
  • EU Families Appeal 'People's Climate Case' Dismissal

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.