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 / Liability Litigation / Big Oil: Juliana Dismissal Should Doom All Climate Cases
Big Oil: Juliana Dismissal Should Doom All Climate Cases

Big Oil: Juliana Dismissal Should Doom All Climate Cases

January 31, 2020 Filed Under: Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

Chevron attorney Ted Boutrous has sent letters to three appellate courts arguing that the recent dismissal of the landmark youth climate case, Juliana v. United States, supports the argument by fossil fuel companies that all climate liability suits belong in federal court and should be similarly dismissed.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month dismissed Juliana,  but the case was significantly different from the climate liability cases Boutrous argues should be dismissed on the same grounds. In Juliana, the young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government for violating their rights by exacerbating climate change. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled they did not have standing because climate change cannot be addressed through the judicial branch of government and instead must be addressed by the executive and legislative branches.

The cases Boutrous refers to in the letters, which were sent Wednesday to the Ninth, Fourth and First Circuit courts, were filed in state courts against fossil fuel companies, alleging they violated state laws by selling a product they knew is the main driver of global warming. Boutrous argues the Juliana ruling supports the fossil fuel companies’ argument that claims made by municipalities “arise under federal law, and thus support federal jurisdiction, even if those claims ultimately fail for lack of remedy.”

Dozens of municipalities across the country have filed lawsuits against Chevron and other companies seeking compensation for impacts that have already happened and for infrastructure improvements needed to protect their residents from the increasing effects of climate change. The communities emphasize that these companies knew decades ago their products would cause these impacts.

The jurisdictional question has been hotly contested in all of the suits, with the municipalities trying to get the cases heard in state court under state laws and the industry fighting to put them in federal court, where they think they have a better chance of shaking the suits—thus the new emphasis on the federal dismissal of Juliana.

Doug Kysar, a deputy dean and professor at Yale Law School, said the Juliana case is far different from the liability cases and judges are unlikely to adopt Boutrous’ logic.

“From a legal perspective, the relevance of the recent Juliana opinion is slim to nonexistent,” Kysar said.

“The defendants’ argument–-which … seems to suggest that all climate liability suits must be heard in federal court–-is not rooted in law but in a perception that federal courts will cater to the defendants’ economic interests.”

Several federal court judges have ruled against the companies, sending cases filed by Rhode Island, Baltimore and three Colorado communities back to state courts.

One letter from Chevron was sent by Boutrous to the Ninth Circuit, which will hold two hearings next Wednesday to consider arguments on the same jurisdictional issue in climate liability suits brought by several California communities.

The first hearing will focus on suits brought by Oakland and San Francisco. Those cities are appealing a decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to keep the suits in federal court and to later dismiss them. The court will also hear arguments in suits filed by Santa Cruz, Imperial Beach and the counties of Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz. Fossil fuel companies in those suits are appealing a decision by a U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria to remand the cases back to state court.

Chevron also sent letters to the First Circuit, which is considering the companies’ appeal of a lower court sending Rhode Island’s case to state court, and to the Fourth Circuit, which in December heard arguments in Baltimore’s case. Both of those cases are proceeding in state court pending rulings by the appellate courts.

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: 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. California Communities Argue Their Climate Liability Suits Are Based on Fossil Fuel Disinformation Campaigns – Enjeux énergies et environnement says:
    February 5, 2020 at 10:40 pm

    […] lawyer for Chevron, also argued in a letter sent to the court ahead of the hearings that the Juliana dismissal favors the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for […]

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

  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Judge Agrees to Divest from Exxon Before New York's Climate Fraud Case
  • Youth Climate Case in Washington State Dismissed by King County Judge
  • Battling for Big Oil: Manufacturing Trade Group Leads Assault on Climate Suits
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline

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.