By Karen Savage

Fossil fuel companies want the Supreme Court to decide the crucial question of jurisdiction over climate lawsuits filed by nearly two dozen municipalities across the country: whether they belong in federal court, where the industry wants them, or in state courts where they were filed.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to review a procedural question in Baltimore’s climate liability suit when it granted a petition from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies that would impact federal vs. state jurisdiction.  

Now the companies want the high court to expand its review.

“Given the number of climate-change cases pending across the nation, the court should confirm that this case and others like it were properly removed to federal court on the ground that federal common law necessarily governs claims alleging injury based on the contribution of interstate and international emissions to global climate change,” the companies wrote in a brief filed Monday.

Baltimore first filed suit in Maryland state court in 2018, alleging that the fossil fuel companies knew for decades that their products drive climate change but deliberately failed to inform the public about those risks. The city is charging the companies with eight violations, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn and violations of Maryland’s consumer protection laws. 

By Karen Savage

When the Supreme Court agreed to review Baltimore’s climate liability suit on a seemingly small legal question, it left a litany of lingering questions, including how it will impact the dozens of similar cases filed by municipalities across the country and whether it will slow the wave of new filings.

Experts, however, say the court’s eventual ruling could have far wider impacts on liability cases of all kinds and agree that the delay alone helps the fossil fuel companies in these lawsuits. The companies have filed a continuous stream of appeals to keep this and similar suits from proceeding in state courts.

The high court threw this particular wrench into the works earlier this month when it granted a petition from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other fossil fuel companies. It agreed to decide if appellate courts can review certain lower court rulings related to whether a case will be heard in federal or state court. 

Nearly all of the dozens of cases filed against the industry alleging it should be held accountable for its role in climate change are wrestling with this issue of jurisdiction. The companies are fighting fiercely to have them heard in federal courts, which have traditionally punted climate-related cases to the legislative and executive branches of government. The municipalities want them heard in state courts, where they were filed alleging violations of state laws and where they believe they are more likely to win.

While the high court will not address the merits of Baltimore’s case—whether the fossil fuel companies should pay for the damages caused by climate change, caused overwhelmingly by the burning of their products—the outcome of their jurisdiction decision could have major implications for nearly all of the climate change-related cases filed since 2017. 

By Karen Savage

The Supreme Court on Friday granted a petition from several fossil fuel companies and agreed  to review a procedural question on whether Baltimore’s climate liability suit filed against them should be heard in federal or state court.

The city’s suit focuses on the fossil fuel companies’ contribution to climate change, however the high court is unlikely to address the suit’s merits. The issue being appealed simply relates to whether the complaints involved federal or state claims and what court should hear them.

“The Court has decided to review a narrow technical issue that has no bearing on the substance of Baltimore’s suit to hold these defendants accountable for the climate change harms and costs they are imposing on our taxpayers,” Baltimore Acting Solicitor Dana P. Moore said in a statement. 

The city first filed suit in Maryland state court in 2018, alleging that Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and more than a dozen other companies knew for decades that their products drive climate change, but deliberately failed to inform the public about those risks. The city is charging the companies with eight violations, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn and violations of Maryland’s consumer protection laws. 

As they have in dozens of climate change-related lawsuits filed against them in recent years, the companies wanted the case to be heard in federal court, where they thought they’d have a better chance of shaking it. Both the U.S. District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in the city’s favor, which prompted the companies to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court. 

The court’s acceptance of the case will also slow the progression of several similar suits, which have been paused while the companies ask the high court to weigh in.