The Biden administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) is requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to abstain from reviewing key lawsuits that could redefine state capabilities in regulating emissions across state borders.

This move signifies a potential shift in the traditional federal-centric approach to managing national-scale environmental issues, allowing for more state-level influence in climate litigation against oil companies, as National Review reports.

The legal battle originates from public nuisance lawsuits involving major oil corporations, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell.

These companies are accused of misleading the public about the environmental repercussions of fossil fuel usage.

A noteworthy development occurred in November 2023 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in favor of Honolulu, thus enabling the city to pursue legal action against these oil giants for damages attributed to climate change.

Historical Federal Authority Faces New Challenges

Traditionally, the DOJ has been an advocate for maintaining federal oversight on issues of national significance, particularly those related to interstate commerce and emissions.

However, recent actions by the DOJ reflect a departure from this longstanding practice. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss appeals from the oil companies against the Hawaii ruling, contending that there is no federal common law barring state-led lawsuits on transboundary pollution.

Prelogar's stance is not limited to the Honolulu case. The DOJ is also addressing a lawsuit initiated by 19 Republican-led states against several Democratic-led states, arguing that states like California and Connecticut are exceeding their jurisdiction by attempting to regulate emissions that cross their borders.

Prelogar argues that the Supreme Court does not possess jurisdiction in the Hawaii matter and that federal common law does not exclude the possibility of state lawsuits on such issues.

Implications of State-Level Litigation

The move to support state-level litigation has the potential to set a precedent not only for climate change cases but also for other industries.

Public nuisance claims, which historically have been utilized to address local concerns, could become a significant legal tool in regulating industries such as firearms, plastics, and gas-powered vehicles.

Critics of the administration's strategy, such as O.H. Skinner from the Alliance for Consumers, have voiced concerns that these lawsuits are primarily political instruments.

According to Skinner, these actions serve as mechanisms for left-wing groups and trial lawyers to secure substantial financial gain and influence national policy.

Legal and Political Ramifications Loom

The Biden administration’s actions coincide with its broader environmental agenda, which includes the Green New Deal objectives. Skinner perceives these DOJ moves as a last effort to bolster the administration’s environmental allies before the anticipated shift in federal policy with the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-led Congress on Jan. 20.

Should the Supreme Court entertain the appeals, the upcoming Trump DOJ would be responsible for submitting briefs, potentially altering the federal stance on such climate lawsuits. Skinner argues that this urgency from the Biden DOJ stems from a desire to align with the interests of trial lawyers and environmental groups.

Courts to Decide Prospects of Climate Litigation

Skinner further criticizes the Biden DOJ's approach, suggesting that it represents a recurring pattern of prioritizing tactical interests of trial lawyers in the Supreme Court. The notion of public nuisance cases generating substantial financial flows while reshaping societal norms according to a more progressive blueprint is a contentious point.

The upcoming decision by the Supreme Court could have profound implications for how climate change litigation is approached in the future. The possibility of state-level public nuisance lawsuits succeeding could signal a new frontier in environmental justice, allowing states more latitude to tackle climate-related challenges within their jurisdictions.

The unfolding legal discourse underscores the complex intersection of environmental policy, state versus federal authority, and the intricate dynamics of American jurisprudence. As the situation develops, the legal community and the public alike await the Supreme Court's decision on whether it will grant certiorari to these pivotal cases. In the meantime, the debated role of states in addressing pressing global and national issues continues to take center stage in legal and political arenas.