Latest update January 17th, 2025 6:30 AM
Exxon, others lose another appeal to have climate change lawsuit tried in US Federal Court
Kaieteur News – Another attempt by ‘Big Oil’ to have a climate change lawsuit brought against them be tried in a United States Federal Court as opposed to a State Court– which is considered more plaintiff-friendly – has been denied.
On Thursday, a United States Federal Court delivered another blow to the efforts by Big Oil – Chevron Corp, ExxonMobil Corp and other oil companies – to force state and local governments to pursue lawsuits claiming they fuelled climate change in federal rather than state court.
The U.S states have launched nearly two dozen climate liability lawsuits against major oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron. The States are contending that the oil majors should be held financially accountable for climate change including, global warming, flood and wildfire damage, extreme heat and high-sea levels. If won, the States can collect US-hundreds of billions.
On Thursday, the judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that a case from Minnesota belongs in state court. That’s the sixth such ruling from courts across the country, writes POLITICO’s E&E News reporter Lesley Clark.
Exxon, Chevron and other companies have attempted to remove the cases to Federal Court, where industry lawyers believe they are more likely to prevail.
“Our sister circuits rejected [industry’s arguments] in each case,” Judge Jonathan Kobes wrote, “Today, we join them.”
The three-judge panel wrote that Minnesota’s suit rests solely on state law, including claims of common law fraud and violations of various consumer protection statutes. The judges wrote that “there is no substitute federal cause of action.”
Oil companies could be on the hook for US-billions of dollars if they lose the climate liability cases. The 8th Circuit noted that allowing Minnesota to recover damages for injuries caused by climate change “may have the practical effect of impacting the energy companies’ ability to produce and sell fossil fuels, thereby affecting any federal interest that relies in part on the availability and affordability of energy.”
But the court quoted a similar ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to say that those types of arguments would be raised once the case is heard on the merits, not during a dispute about the proper venue for the lawsuit.
The 8th Circuit also rejected the energy companies’ argument that the activity causing injury in the case is not the production of fossil fuels, “but rather the alleged ‘misinformation campaign’ carried out via false advertising and misrepresentations in Minnesota.”
The decision by the three judges comes as a blow to the fossil fuel industry, which had hoped the court would rule in its favor, creating a “circuit split,” or disagreement between appellate courts, that could help the oil industry attract the attention of the Supreme Court in its bid to dismiss the climate litigation.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
No conflict of interest exists
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Accusations of conflict of interest have a peculiar way of rising to the surface in Guyana.... more
Clarifying misconceptions about the Panama Canal
Sir Ronald Sanders (Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS) By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News–... more
Weekend Cartoon
