Pennsylvania judge dismisses county climate lawsuit against oil majors
This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter.
A Pennsylvania judge dismissed a lawsuit that Bucks County brought against a group of oil majors and the American Petroleum Institute on Friday with prejudice, meaning the county will not have an opportunity to refile.
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Judge Stephen Corr disagreed with the oil industry defendants — which included BP, Chevron and ExxonMobil, among others — that the county lacked the capacity to sue and the court lacked the personal jurisdiction to decide the case. However, he ruled the court was 'compelled to dismiss' the case because it lacked the subject matter jurisdiction, according to court documents.
The oil industry has had varying levels of success in defending itself against state and locality-led litigation seeking to hold companies financially liable for the physical impacts of climate change. Oil companies have seen cases brought by New Jersey and New York City dismissed this year, while bids to dismiss lawsuits from Connecticut, California and the city and county of Honolulu, Hawaii have thus far been unsuccessful.
Bucks County's lawsuit was filed in March 2024, alleging that the major oil companies and API deceptively marketed their products, which have 'exacerbated the costs of adapting to and mitigating' the impacts of climate change. The suit also claimed that Bucks County 'has suffered, is suffering and will continue to suffer injuries' due to the defendants' conduct. ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 and Shell were also among the companies named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Corr ruled in his motion to dismiss that the lawsuit failed 'to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Pennsylvania cannot apply its own law to claims dealing with air in its ambient or interstate aspect.'
'Today we join a growing chorus of state and federal courts across the United States, singing from the same hymnal, in concluding that the claims raised by Bucks County are not judiciable by any state court in Pennsylvania,' Corr wrote.
Bucks County argued that it was not seeking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but seeking compensatory damages for what it alleged was deceptive marketing practices from the defendants. If the case were focused on regulating the emissions of the companies, that would fall into federal court jurisdiction, as those laws and regulations are governed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, according to the May 16 motion.
However, Corr aligned his decision with the dismissal of New York City's climate lawsuit, altering a quote from a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in that case, and said 'artful pleading cannot transform [Bucks County's] Complaint into anything other than a suit over global greenhouse gas emissions.'
'While Bucks County does everything it can to avoid the issue of emissions, it cannot avoid the fact that if there were no emissions there would be no damages,' he said.
The Pennsylvania judge said the county has looked to make the case about the deceptive marketing aspect because it 'recognizes the inescapable fact that if this case is about emissions, Pennsylvania courts have no subject matter jurisdiction.' Corr found the court lacked the jurisdiction due to a finding that any cause of action in the complaint are 'so intertwined with emissions.'
Bucks County Commissioner Chair Diane Ellis-Marseglia said when announcing the complaint that the lawsuit is the jurisdiction's 'tool to recoup costs and fund public works projects like bolstering or replacing bridges, retrofitting county-owned buildings and commencing storm water management projects.'
The annual number of climate lawsuits against the largest fossil fuel producers have nearly tripled since 2015, and a recent Trump executive order ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to take actions to state and jurisdictional civil actions against oil producers. While the Biden administration had previously dissuaded the Supreme Court from intervening in cases about jurisdiction and state-level climate lawsuits, Bondi could potentially direct the Department of Justice to support oil producers in future litigation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Fuel firms can challenge California's emission limits, supreme court rules
Fossil fuel companies are able to challenge California's ability to set stricter standards reducing the amount of polluting coming from cars, the US supreme court has ruled in a case that is set to unravel one of the key tools used to curb planet-heating emissions in recent years. The conservative-dominated supreme court voted by seven to two to back a challenge by oil and gas companies, along with 17 Republican-led states, to a waiver that California has received periodically from the federal government since 1967 that allows it to set tougher standards than national rules limiting pollution from cars. The state has separately stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035. Although states are typically not allowed to set their own standards aside from the federal Clean Air Act, California has been given unique authority to do so via a waiver that has seen it become a pioneer in pushing for cleaner cars. Other states are allowed to copy California's stricter standard, too. But oil and gas companies, as well as Republican politicians, have complained about the waiver, arguing that it caused financial harm. The waiver was removed during Donald Trump's first term but then reinstated by Joe Biden's administration. Last week, Trump again moved to end the waiver, signing a congressional disapproval of California's move to cut pollution and shift new cars and trucks to become electric over the next decade. Gavin Newsom, California's governor and a Democrat, who is in a huge head-to-head battle with the White House over the Los Angeles protests and state power, amid Trump's immigration crackdown, has called this move illegal and has said the state will sue. The justices' ruling overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 EPA decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The lower court had previously ruled that the oil and gas industry didn't have legal standing to attempt to topple the California waiver but a challenge to this reached the supreme court, which appeared sympathetic to the claim when the case was heard in April. 'It's not that high a burden,' Amy Coney Barrett, one of the justices, said about proof of the alleged harm. California and the federal government have been allowed to 'stretch and abuse' the Clean Air Act, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of the groups challenging the waiver, has complained. But environmentalists and California's Democratic leadership have defended the waiver, arguing that it has helped push forward vehicle innovation and help cut greenhouse gases. Transportation is responsible for more planet-heating pollution in the US than any other sector. 'California and other clean car states cannot achieve federal clean air standards and protect communities without reducing harmful transportation pollution,' said Andrea Issod, senior attorney at the Sierra Club. 'We stand with these states to defend their well-established authority to set standards for clean cars.' The supreme court's ruling on Friday does not in itself end California's standards to cut pollution from vehicles, said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,' Patton said. 'While the supreme court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
