More than two dozen states and localities have filed lawsuits in state court that seek to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about the “catastrophic” climate damages they knew their fossil fuel products would cause — and, in many cases, to make them pay their fair share of billions of dollars in resulting costs.
In every single case, lawyers for the Big Oil companies — which include ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP — have attempted the same legal maneuver to avoid a potential day of judgment in state court: they argue that these lawsuits actually belong in federal court, where the industry hopes it will be easier to escape accountability.
But judges across the country are not persuaded. Instead, with one exception in California that was later overturned by a higher court, every single judge to consider this issue has rejected Big Oil’s arguments and ruled that climate accountability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court — “a batting average of .000” as one judge put it.
Following a complicated ruling last year from the U.S. Supreme Court, some states and communities that have already defeated Big Oil’s attempts to move their cases to federal court will now have to do so again. That’s because the high court’s ruling now allows the companies to present additional arguments to federal appeals courts––including the same courts of appeal that already ruled against the oil and gas companies once before.
The first of these “expanded” circuit court arguments is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, January 25, in a climate damages lawsuit brought by the City of Baltimore against 26 oil and gas companies. Baltimore’s case was the subject of last year’s Supreme Court ruling.
As fossil fuel companies try again to escape trials about their climate deception in state court, it’s worth noting how truly abysmal the companies’ track record in these efforts has been.
Here are ten different times that federal judges flat-out rejected the arguments that Exxon, Chevron, and other oil giants will continue making in 2022 for why they shouldn’t face climate accountability lawsuits in state courts:
- MARYLAND: In the Baltimore case returning to court this week, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander previously rejected eight different Big Oil arguments for moving Charm City’s lawsuit to federal court, describing two as “without merit” and another as a “mischaracterization” of Baltimore’s lawsuit. “The City asserts claims against defendants for injuries stemming from climate change. It brings this action on behalf of the public to remedy and prevent environmental damage, punish wrongdoers, and deter illegal activity. As other courts have recognized, such an action falls squarely within [the powers of state courts],” she wrote in her 2019 decision. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed and upheld Judge Hollander’s decision to reject one of those arguments in 2020. Following last year’s Supreme Court ruling, the appeals court will consider the other seven tomorrow.
- HAWAII: Last year, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson wrote that Big Oil’s arguments for federal jurisdiction have “a batting average of .000” and “misconstrue” claims made in lawsuits from Honolulu and Maui counties, which focus on “alleged concealment of the dangers of fossil fuels, rather than the acts of extracting, processing, and delivering those fuels.”
- MINNESOTA: U.S. Chief District Judge John Tunheim described arguments from Exxon, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum as a “caricature” of the state’s consumer fraud lawsuit against the companies’ “alleged misinformation campaign.”
- DELAWARE: Most recently, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark described the arguments for federal jurisdiction from fossil fuel companies as “unpersuasive,” an “incorrect” characterization of the state’s lawsuit, and “simply wrong.”
- RHODE ISLAND: In the first statewide climate damages lawsuit, U.S. District Judge William E. Smith rejected Big Oil’s arguments to move Rhode Island’s case out of state court, explaining in detail why they “fall short.”
- CONNECTICUT: U.S. District Judge Janet Hall wrote that ExxonMobil’s arguments against the state’s consumer protection lawsuit amount to a “request for the court to look past Connecticut’s characterization of its own Complaint.” “Connecticut’s claims seek redress for the allegedly deceptive and unfair manner by which ExxonMobil interacted with Connecticut consumers,” she wrote. “In short, Connecticut alleges that ExxonMobil lied to Connecticut consumers, and that these lies affected the behavior of those consumers.”
- NEW JERSEY: U.S. District Judge Michael Vazquez ruled that “none” of Big Oil’s arguments are “sufficient” for allowing the City of Hoboken’s lawsuit to proceed in federal court: “Ultimately, the crux of Hoboken’s Complaint is that Defendants knew that their products caused substantial harm to the environment,” he wrote. “Yet, Defendants misled consumers for decades about the real risks of continued dependence on fossil fuels and continued to sell their products. Now, Hoboken wants help paying for the effects of climate change it has faced and will continue to face.”
- COLORADO: U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez rejected six different industry arguments, ruling that it would be “inappropriate” to remove lawsuits from the Boulder and San Miguel counties because Exxon and Suncor Energy “have not met their burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists.”
- MASSACHUSETTS: U.S. District Judge William G. Young handed a major defeat to ExxonMobil in 2020, finding that a consumer fraud lawsuit from Massachusetts was “properly” filed in state court because it boiled down to one simple question: “[N]amely, has ExxonMobil been sufficiently candid with its investors and customers in Massachusetts about the simmering calamity of global warming? That question is properly for the courts of the Commonwealth [and not federal courts] to decide.” (Once returned to state court, Massachusetts won another major victory — the first-ever for one of these lawsuits — when the court denied all three of ExxonMobil’s motions to dismiss the lawsuit, bringing the case closer to trial.)
- CALIFORNIA: In the first such ruling, in 2018, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found that state courts were the proper venue for climate damages lawsuits from San Mateo and Marin counties and the city of Imperial Beach. “[T]o justify removal from state court to federal court, a defendant must be able to show that the case being removed fits within one of a small handful of small boxes,” he wrote. “Because these lawsuits do not fit within any of those boxes, they were properly filed in state court and improperly removed to federal court.” Judge Chhabria later extended his ruling to apply to lawsuits brought by the City of Richmond and Santa Cruz city and county, as well.
