Press Releases
January 19, 2021
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments over a key procedural issue in BP P.L.C. et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, one of more than 20 state and municipal lawsuits seeking to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for causing and lying about the climate crisis.
The defendants include BP, Exxon, Chevron, and Shell, where Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s father, Michael Coney, worked as a senior attorney for 29 years. Barrett previously recused herself from cases involving Shell while a judge on the Seventh Circuit, but she did not recuse from today’s Supreme Court arguments. Justice Samuel Alito did recuse.
In spite of industry efforts to broaden the scope of the court’s decision, the justices stayed focused on the narrow procedural question at hand, with Justice Clarence Thomas at one point asking whether or not the industry’s reading of the law would result in parties “smuggling” in claims that otherwise would not be reviewable by federal appeals courts.
Following today’s arguments, Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:
“Today’s arguments made clear that Big Oil has one goal in this case: to escape accountability. Thankfully, the justices focused on the narrow procedural question presented and appeared highly skeptical of the industry’s arguments to further delay Baltimore’s lawsuit.”
“Lower courts have consistently ruled that climate damages cases belong in state court. The fossil fuel industry continues to fight those rulings because they are terrified that the evidence that Big Oil knew and lied about causing climate change will finally be presented in court. It’s time they are held accountable for their deception.”