The Supreme Court is showing interest in a challenge launched by Hawaii against big oil companies to hold them responsible for climate change. The City of Honolulu has filed a lawsuit against major fuel companies, claiming their products cause greenhouse gas emissions and global warming without warning consumers about the risks. The city is seeking compensation to address the effects of climate change such as weather events, sea level rise, and flooding. The Supreme Court has asked the Justice Department for input on this case, indicating a strong possibility of it being heard. Energy companies have argued that federal law prevents individual states from shaping energy policies, but the Hawaii Supreme Court has allowed the case to proceed to trial.
Some Democrats and liberal advocates are criticizing the Supreme Court, suggesting that it is “captured” by the fossil fuel industry. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has accused the Court of delaying and interfering in fossil fuel emissions regulations to benefit polluters. Lisa Graves, executive director of a left-wing watchdog group, has claimed that fossil fuel companies are being aided by groups that helped majority justices on the Court secure their seats. The Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, has advocated for the Court to take up the case, but it has been noted that the Hawaii litigation has also been pushed by liberal dark money groups and legal partners.
Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald has accused energy companies of intentionally concealing and misrepresenting the climate impacts of their products and engaging in disinformation campaigns. Last year, it was reported that Recktenwald collaborated with a judicial advocacy organization funded by left-wing nonprofits to educate judges on how to handle climate change litigation. Sher Edling, LLP, the firm representing Hawaii in this case, works on numerous climate-nuisance cases across the country. The firm has accepted funding from the New Venture Fund, an arm of the liberal dark-money firm Arabella Advisors, and has shared personnel with the Environmental Law Institute.
Critics of the public nuisance lawsuits argue that they are a coordinated threat funded by left-wing dark money and supported by hypocritical politicians like Sheldon Whitehouse. These lawsuits aim to remove products and services from the market that do not align with the progressive agenda. Groups like the Climate Judiciary Project are accused of indoctrinating judges with far-left climate change propaganda. The possibility of the Supreme Court taking up the Sunoco v. Honolulu case is seen as a nightmare for these groups, as the Court prioritizes constitutional principles over left-wing policy goals. The Supreme Court could make a decision on whether to hear the case as early as this summer.
Overall, the Hawaii case against big oil companies raises questions about the influence of the fossil fuel industry on the Supreme Court and the broader legal system. Democrats and liberal advocates are concerned about the Court’s potential bias in favor of energy companies, while critics of public nuisance lawsuits argue that they are a dark-money-fueled threat to consumers and the market. The involvement of various organizations and individuals in climate litigation highlights the complexities of legal challenges related to climate change. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case could have significant implications for future climate-related lawsuits and regulatory efforts.
