Supreme Court At A Crossroads In Oil Emissions Lawfare Campaign

Last April I wrote about the ongoing lawfare strategy targeting the domestic oil and gas producers by San Francisco-based trial attorneys. The law firm, Sher Edling LLP, has partnered with cities and states to sue companies claiming ill-defined climate impacts resulting from greenhouse gas emissions allegedly caused by their production. In one major case, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, a Biden appointee, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to deny a writ of certiorari filed by Sunoco, Exxon, Chevron and others to review that suit.

Prelogar’s response came six months after the Court had requested her views on the matter. The cert petition was filed after the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled against the defendants in the case and held that Honolulu’s case should proceed under state law.

"The stakes in this case could not be higher," the companies wrote in February, adding that the Honolulu case and other similar lawsuits "present a serious threat to one of the nation's most vital industries.”

Of note, Prelogar acknowledged the defendants “may ultimately prevail” particularly “to the extent the claims rely on conduct occurring outside Hawaii.” That admission alone underscores the fundamental flaws with Honolulu’s argument: they’re attempting to use Hawaii state laws to sue over activity taking place beyond Hawaii’s borders.