A Texas federal judge’s decision to allow ExxonMobil’s defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta to move forward could ensnare Bonta in violations of state anti-corruption laws, the head of an educational nonprofit argues.
Michael J. Truncale of the Eastern District of Texas handed down a decision in February that dismissed ExxonMobil’s claims of defamation against four U.S. environmental groups and an Australian group called Intergenerational Environment Justice Fund (IEJF) that is a critic of plastics recycling. The defamation claims involved statements criticizing ExxonMobil’s advanced recycling program.
Truncale concluded the Texas court did not have personal jurisdiction over those five defendants but that it does have jurisdiction over statements made by Bonta, who in 2024 filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil alleging the energy giant has been deceiving Californians for decades about the industry’s ability to recycle plastics.
The environmental groups that ExxonMobil accused of defamation were the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay and Baykeeper Inc. An attorney for the Sierra Club confirmed that the environmental groups’ motions to dismiss have been granted.
“The Sierra Club was gratified about that outcome,” attorney Scott Grant, a partner with Washington-based Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, told the Southern California Record.
In an opinion article published this month in the San Bernardino Sun, California Policy Center CEO Will Swaim argues that the court’s ruling not only makes Bonta vulnerable to a defamation verdict but offers a finding that puts the attorney general in the crosshairs of California’s anti-corruption laws.
In his opinion, Truncale quoted from statements Bonta had made about the lawsuit in an apparent fundraising email to Texas residents. The email said in part, “ExxonMobil, the largest promoter and producer of polymers used to create single-use plastics that become waste in California, spent years convincing the public that recycling makes plastic, including single-use plastic, sustainable. It doesn’t.”
The attorney general went on to say that “only 5% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled” and that the rest ends up endangering waterways, oceans, wildlife and human health, adding that ExxonMobil knew about this and lied about it.
Truncale rejected Bonta’s argument that the defamation case against him should be dismissed because the statements were made in the course of his official duties.
“Bonta believes his email was official communication that just so happened to include a campaign contribution link,” the judge said in his opinion. “It is the link’s presence that changes things. Here, the contribution request betrays the email’s true nature: a campaign promotion. Campaigning is not within Bonta’s scope of employment.”
Swaim’s opinion piece indicates that at least two California Department of Justice attorneys helped to defend Bonta in the Texas case, adding that several California statutes bar an official’s use of public office for political fundraising.
“The judge’s decision that Bonta made the statements in his personal – rather than purely professional – capacity opens a legal challenge for Bonta back home,” he said.
But Swaim acknowledged that the likelihood Bonta will be held accountable for violations of anti-corruption laws is remote, given that state judges and the California Fair Political Practices Commission administrators are appointed by Democratic Party members and are less likely to initiate prosecutions against statewide Democratic officeholders such as Bonta.
The state Attorney General’s Office did not respond to a request for comment about the defamation lawsuit.
