A federal judge won’t let President Donald Trump use her court to block Hawaii’s climate change lawsuit, finding the state can proceed with one of dozens of cases filed against the oil industry.
Those cases await a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that will likely decide whether they can proceed. After taking office, Trump sought to stop further litigation against companies like Chevron and Exxon because, as his administration argued to the Supreme Court, they will impact the international energy market.
And regulating issues like emissions, it said, is the job of the federal government. Cities, counties and states that have filed suit are making state-law claims like public nuisance and violations of consumer protection statutes, but several state judges have found the true goal is exerting power over Big Oil’s operations.
Hawaii federal judge Helen Gillmor took the stance that the Department of Justice lacked standing to challenge the state’s case. The DOJ had argued a complaint would attempt to regulate greenhouse gases and interstate pollution and filed suit last year. Hawaii soon after filed its case in state court.
“The Hawaii state court complaint, however, brings various Hawaii state law tort claims that center on advertising injuries,” she wrote. “The allegations in the United States’ complaint here did not correctly predict the nature of the state law tort claims alleged against the fossil fuel entities.
“The actual causes of action in the Hawaii state court complaint do not provide any support for this court to find that the United States has standing in this case.”
State Attorney General Anne Lopez argued last year that Trump’s effort to block her case would give the “United States license to wield federal courts as a weapon against any litigation between nonfederal parties that an incumbent presidential administration dislikes.”
Hawaii’s is one of two state supreme courts that have denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Colorado’s ruling is the one being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dozens of lawsuits brought by government officials who hired private lawyers on contingency fees have been filed through the years. They allege consumers would not have used as many fossil fuels had the energy industry been more forthcoming about their effect on the climate.
Recently, the Maryland Supreme Court affirmed dismissals of cases by Annapolis and Baltimore, finding they “cannot be seriously contemplated.” State judges in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New York and New Jersey have agreed, and some cases elsewhere are now on hold while SCOTUS reviews Boulder’s lawsuit.
