Nineteen Republican attorneys general have taken legal action against five Democratic-led states by filing a Bill of Complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to critics, five Democratic-led state governments have initiated an unprecedented wave of litigation against major energy companies, citing the alleged “climate crisis.” These states, including California, are demanding billions of dollars in damages and have threatened to impose severe penalties and coercive remedies that could have far-reaching impacts on energy and fuel consumption and production nationwide.
The Republican coalition is raising constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the tactics employed by California. They are now calling on the Supreme Court to step in and address these issues.
Alabama is leading a coalition that includes Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The Supreme Court is being asked to intervene by a group of Republican Attorneys General who are taking action against California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. They argue that these states have taken state tort actions under their state laws, which will have an impact on the economies of the 19 states that are suing. The Republican AGs claim that the Democratic-led states are using state law to dictate interstate energy policy, prompting their request for Supreme Court intervention.
“The argument put forth by these states is truly radical: a small gas station in rural Alabama could be held accountable to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas,” remarked Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall. “In fact, even the customer could potentially be held liable. While these states have the right to enforce their preferred policies within their own jurisdiction, they do not possess the authority to dictate our national energy policy. Allowing California and its allies to proceed with this approach would put affordable energy access at risk for every American. Such a scenario would not only jeopardize our national security but also negatively impact millions of Americans who are already struggling to cover the costs of fuel and groceries. In order to safeguard the citizens of Alabama and preserve our constitutional order, we felt compelled to take legal action.”
The complaint argues that the Democratic-led states are pushing for a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry. They claim that these states, driven by concerns about climate change, are seeking significant penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief against energy producers based on their actions and their effects outside of their own states. The complaint also warns that if these states are successful in expanding the reach of state law, it could jeopardize access to affordable energy worldwide and implicate every state and individual on the planet. As a result, the defendant states not only threaten the principles of federalism and equal sovereignty among states but also our fundamental way of life.
The coalition has submitted a motion, complaint, and brief to the high court, highlighting the crucial role of oil, natural gas, and coal in driving American prosperity. They also underscore the significance of the constitutional system of federalism, which safeguards against one state overpowering another.
The article emphasizes that the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that cases concerning interstate air and water pollution, including emissions from oil and gas usage, should be resolved according to federal law. By applying federal law to these inherently interstate issues, it prevents states from exceeding their authority by exploiting their laws to enforce their policy objectives on other states. This approach guarantees that national policies consider the interests of the entire nation.
The attorneys general (AGs) contend that the actions taken by the Democratic states go beyond their authority, disregard the separation of powers, infringe on federal authority regarding a federal issue, and violate the Commerce Clause’s prohibition on regulating beyond their borders. The states filing the lawsuit and their residents heavily depend on traditional energy products in their daily lives. Allowing defendant states to regulate, tax, and prohibit the promotion, production, and use of such products outside the scope of federal law would pose significant harm.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody has stated that the lawsuit has been filed with the aim of safeguarding states from unconstitutional lawsuits launched by Green New Deal states that specifically target interstate emissions.
She criticized California for its costly and imprudent Green New Deal policies that have not only weakened the state but also pushed it to the verge of financial collapse. She firmly believes that Florida should not be dictated by California or any other state that has made similar policy decisions.
The attorneys general are urging the Supreme Court to accept their motion and ultimately rule that any attempts by Democratic-led states to impose their energy policies on other states are unconstitutional. They are seeking an injunction to prevent such actions.
