As Climate Suits Escalate, Judges Increasingly Reject Alarmists’ Legal Antics

Once upon a time, political battles were waged mostly during election campaigns or in the halls of government. In recent years, though, politicians and issue advocates increasingly refuse to recognize traditional political battlegrounds as the only venues where their fights can be waged. [emphasis, links added]

When faced with defeat in the political arena, the losers are increasingly turning to the courts, weaponizing the judicial system to achieve political ends.

In the early months of the current Trump administration, we’ve witnessed this spectacle on issue after issue like challenging the president’s efforts to control illegal immigration, reduce the size of government, eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, impose tariffs, etc.—an unprecedented abuse of the court system to try to stop the administration’s political agenda.

President Trump’s actions to reverse the Biden administration’s dangerous environmental and climate policies have not been immune to the parade of lawsuits. But environmental extremists have always been bolder.

For years, they have aggressively used the courts to attack not just government policies and agencies, but companies themselves, often over fanciful theories of cause-and-effect.

One consistent effort has been an attempt to hold coal, oil, and gas companies accountable for their alleged roles in “climate change.”

Across the country and in various local, state, and federal courts, lawsuits have been filed accusing energy industries of misleading the public or covering up the impacts of their actions on weather patterns.

The Paris climate accord of 2015 served as the catalyst for most of the more recent lawsuits, which totaled nearly 100 at last count. One pro-renewables source reported late last year, “The number of cases filed against fossil fuel companies each year has nearly tripled since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015.”

The lawsuits demand that companies acknowledge their supposed role in climate change, or attempt to win monetary damages from the alleged offenders, or try to force businesses to reduce emissions or stop production altogether.

In other words, climate activists – including a growing number of city and state leaders – are increasingly turning to the courts to achieve what they were unable to accomplish through legislative means. Sadly, in too many cases, left-wing judges have been happy to oblige.

The good news is that other judges are rightfully recognizing the cases as frivolous, and even cases that find initial success in friendly venues are increasingly reversed as they move through the appeals process.

Recent weeks have seen a trend of court decisions ruling that lawsuits alleging climate damage are often spurious or outside the purview of the jurisdictions where they are filed.

Earlier this month, a South Carolina judge dismissed a suit brought by the city of Charleston against ExxonMobil, Chevron, and additional local businesses claiming the oil companies had covered up what they knew about greenhouse gas emissions and “accused the companies of mounting a disinformation campaign to cast doubt on climate science and failing to warn the public about the dangers ahead,” as The New York Times reported.

“Those actions increased demand for fossil fuels” — how dare a company try to expand the market for its product! — “which led to emissions and the grave risks linked to climate change that the historic coastal city now faces, including flooding and sea-level rise,” the argument went, according to the Times.

The city claimed that the companies’ actions violated state tort laws and South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.

But Judge Robert M. Young was having none of it, ruling that the city’s claims were “premised on, and seek redress for, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions,” issues that fall under federal, not state, law.

Young also ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction over companies based in other states. Young warned that adjudicating such suits in local municipalities would lead to a “chaotic web of conflicting legal obligations” for defendants, adding that the ultimate decisions “must rest with the federal political branches that are legally and substantively equipped to address them.”

Repeat: The judge ruled that the issues should be addressed by “the federal political branches” rather than the courts. Why? Because these are questions of policy and politics rather than law. Similar cases have also been recently dismissed in Baltimore, New Jersey, and Bucks County, Pa.

The Trump administration is trying to combat the epidemic of municipalities and state governments turning to the courts for political grievances.

Earlier this year, the president issued an executive order defining such complaints as threats to national security, and the Justice Department filed lawsuits in an effort to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from pursuing such claims in court.

The abuse of our judicial system to achieve partisan political ends is out of control, and judges must put a stop to it. The judicial branch is designed to adjudicate laws, not serve as a backup venue for policy losers in the legislative branch.

Read more at RealClearEnergy