Judge Tosses New Jersey’s Activist-Funded Climate Lawsuit In Fiery Opinion

The campaign to bankrupt American energy producers via the courts took another blow on Wednesday with the dismissal of New Jersey’s climate lawsuit with prejudice. [emphasis, links added]

The judge’s opinion is already the third ruling of the year (following Anne Arundel, Annapolis, and New York City, as well as Baltimore in 2024) that has sent climate plaintiffs – and their meritless claims against energy producers – packing.

Judge: Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Unconstitutional, Preempted

The rejection of the Garden State’s lawsuit adds to the mounting legal evidence that the Constitution’s federal structure does not allow for these climate change claims.

In Judge Douglas H. Hurd’s opinion, he concurred with what defendants and energy experts have argued all along: plaintiffs are attempting to skirt federal law by filing a string of cases in courts.

Specifically, Judge Hurd concurred with the energy companies and pointed out that these types of claims are unconstitutional:

“As Defendants state in their moving brief, ‘the federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions.’” (emphasis added)

With this, Judge Hurd acknowledged that even in attempting to favorably understand the plaintiffs’ claims, there’s no way in which they could be suited to be heard in state court:

“Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case, this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.” (emphasis added)

Finally, in his conclusion, the Judge specified that only federal law can govern interstate greenhouse gas emissions, and thus the overall production and sale of fossil fuels:

“In conclusion, only federal law can govern Plaintiffs’ interstate and international emissions claims because ‘the basic scheme of the Constitution so demands.’” (emphasis added)

This very logic has now been echoed by more than a handful of state court judges, as well as by the Supreme Court in 2011 in AEP v. Connecticut. With the losses piling up, will this ruling be the nail in the coffin that convinces other jurisdictions to drop their suits?

Reminder: The Rockefellers Pulled the Strings All Along

New Jersey’s loss is particularly disappointing for the Rockefellers and other billionaire-funded groups that pushed for years for a climate suit in the Garden State.

Recall that before the attorney general filed the state’s lawsuit, the Rockefeller-backed ENGO Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) took a tour of the state, offering its PR services to municipalities in the hopes of convincing them to join a climate lawsuit.

Starting in 2020, CCI began offering “a suite” of services to New Jersey elected officials and campaigners. The group even offered to “ghostwrite” opinion pieces for public officials and “serve as an extra set of hands”:

“…there are absolutely no legal obligations. Since we are a 501 c3, there is no pledge or legal sign on’ required. Rather, we view ourselves as an extra set of hands to help public officials…” (emphasis added)

In a comment that has aged poorly since New Jersey’s dismissal, a CCI employee called his group “the staff [public officials] wish they had on climate accountability.” While such tactics raise significant ethical concerns, it turns out the efforts were all for nothing.

Bottom line: Judge Hurd’s ruling reinforces the mounting legal evidence that lawsuits targeting American energy producers are simply politically motivated attacks to limit Americans’ access to affordable, abundant, and reliable energy.

With multiple dismissals in just a few weeks, the climate litigation campaign is quickly unraveling to reveal what it has always been: a frivolous legal effort that lacks any merit.

Read more at EID Climate