The Supreme Court grappled Monday with whether fossil fuel companies that provided oil to the federal government can force climate-change-related lawsuits out of state courts and into more friendly U.S. courts. [some emphasis, links added]
The justices seemed sympathetic, but they worried about drawing lines to prevent a large abandonment of state courts in tort cases involving companies that conduct business with the federal government.
“It’s hard to see where you stop,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “I mean, is it a butterfly effect? You know, the butterfly flaps its wings, and it has the end result halfway around the world?”
The Trump administration warned of chaos in government contracting, particularly during wartime, if companies have to worry about defending themselves in state courts.
The case originated in Louisiana, where several parishes sued Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies over unmitigated coastal erosion that they claim resulted from the companies’ energy exploration.
The companies say they were acting under contract with the federal government to produce aviation fuel during World War II, and, under federal law, this means the cases should be heard in federal courts.
Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the oil companies, said that being a wartime contractor was a “classic” case of someone acting on behalf of the government, which meets the standard included in the law.
He said the only issue is for the oil companies to prove that the contract to provide avgas, the special fuel for piston-engined aircraft, covers the companies’ oil extraction in Louisiana.
He said obtaining the oil was “indispensable” to the contract.
“If you’d enjoined the production activities during World War II, that would directly affect the government’s ability to get refined avgas, to fight the war effort,” Mr. Clement argued.
Read rest at Washington Times
